Disposed

Smt.Lingamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC30 Nov 2021WP/20344/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a notification regarding land utilisation for road formation. The court allowed proceedings on the condition that the petitioner produce legally acceptable documents proving land utilisation to claim compensation, warning against hindering road formation otherwise.

What did the court decide?

Termination of proceedings with a direction to the BBMP to pay compensation legally if the petitioner produces acceptable documents proving land utilisation; otherwise no hindrance to road formation.

Smt.Lingamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.20344 OF 2021 (LB- BMP)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SMT.LINGAMMA W/O LATE MUNIVEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT BHOGANAHALLI VILLAGE, PANATHUR POST, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU - 560 103.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI VISWANATHA SETTY V., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDI BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER BBMP, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER BBMP, MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, BENGALURU - 560 036.

¶14

¶15

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BBMP, BELLANDUR WARD BENGALURU - 560 103.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE OFFICER BBMP, BELLANDUR WARD BENGALURU - 560 103.

¶17

M/S ROHAN PROCON LLP REP. BY MANAGING PARTNER MR.SANJAY KHUSHAL CHAND LUNKAD, NO.1201, 1^ST FLOOR, DIVYA SHAKTI 100 FEET ROAD, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 038.

¶18

M/S SLS SUNFLOWER APARTMENT REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI SHEKAR REDDY R/AT BHOGANAHALLI VILLAGE, PANATHUR POST, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 103.

¶19

MRS.USHA VASUDEVAN THE PRINCILPAL NEW HORIZON VIDYAMANDIR BHOGANAHALLI, BENGLAURU - 560 103.

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1 (PHYSICAL HEARING); SRI V.SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5 (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DT 14.02.2013 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-J BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,

¶23

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This petition is filed calling in question a notification dated 14.02.2013, issued by the second respondent - the Commissioner, on a plea that the land belonging to the petitioner, measuring about 18 guntas is utilised by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike (for short 'the BBMP'), for the purpose of formation of a road.

¶27

Heard Sri Viswanatha Setty V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Prathima Honnapura, learned Additional Government Advocate for the first respondent, Sri V. Sreenidhi, learned counsel appearing for the second to fifth respondents and perused the material on record.

¶28

After issuance of the notice, Sri V. Sreenidhi, learned counsel appearing for the second to fifth respondents - BBMP has filed a memo stating thus:

¶29

"1. The Advocate for the BBMP submits that, in the instant writ petition, the Petitioner has sought to

¶30

¶31

quash the Notification dated 14/02/2013 and has further sought for a direction to issue Notification to acquire the portion of the property for formation of road and to pay compensation.

¶32

2. The allegation of the Petitioner is that the BBMP authorities along with some of the workers / labourers visited the land belonging to the Petitioner i.e., Property bearing Sy.No.126/1, measuring 1 Acre 14 Guntas from out of 3 Acres 24 Guntas, situated at Bhoganahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, and have made an attempt to form the road illegally.

¶33

3. It is submitted that the widening, improvements and asphalting from Gear School Road to Bhoganahalli Village road was undertaken in the year 2015- 16. Photographs indicating the said widening and asphalting are collectively produced herewith and marked as Document No.1 .

¶34

4. It is submitted that since the BWSSB had undertaken digging of sewage line to install underground drainage, there was some damage occurred on the existing road. The BBMP is only restoring the existing road by asphalting the same.

¶35

¶36

Further, there existed a road side drain, which was closed by mud. The said mud is being cleared in the road side drain to facility the free flow of the rain water.

¶37

5. It is submitted that no portion of the properties much less the property of the Petitioner is taken by BBMP for widening. It is only that the damaged portion of the road is now being restored. The apprehension of the Petitioner is baseless and unfounded."

¶38

and has also appended photographs of the work that the BBMP is undertaking i.e., a formation of a public road.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner objecting to the said memo contends that the petitioner's property is infact utilised for the purpose of formation of the road. The notification dated 14.02.2013, which is called in question, is presently a disputed document as the same does not exist in the original records and is different from what is produced before this Court. Be that as it may.

¶40

¶41

In the light of the memo filed by the respondents - BBMP, I deem it appropriate to terminate the proceedings by directing the BBMP, that in the event, the petitioner would produce such legally acceptable documents to prove that 18 guntas of land belonging to the petitioner is utilised for the purpose of formation of the road, he shall be entitled to such compensation in accordance with law, failing which, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not cause any hindrance to the formation of the public road with a plea that his land is utilised for such formation.

¶42

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is

¶43

disposed.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

nvj CT:MJ

Smt.Lingamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Lingamma v. the 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. v. Sudindranath Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Rajanna Vs the Commissioner

Smt.Gowramma Vs State of Karnataka

Shivaprasad Navada Vs Leonard Fernandes

Sri. Arun Kumar L Vs the State by Station House Officer

M/S Skf Boilers and Driers Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka