Disposed

R. Nagaraja v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2021WP/31476/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the validity and non-lapse of land acquisition notifications concerning a layout scheme. The petitioners sought declaration of lapse, injunctions against demolition, and regularization of construction. The court disposed of the petition by directing BDA to consider specific representations submitted by petitioner. Entitlement to injunction continues pending this conside

What did the court decide?

Direction to BDA to consider petitioners' representations; injunction protection continues pending consideration.

R. Nagaraja Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.31476/2016 (LA-BDA)

¶6

Between :

¶7

R. Nagaraja, S/o Late D.H. Rudrappa, Since Deceased by his Legal Representatives.

¶8

1.a) Smt. K.M. Nagarathnna, W/o Late R. Nagaraja, Aged about 57 years.

¶9

1.b) Kum. Megha N., D/o Late R. Nagaraja, Aged about 30 years.

¶10

1.c) Manjunath N., S/o Late R. Nagaraja, Aged about 26 years.

¶11

All are residing at No.76/1, (10 and 21) 7^th Cross, 27^th Main, Agara, Sector-I, H S R Layout, Bengaluru - 560 034. … Petitioners

¶12

(By Sri R.S. Hegde, Advocate for Sri G. Manivannan, Advocate)

¶13

And :

¶14

State of Karnataka, Represented by its

¶15

¶16

Principal Secretary Urban Development Department Multistoried Building, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Bangalore - 560 001.

¶17

The Bangalore Development Authority, T. Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West, Bangalore - 560 020 Represented by its Commissioner.

¶18

S.S. Chetan, S/o S.M. Shivanna, Aged about 38 years, Residing at No.2402, 15^th 'B' Cross, 25^th 'C' Main, 1^st Sector, H.S.R. Layout, Bengaluru - 560 102. … Respondents

¶19

(By Sri Y.D. Harsha, AGA for R1;

¶20

Sri Bipin Hegde, Advocate for R2;

¶21

Sri G.V. Shashi Kumar, Advocate for R3)

¶22

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records relating to the case of the petitioner from the respondents and declare that the scheme of Hosur Road-Sarjapur Road Layout (HSR Layout) pursuant to the preliminary notification issued by R-1, dated 15.12.1984 published in Karnataka Gazettee dated 17.1.1985 vide Annexure-L and final notification dated 28.11.1986 published in Karnataka Gazettee dated 25.12.1986, issued by R-1 vide Annexure-M, stood statutorily lapsed as contemplated under Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitaion and Resettlement Act 2013 (Act 30/2013) in so far as the schedule property belonging to the petitioner and etc.

¶23

This Writ Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court, made the following:

¶24

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This petition has been filed seeking for various reliefs as follows:

¶27

"i) Issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order of Direction, declaring that the Scheme of Hosur Road - Sarjapur Road Layout (HSR Layout), pursuant to the Preliminary Notifi-cation issued by 1^st Respondent, in No.HUD 294 MNX 84 Dated 15.12.1984 issued by the 2^nd Respondent - BDA published in Karnataka Gazette dated 17.1.1985 vide Annexure - L , and Final Notification in No.HUD/444/MNX/86 Dated 28.11.1986 published in Karnataka Gazette Dated 25.12.1986, issued by 1^st Respondent vide Annexure - M, stood statutorily lapsed as contemplated under Sec.24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) in so far as the Schedule Property belonging to the Petitioner;

¶28

(ii) Issue Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring that the scheme of Hosur Road - Sarjapur Road Layout (HSR Layout), pursuant to the Preliminary Notification

¶29

¶30

issued by 1^st Respondent, in No.HUD 294 MNX 84 Dated 15.12.1981 published in Karnataka Gazette dated 17.01.1985 issued by the 1^st Respondent - BDA vide Annexure - 'L' and final notification in No.HUD/444/MNX/86 dated 28.11.1986 published in Karnataka Gazette Dated 25.12.1986 issued by 1^st Respondent vide Annexure - 'M', stood statutorily lapsed as contemplated U/s 27 of BDA Act 1976 and in so far as the Schedule Property belonging to the Petitioner;

¶31

iii) Issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, directing that the Respondents are not entitled to take action of illegal demolition of existing house construction on the Schedule Property belonging to the Petitioner and not entitled to dispossess the Petitioner from the Schedule Property illegally claiming to enforce the Impugned Final Notification Dated 28.11.1986 published in Karnataka Gazette Dated 25.12.1986, issued by the 1^st Respondent vide Annexure - 'M' at this stage in so far as the Schedule Property belonging to the Petitioner;

¶32

(iii a) direct the BDA to accept the betterment charges/development charges from the Petitioner

¶33

¶34

and to direct the Respondent - BDA to regularize the construction of the Building over the Schedule Property belonging to the Petitioner;

¶35

(iii b) direct the Respondent - BDA to consider the Representations Dated 2.5.2015 vide Annexure - 'AA-1' and Dated 14.02.2018 vide Annexure - 'AP' submitted by the Petitioner in obedience of the liberty granted to the Petitioner in W.A. No.1632/2007 vide Order Dated 6.11.2008".

¶36

It comes out from the facts that the 3^rd respondent had participated in a public auction and had purchased site Nos.2793 and 2794 from the BDA. It is noticed that in light of the proceedings regarding challenge to the acquisition by the petitioner herein, the 3^rd respondent was constrained to also initiate necessary proceedings to protect his title as asserted by him in the above mentioned sites. It is also relevant to notice that the petitioner had filed O.S.No.3347/2001 against the BDA and the said suit came to be disposed off on 29.02.2016 whereby the suit of the plaintiff who is the present petitioner came to be decreed in part. The BDA and any person claiming through it were

¶37

¶38

restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's (petitioner's) peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property till he was evicted according to due process of aw.

¶39

It is relevant to note the observations made in the petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.Nos. 29797 & 29954/2001, which came to be disposed off on 14.12.2001. The observations at Paragraphs 3 and 4 are as follows:

¶40

"3. Having heard the advocate for the parties, it is clear that there is an order of status quo passed by the Civil court and the said order is passed after hearing both the parties. When the Civil Court has passed an order after hearing the parties, unless and until the order passed by the Civil Court is modified, the BDA has no power to conduct any auction or dispossess the petitioner from the site in question. Be that as it may, it is in violation of order of status quo passed by the Civil court. It is open for the petitioner to file necessary application before the said Court. The petitioner instead of filing necessary application in the said court, has approached this Court.

¶41

¶42

4. Accordingly, these writ petitions are not maintainable and the same are rejected. However, liberty is given for the petitioner to file necessary application before the City Civil court, Bangalore in O.S.No.3347/2001. Until disposal of such application, the respondents shall not make any attempt to dispossess the petitioner from the site in question and the petitioner is at liberty to file an application within 15 days from today."

¶43

At the time of hearing of this matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his grievance would

¶44

be satisfied if the respondent - BDA would consider prayer No.3 (b) which reads as follows:-

¶45

"Direct the Respondent - BDA to consider the Representations Dated 2.5.2015 vide Annexure - 'AA-1' and Dated 14.02.2018 vide Annexure - 'AP' submitted by the Petitioner in obedience of the liberty granted to the Petitioner in W.A. No.1632/2007 vide Order Dated 6.11.2008."

¶46

In effect, the petitioner has given up all other

¶47

prayers except the prayer at 3(b). What would remain as submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the BDA is

¶48

¶49

consideration of petitioner's representations at AnnexuresAA1 and AP.

¶50

The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, would however contend that his interest must also be protected and this Court in W.P. 11840/2006 filed by him against the BDA had observed that the sale deed executed in favour of the 3rd respondent would be subject to the proceedings in the suit and proceedings challenging the validity of the Land Acquisition proceedings.

¶51

Taking note that the suit O.S. No.3347/2001 had protected possession of the petitioner till he was evicted in accordance with law and the only other proceedings that were pending is the present petition, it is clarified that if the consideration of the petitioner's representation which has been ordered, is in the negative, the rights of the 3^rd respondent derived under the sale deed with respect to site Nos.2793 and 2794 would stand revived in the light of the observations made in W.P. No. 11840/2006.

¶52

¶53

Learned counsel for the BDA submits that the

¶54

consideration of Annexures-AA1 and AP would be completed within a period of 8 weeks from the date of release of this order.

¶55

In light of the observations made above, petition is disposed off . As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, entitlement of petitioners for the benefit of order of injunction passed in O.S.No.3347/2001 at their instance would continue till consideration of his

¶56

representations as observed above.

¶57

All pending interlocutory applications are disposed off as not calling for any adjudication in light of the disposal of the writ petition.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

JUDGE

¶60

VP

R. Nagaraja v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Nagaraja 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

Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs M/s. Auto Gas Energy India Limited

Mr. Sameet Mudbidri Vs M/S. Navya Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Eta Constructions India Limited Vs M/S Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited

Puttalingaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Kenchappa Vs State of Karnataka

N Sampath Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka