Partly allowed

The Commissioner v. Smt. Lakshmamma

Karnataka HC14 Mar 2022WA/119/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal filed against an order allowing a writ petition challenging a land acquisition scheme. The Court quashed the impugned order for lack of recorded reasons distinguishing the facts from a previous precedent and remanded the writ petition to be decided on merits afresh.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order dated 26.09.2019 and remanded the writ petition to be decided on merits afresh.

The Commissioner Vs Smt. Lakshmamma — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶8

W.A.No.119/2021

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

1 . THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560020.

¶11

2 . THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560020, REP. BY: SLAO

¶12

… APPELLANTS

¶13

(By Sri Ajaykumar.M., Adv.)

¶14

AND:

¶15

1 . SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS

¶16

2 . SRI RAMACHANDRAIAH S/O DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶17

3 . SRI HONNAGANGAIAH S/O DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶18

¶19

4 . SRI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O RAMADASAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶20

5 . SMT. GANGAMMA W/O RAMAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶21

6 . SRI SHYAMARAJ S/O RAMADASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶22

7 . SRI GANGADHARA S/O RAMADASAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶23

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.24, 8TH MAIN ROAD 50 FT. ROAD, LAGGERE, BANGALORE-560058.

¶24

8 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001.

¶25

… RESPONDENTS

¶26

(By Sri. S.Rajashekar, AGA for R8; Sri. Rajashekar, Adv. for R2 to R7; R1 - Served)

¶27

This writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to allow the writ appeal and set aside the order dated 26.09.2019 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P. No.30957/2019 and further be pleased to dismiss the writ petition, etc.

¶28

This appeal coming on for Final Hearing, this day, Alok Aradhe J., delivered the following:

¶29

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

This intra court appeal has been filed against the order dated 26.09.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the writ petition filed by respondents 1 to 7 has been allowed in terms of the order dated 02.02.2016 passed in W.P.Nos.13374-13375/2013.

¶32

Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated the highly belated challenge made to the scheme framed by the appellant for Banashankari 5^th Stage layout. It is further submitted that there was a delay of 30 years in filing the writ petition and the facts involved in this petition were different than in the case of Sri H.V.Nandakumar Vs State of Karnataka & Others in W.P.Nos.13374-75/2013. It is further submitted that the writ petition has been preferred by respondents 1 to 7 has been allowed on the ground that the writ petition filed by respondents 1 to 7 is identical to that of the aforesaid H.V.Nandakumar’s case supra.

¶33

¶34

Taking into account the fact that no reasons have been assigned by the learned Single Judge for recording a finding as to how the facts of the present case are identical to the judgment in H.V.Nandakumar’s case is concerned, the order dated 26.09.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.30957/2019 is hereby quashed and the learned Single Judge is requested to decide the writ petition on merits afresh. Writ appeal is accordingly allowed.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

The Commissioner v. Smt. Lakshmamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner v. Smt. Lakshmamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri v Lakshmikanth Vs State of Karnataka

Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs Geodesic Techniques Private Limited

Sri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Institute for Management Vs Manu Arkasali

Jayanthi Vs a M Lakshminarayana

M/S Bharati Airtel Limited Vs Sri. a S Raghavendra

Sri Mahalinga Poojari Vs the State of Karnataka