Disposed

Govinda v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Mar 2016WP/847/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging the acquisition of land for Mahalakshmi Layout extension prayed for declaring the scheme lapsed. The Court recorded respondents' admission regarding inability to take possession due to unauthorized constructions and directed formation of a committee to report on regularization.

What did the court decide?

Respondents prohibited from disturbing possession or interfering with petitioners' property in the meanwhile.

Govinda Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

��

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NOs.847-849/2015 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Govinda S/o late Yellappa Aged About 32 Years R/o Giddenahalli Village Jigani Hobli Anekal Taluk Bangalore District

¶9

Narayana S/o late Yellappa Aged 36 Years No.73, 7th Corss Bovipalya Mahalakshmi Layout Bangalore 560086

¶10

Y Venkatappa S/o late Venkatappa Aged About 35 Years R/at Saraswathipuram Bangalore 80

¶11

... Petitioners

¶12

(By Sri: Kempanna, Adv)

¶13

��

¶14

AND:

¶15

State Of Karnataka By its Principal Secretary Housing and Urban Development Government of Karnataka M S Building Vidhana Veedhi Dr Ambedkar Road Bangalore 560001

¶16

The Commissioner Bangalore Development Authority T Chowdaiah Road Kumara Park West Bangalore 560020

¶17

The Additional Land Acquisition Officer Bangalore Development Authority T Chowdaiah Road Kumara Park West Bangalore 560020 ... Respondents

¶18

(By Smt: Shwetha Krishnappa, HCGP for R1, Sri:Bipin Hegde, Adv for R2 & R3)

¶19

These WPs are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to declare that scheme for further extension of Mahalakshmi Layout [Nandini Layout] stood lapsed by operation of Section 27 of Bangalore Development Authority Act 1976 in so far as petitioners land bearing Survey No. 1[New No. 138] measuring 1 acre 23 guntas including 3 guntas kharab of Jarakabande Kaval Village, Yeswanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and etc.,

¶20

These WPs are coming on for preliminary hearing ‘B’ group this day, the Court passed the following:

¶21

��

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The learned Counsel for respondents-Bangalore

¶24

Development Act would candidly admit that though a notification had been issued, physical possession of the land, which is the subject matter of these petitions, could not be taken, in view of the larger scale unauthorized constructions having been put up and the only alternative would be to regularize such construction in accordance with law and to collect betterment charges. In this regard, a Committee has been constituted which will address the circumstances and furnish a report on the basis of which, the respondents-Bangalore Development Authority would be in a position to take further steps.

¶25

Recording the submission, the petition is disposed of. The

¶26

respondents shall not disturb the possession or interfere with the property of the petitioners, in the meanwhile.

¶27

SD/-

¶28

JUDGE *bgn/-

Govinda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govinda 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

Kampaiah Vs Sarvar Khan

Sri C Vishwanath Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri a N Krishna Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka

K R Sujatha Vs the State of Karnataka

Kammarunnisa Vs the State of Karnataka

Lakshman Vs the State of Karnataka