Dismissed

Narayanamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Apr 2014WP/16040/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging land acquisition notifications by accepting a joint settlement memo. The court directed re-conveyance of specific sites held for the petitioner's house and tomb, allowing the remainder to be used for the 60:40 sharing ratio.

What did the court decide?

Disposal of the writ petition in terms of a joint memo; agreement to release sites No.861/B9 and 860/B9.

Narayanamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF APRIL 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.16040 OF 2013 (LA-KHB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Narayanamma, Wife of Late Venkatappa @ Venkata Reddy, Aged 80 years, Residing at Adigondanahalli Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(By Shri. Kiran Kumar, Advocate )

¶11

AND:

¶12

The State of Karnataka, Department of Housing and Urban Department, Vikasa Soudha, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore – 560 001, By its Secretary.

¶13

The Karnataka Housing Board,

Cauvery Bhavan,

Bangalore – 560 009.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Housing Board, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore – 560 009.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(By Shri. H.G. Vasantha Kumar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3

¶20

Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1)

¶21

¶22

This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary notification issued by the first respondent under Section 4[1] of the Act bearing dated 19.9.2006 and the final notification dated 2.2.2008 vide Annexures -A and B passed by first respondent in so far as the lands of the petitioner is concerned.

¶23

This Writ Petition coming on for Hearing this day, the court made the following:

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The learned Counsel for the petitioner files a Joint

¶26

Memo, which reads as follows:-

¶27

¶28

“JOINT MEMO FILED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

¶29

AND RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3:

¶30

It is submitted that, the Respondent No.2 has acquired Survey No.53/2, measuring 1 acre 32 guntas of land belonging to the Petitioner situated at Adigondanahalli Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District, for the formation of Suryanagara III Phase Residential Layout.

¶31

It is submitted that, in pursuance to the paper publication dated 19.01.2013 in ‘Vijaya Karnataka’ Daily issued by the second Respondent offering to select 40% of the developed land to the land losers in the form of sites who have opted for 60:40 ratio (60% for KHB and 40% for land losers) in lieu of compensation awarded for having acquired their lands.

¶32

In pursuance to the Notification the son of the Petitioner Shri Venkataswamy Reddy, approached the Respondent No.2 and agreed for the said proposal and selected 2 HIG Sites bearing No.1011,1012 measuring 12Mtrs. x 18 Mtrs. and 6 MIG sites bearing No.425,426,427,1006,1007 and 1008 measuring 9 Mtrs.x 15 Mtrs. Accordingly, the second respondent has issued a letter of provisional selection of sites vide Token No.119 dated 23.01.2013 accepting the proposal of the Petitioner made through her son.

¶33

However, the Petitioner filed the above writ petition challenging the Preliminary and Final Notification issued

¶34

¶35

by the Respondents. When the matter came up for hearing before this Honourable Court on 27.03.2014, the Petitioner pleaded that, she had constructed a residential house with compound and a tomb of her ancestors for worship, before 4(1) Notification in the said land wherein the second respondent has formed Site No.861/B9 and 860/B9 she wants to retain the said portion of the said property and requested the second respondent to release the said sites.

¶36

The second respondent is willing to reconvey/execute absolute sale deeds of the above sites bearing site No.861/B9 and site No.860/B9, measuring 4356 +1636 Sq.ft., respectively, having house and tomb surrounded by compound as per the Board resolution. Rest of the land to be considered for 60:40 ratio sharing of developed land with land loser as per the decision of the Karnataka Housing Board. The joint memo is applicable only to this case. In view of the peculiar circumstances of this case agreed to between the parties, this is not applicable to any other case as a precedent.

¶37

The Petitioner hereby agrees and undertakes that, either herself or any of her heirs, or any other person claiming through or under her, will not set up any claim over the property bearing Sy.No.53/2, measuring 1 acre 32 guntas situated at Adigondanahalli village, acquired by the second respondent for the formation of the residential layout.

¶38

Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the Joint

¶39

¶40

Memo filed by the Petitioner and the Respondents No.2 and 3, in the interests of justice and equity.”

¶41

The petition stands disposed of in terms of the Joint

¶42

Memo.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Narayanamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayanamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumari Punitha L Vs the Karnataka State Diploma in

Manohara B M Vs Vidyodaya Law College

Smt. Manjula Mallesh College of Education (Bed) Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri S Srinivasa Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri G K Avalappa @ G.K Rajanna Vs Government of Karnataka

Dr. K. Srinivasa Rao Vs the Registrar (Evaluation)