Allowed

Sri. S Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Oct 2021WP/13781/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka set aside an undated endorsement rejecting a petitioner's request for developed alternative land. The Court directed the BDA to reconsider the representation in compliance with the 2018 Government order and resolution, noting that compensation remained undeposited.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement set aside; BDA directed to reconsider representation in compliance with 2018 orders within two months.

Sri. S Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK.S.KINAGI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.13781 OF 2021(LA-BDA)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

Sri.S.Venkatesh, S/o Late Seenanna @ Sennappa, Aged about 60 years, R/at No.13, Old No.114, M.M.V.Road, Behind Jain College, V.V.Puram, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore-560076 … Petitioner

¶8

(By Sri Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Sri.Pruthvi Wodeyar, Advocate)

¶9

AND:

¶10

State of Karnataka Department of Urban Development Authority, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-560001 By its Secretary

¶11

Bangalore Development Authority T.Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Krupa West, Bangalore-560020 Reptd. by its Commissioner

¶12

¶13

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Development Authority, T.Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Krupa West, Bangalore-560020 ... Respondents

¶14

(By Smt.H.C.Kavitha, HCGP for R1, Sri.H.S.Suhas, Advocate for Smt.B.A.Sujatha, Advocate for R2 and R3)

¶15

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the respondents to allot developed alternative lands to the petitioners in compliance of the Government order dated 09.10.2018 and the resolution passed by the BDA dated 15.12.2018 vide Annexure-H and H1 and etc.

¶16

This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in B group this day, the Court made the following:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the undated endorsement in No.¨ÉAC¥Áæ/«C¨sÀÆ¸ÁéC/98/2021-22 vide

¶19

Annexure-L and also sought for mandamus directing the respondents to allot the developed alternative lands to the petitioner in compliance of the Government Order dated 09.10.2018 and resolution passed by the Bengaluru

¶20

¶21

Development Authority ('BDA' for short) dated 15.12.2018 vide Annexures - 'H' and 'H1' and also sought for directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 - authorities to pay compensation to the property in question as per the present market value in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('Act' for short).

¶22

Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that:

¶23

The properties in question in Sy.No.58, measuring 1

¶24

acre 28 guntas, Sy.No.59, measuring 3 acres 9 guntas and Sy.No.62, measuring 2 acres 17 guntas situated at Begur Hobli, Devarachikkanahalli Village, Bangalore South Taluk. The properties in question was originally belong to one Seenanna @ Seenappa who is the father and the grand father of the petitioner. The said lands were acquired by respondent No.2 under Preliminary Notification issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the Bangalore Development Act, 1976 for the formation of layout called "Byarasandra

¶25

¶26

Tavarakere Madivala IV Stage Layout" by notifying the said lands situated in and around Bangalore of Devarachikkanahally, Belakanahalli and others including the lands of the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved by the notification issued by the BDA preferred the writ petition in W.P.No.37126-37127 of 2002. This Court has dismissed the writ petition upholding the acquisition proceedings. The petitioner has submitted an application to respondent No.2 as the BDA has not deposited the compensation amount till date. The petitioner submitted a representations to consider the representations in accordance with Annexures - 'H' and 'H1' and to allot the developed alternative land to the petitioner in compliances of Annexures - 'H' and 'H1'. Respondent No.2 has issued an undated endorsement dated vide Annexure-L rejecting the representations submitted by the petitioner on the ground that the acquisition proceedings has been concluded. Hence, the question of considering representations in compliance of Annexures - 'H' and 'H1' does not arise. Hence, the petitioner aggrieved by the

¶27

¶28

endorsement issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-L, filed this writ petition.

¶29

Respondent No.2 has filed statement of objections admitting the ownership of the petitioner and also contended that the petitioner is aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings instituted a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.37126-37127 of 2002 and the said writ petition came to be dismissed by this Court. It is further contended that respondent No.2 has formed a layout and it is further contended that the petitioner is barred from claiming a higher compensation by way of lapse of the acquisition scheme under Section 24 of the Act, and prays to dismiss the petition.

¶30

Heard Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶31

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the Preliminary Notification was issued in the

¶32

¶33

year 1988 and award was passed in respect of Sy.No.59, but no award was passed in respect of Sy.No.58. Respondent No.2, till today, has not deposited the compensation amount. He further places reliance upon on Annexures - 'H' and 'H1' and submits that if the respondent No.2 has not deposited the compensation amount, the petitioner would be entitle for allotment of developed alterative land in accordance with the order and resolution vide Annexures - 'H' and 'H1". Respondent No.2 without considering Annexures - 'H' and 'H1" has issued endorsement and submitted that endorsement issued by respondent No.2 is contrary to Annexures - 'H' and 'H1'. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶34

Per contra , learned counsel for respondent No.2 fairly concedes that respondent No.2 without referring Annexures - 'H' and 'H1' has issued impugned endorsement. He further submits that if the matter is remitted to respondent No.2, respondent No.2 would

¶35

¶36

consider the representation keeping in mind Annexures - 'H' and 'H1' and pass appropriate orders. His submission is placed on record.

¶37

Heard and perused the records and considered

¶38

the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶39

It is not in dispute that the land of the petitioner was acquired under the Preliminary Notification issued on 06.08.1988 and an award came to be passed on 25.01.1994. The petitioner has produced Annexure-J. From the perusal of Annexure-J, respondent No.2 has not deposited the compensation amount till date and this fact is not denied by learned counsel for respondent No.2. If the compensation amount is not deposited then the petitioner would be entitled for allotment of developed alternative sites as per Annexures - 'H' and 'H1'. The petitioner gave a representation to the respondents vide Annexure-K on 04.06.2021. Respondent No.2 without referring Annexures - 'H' and 'H1' has issued an endorsement vide Annexure-L. Endorsement issued by

¶40

¶41

respondent No.2 is contrary to Annexures - 'H' and 'H1'. On this ground, the impugned endorsement is liable to be set aside.

¶42

Hence, in view of the above discussion, I pass

¶43

the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i. Writ Petition is allowed.

¶46

ii. The endorsement issued by respondent No.3 is hereby set aside.

¶47

iii. Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider Annexure-K in accordance with Annexures - 'H' and 'H1' and pass appropriate order within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶48

All the contentions of the parties of kept open.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

JUDGE

¶51

ssb

Sri. S Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. S Venkatesh 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 P Gopal Reddy Vs Smt Muniyamma

Hanumantharaju D R Vs the State of Karnataka

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Rekha Jayaram

Ajith K Vs Bangalore University

Amina Khatoon Vs Bangalore University

Sri. N Laxminarayan Vs State of Karnataka