Disposed

Sri Ramesh Herale v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Jan 2014WP/35591/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court of Karnataka directed the Bangalore Development Authority to expedite consideration of the petitioners' representation regarding the arbitrary withdrawal of land acquisition orders affecting their property.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted permission to submit representation; BDA directed to expedite consideration, notice petitioners, hear them, and pass appropriate orders.

Sri Ramesh Herale Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 35591 OF 2013 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI RAMESH HERALE S/O SRI LATE NAGAPPA HERALE AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶9

SRI GANESH HERALE S/O SRI LATE NAGAPPA HERALE AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶10

SRI UMESH HERALE S/O SRI LATE NAGAPPA HERALE AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶11

ALL ARE R/O RACHENAHALLI SHVARAMA KARANTH LAYOUT BANGALORE-560077

¶12

... PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. SRINIVASA REDDY R V, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M S BUILDING BANGALORE-560001 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶16

¶17

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY K P WEST, BANGALORE-560020 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶18

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALAORE-560020

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. D. NAGARAJ, AGA FOR R1 SRI. G.S.KANNUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 AND 2 TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS REPRESENTATIONS DATED 16.11.10 VIDE ANNX-K TO DENOTIFY THE PETITIONERS LAND IN SY NO.105/2B TO THE EXTENT OF 1 ACRE 0.12 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT RACHENAHALLI VILLAGE, KRISHNA RAJAPURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN CA 4097/10 AND THE CONNECTED MATTERS

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

¶25

learned counsel for the respondents.

¶26

¶27

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the

¶28

petition is considered for final disposal.

¶29

The petitioners’ father one Nagappa, was said to be

¶30

the absolute owner of the land bearing Sy.No.105/2.B measuring 1 acre 12 guntas situated at Rachenahalli Village, Krishna Rajapuram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. He had constructed three residential premises for his family members, apart from shops and had inducted tenants in those shops. Nagappa and his family members were residing in the said houses. The second respondent had issued notification seeking to acquire the land for the purpose of formation of Arkavathi layout under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, vide notifications of the years 2003 and 2004. The petitioners’ land having been acquired, inspite of there being pakka construction on the said property, objections had been filed bringing to the attention of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) of the said circumstance and

¶31

¶32

inspite of the same, the final notification was issued. The said notifications were under challenge before this court and by virtue of orders passed by this court in several petitions, it transpires that the State has withdrawn from the acquisition by issuing appropriate notification under Section 48(1) of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Though the petitioners’ land was similarly situated as lands which were considered for such a measure, for reasons best known, according to the petitioners, the same has been treated arbitrarily and the respondents have not chosen to withdraw from the acquisitions in respect of the petitioners’ properties. It is stated that the petitioners’ father died and the lands were transferred in the name of the petitioners’ mother and even she having died, there were disputes between the legal heirs, including the petitioners, and therefore the petitioners had not challenged the acquisition proceedings earlier. However several other land owners having filed writ petitions and the same having ultimately resulted in Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court and by virtue

¶33

¶34

of directions of the Supreme Court, the land owners were enabled to make representations to enable the State to consider their case for withdrawing from the acquisitions. The petitioners have accordingly filed representations and since there was no response regarding the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶35

The learned counsel for the respondents have entered

¶36

appearance and have filed statement of objections to contend that the petitioners’ case may not merit consideration pursuant

¶37

to the directions of the Supreme Court in the light of the fact that there is no allegation of the petitioners’ land being similarly situated as other lands which were considered for withdrawal for acquisition and there is no claim made in this regard in the representation that is pending consideration before the BDA and therefore would submit that the petition would have to be dismissed as the same has been filed prematurely, even before an order could be passed on the representation

¶38

¶39

made by the petitioners and it is stated that appropriate orders will be passed in due course.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other

¶41

hand, by way of reply, would submit that there is indeed a

¶42

statement to the effect that the land belonging to the petitioners’ family has been treated arbitrarily and it is possible for the petitioners, even now, to substantiate that there is arbitrary treatment and that the petitioners would be entitled to the same benefit as other land owners, where the State has chosen to withdraw from acquisition proceedings and would seek permission of this court to submit appropriate materials before they are heard on further representation.

¶43

Accordingly the petitioners are granted further

¶44

permission to submit their representation, if any, at the hearing before the BDA. The BDA is directed to expedite the

¶45

¶46

consideration of their representation and after issuing notice of

¶47

hearing, shall hear the petitioners and pass appropriate orders.

¶48

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

Rd/-

Sri Ramesh Herale v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ramesh Herale v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M Venkatesh Vs Bangalore Development Authority

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

Smt Hanumakka W/O Late Komaraiah Vs State of Karnataka

Dell India Private Limited Vs Nil

Sonicwall Bv - India Branch Vs Nil

Dell Internatioanl Services India Private Limited Vs Nil