High Court allowed writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to quash acquisition proceedings initiated for 'Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout' by relying on a prior order that had already quashed such proceedings.
The acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioner's land stand quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2016
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.2835-2837 OF 2016 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
Smt. Bhagyalakshmi, Wife of M.V.Nagaraju, Aged about 48 years, Residing at No.2/117, 7th Main Road, 1st ‘A’ Cross, 1st Stage, B.T.M.Layout, Bangalore – 560 029.
…PETITIONER
(By Shri S.R.Shivaprakash & H.M.Bhartesh, Advocates)
AND:
2
Bangalore – 560 020.
…RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. Shwetha Krishnappa, Government Pleader for Respondent No.1;
Shri I.G.Gachchinamath, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3)
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order of withdrawal of de-notification at Annexure-G dated 19.10.2010 passed by the respondent and allow the writ petition.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R
The present petitions are filed seeking to quash the
acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of the petitioner’s
land for the formation of the ‘Nadaprabhu Kempegowda
Layout’. The said acquisition having been challenged has been quashed in a batch of petitions in WP 32186 of 2010 (LA-
3
BDA), disposed of on 11.7.2014. Therefore, the present petitioner shall also have the benefit of the said order.
Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. The acquisition
proceedings in respect of the petitioner’s land stand quashed.
Incidentally, it transpires that there was a notification withdrawing the present petitioner’s land from acquisition and thereafter, there is a subsequent notification withdrawing the withdrawal notification, which in law may not be regular.
However, that question is left open.
Sd/JUDGE
nv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the previous order quashing acquisition proceedings in WP 32186 of 2010.
Whether the subsequent notification withdrawing the withdrawal notification is regular.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
WP 32186 of 2010 (LA-BDA)Relied on¶27
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Bhagyalakshmi
State
Commissioner, Bangalore Urban Development Authority
Special Land Acquisition Officer
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
