Allowed

Sri M Venkatesh v. Bangalore Development Authority

Karnataka HC23 Jan 2014WP/2206/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed writ petitions seeking to quash land acquisition notifications under the BDA Act 1976. Relying on a prior decision (WP 16074-100/2010), the court held the scheme had not been substantially implemented, leading to a lapse. The acquisition proceedings against the petitioners were consequently quashed.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed. Acquisition proceedings and impugned notifications under Sections 17(1)(3) and 19(1) of the BDA Act 1976 are quashed against the petitioners.

Sri M Venkatesh Vs Bangalore Development Authority — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JANUARY 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos.2206-2208 OF 2013 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri. M. Venkatesh, Son of Muniramappa, Aged about 48 years, Residing at No.1. M.R.Garden, 1^st Cross, Behind Munishwara Temple, RMV 2^nd Stage (Geddalahalli), Bangalore – 560 094.

¶9

Sri. M. Srinivas, Son of Muniramappa, Aged about 57 years, Residing at No.8, M.R.Garden, 4^th Cross, 40 Feet Road, RMV 2^nd State (Geddalahalli), Bangalore – 560 094.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(By Shri. M.S. Bhagwat, Advocate)

¶12

¶13

AND:

¶14

Bangalore Development Authority Represented by its Commissioner, T. Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West, Bangalore – 560 020.

¶15

The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(By Shri. B.V.Shankaranaryana Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.1

¶18

Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.2 )

¶19

¶20

These Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records from the respondents and declare that the acquisition of land initiated by the respondents pursuant to notification dated 3.1.1977 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA Act 1976, by the first respondent vide Annexure-E and notification dated 2.8.1978 issued under Section 19(1) by the second respondent of the BDA Act 1976, vide Annexure-E1, has lapsed/abandoned by the first respondent, in so far as the petition schedule properties are concerned and quash the said notifications and etc;

¶21

These Writ Petitions coming on for Hearing this day, the court made the following:

¶22

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the

¶25

learned Counsel for the respondents.

¶26

The learned Counsel for the petitioners would state

¶27

that the present petition raises an issue which is no longer res integra, as the same has been answered by a detailed order of this court passed in WP 16074-100/2010 and connected cases dated 2.9.2011, wherein it has been held that the Scheme under which, the land of the petitioner was sought to be acquired having lapsed by virtue of the Scheme not having been substantially implemented, the entire proceedings have been quashed and the said order has been followed in a series of petitions. The order dated 2.9.2011 is produced along with the petitioner at Annexure – N. The learned Counsel would, therefore, submit that the petitions be allowed.

¶28

¶29

The learned Counsel for the respondent no.1, in

¶30

support of the statement of objections, would seek to resist the petitions on the ground that the order, on the basis of which the petitioners seek that the present petitions be allowed, is subject matter of an appeal, wherein there is an order of status quo and hence, would submit that this petition be deferred awaiting the decision in the said appeal, while also seeking to contest the petitions on merits on other grounds.

¶31

However, it is found from the Statement of Objections

¶32

that there is a candid admission of the respondent – BDA having implemented the Scheme and having developed a layout over an area of 379 acres of land only.

¶33

It would therefore follow, as already held by a co-

¶34

ordinate bench of this court, that the scheme has not been substantially implemented.

¶35

Following the decision in WP 16074-100/2010 and connected cases dated 2.9.2011, the present petitions are

¶36

¶37

allowed and the proceedings as against the petitioners are

¶38

quashed.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

Sri M Venkatesh v. Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Venkatesh v. Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri M Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Shanmugam P Vs Karnataka State Law University

Shri Krishna Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

S J E S College of Education (M.Ed., ) Vs the Bangalore University

Smt Hanumakka W/O Late Komaraiah Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Sujathamma Vs the State of Karnataka