Disposed

Vijayam Bharani Trust v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2019WP/25956/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition filed seeking direction to prevent allotment of specific greenbelt land for development. Upon receiving written verification from an official that the land would not be allotted for the petitioner's stated purpose, the court deemed it unnecessary to issue an interdiction writ.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus considered unnecessary; petition disposed of based on official statements.

Vijayam Bharani Trust Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Environment and Pollution | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2019

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 25956/2009 (BDA-PIL)

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

VIJAYAM BHARANI TRUST A CHARITABLE TRUST, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 1, CHINMAYA APARTMENTS PUTTANNA ROAD, BASAVANGUDI BANGALORE-560 004 REP BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE MR K VIJAYAKUMAR R/AT # 55/A, SAKALVARA VILLAGE 17TH K M., BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE-560 083

¶11

... PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI ROHAN KOTHARI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT BANGALORE

¶15

2.THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK ANEKAL

¶16

¶17

3.THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK (WEST) BANGALORE-560 020 REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶18

4.THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT, BANGALORE REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶19

5.THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT BANGALORE REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶20

6.BHARAT EARTH MOVERS LIMITED NEW THIPPASANDRA POST BANGALORE-75 REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

¶21

... RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI P B ACHAPPA, AGA FOR R-1, 2, 4 & 5; SRI M N RAMANJANEYA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI K S BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R-6)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 NOT TO ALLOT THE LAND MEASURING AROUND 5 ACRES IN SY.NO.34, HULUKASAVANAHALLI, JIGINI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT OR FORMATION OF A LAYOUT FOR THE RELOCATION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS OF SY.NO.83, BYRASANDRA VILLAGE, K.R.PURA HOBLI, BANGALORE AND TO PRESERVE THE SAME AS OPEN GREEN SPACE AS IT FALLS WITHIN THE GREENBELT ZONE OF THE BANGALORE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2015 AND ETC.

¶24

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The learned Additional Government Advocate, on instructions from Sri Mahadevaiah, Thasildhar, Anekal, who is present before the Court, makes a statement that the land subject matter of prayer ‘A’ of this petition will not be allotted for any development or for formation of a layout for re-location of the erstwhile unauthorized occupants in the land in Sy.No.83 of Byrasandra Village, K.R.Pura Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bangalore. He further states that the said land in Sy.No.34 admeasuring about 5 acres falls within the Greenbelt Zone of the Bangalore Comprehensive Development Plan, 2015. He also states that the said land will be used, if occasion arises, only for the uses which are permissible in case of Greenbelt Zone in the Development Plan.

¶28

In view of these statements made by the learned Additional Government Advocate, it is not necessary to issue a writ of mandamus as prayed for.

¶29

¶30

3. Accordingly, by accepting the statements made by

¶31

the learned Additional Government Advocate, the petition is

disposed of.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

bkv

Vijayam Bharani Trust v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayam Bharani Trust v. the Deputy Commissioner

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 P B Muniyappa Vs Sri Ambli Yogesh

Subash Chandra Rai Vs the State of Karnataka

The Karnataka State Vs Karnataka State Transport Authority

Sri.Lakshminarayana Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Billiton Mine Wings & PWD Contractor Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Narayanaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka