Partly allowed

Smt Nalina Bai v. Bengaluru Development Authority

Karnataka HC13 Jul 2022WP/11317/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a landowner seeking allotment of incentive sites. The Court directed the Bengaluru Development Authority to consider the Petitioner's representations regarding acquisition of land within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to consider the representations within eight weeks.

Smt Nalina Bai Vs Bengaluru Development Authority — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 11317 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 11317 OF 2022 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT NALINA BAI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.13, 6TH CROSS ROAD 4TH MAIN ROAD ATMANANDA COLONY SULTANPALYA, BANGALORE NORTH BANGALORE-560032.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY MS. RAKSHITHA D J., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020 REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶13

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE LAND ACQUSITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARAPARK WEST BANGALORE-560020.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. K. KRISHNA., ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE

¶18

¶19

WP No. 11317 of 2022

¶20

REPRESENTATIONS DTD 5.3.2022 AND 4.4.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND J AND ETC.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶24

a) "Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to consider the representations dated 04.04.2022 and 05.03.2022 vide Annexure-H & J seeking for allotment of incentive sites to the Petitioner.

¶25

b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to allot incentive sites in favour of the Petitioner in lieu of acquisition of land bearing Sy.No.20/1 measuring 2 acres 39 guntas situated at Lingadevanahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk as per the proceedings of the Respondents-BDA dated 28.03.2003 vide Annexure - K to the petition in the interest of justice and equity, and

¶26

c) Pass such other order/s as the Petitioner is entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case including the cost of the proceedings, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶27

The petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.16/1 measuring 4 acres 10 guntas, Sy.No.16/2 measuring 4 acres 35 guntas and Sy.No.20/1 measuring 2 acres 39 guntas situated at LIngadevanahalli, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.

¶28

¶29

WP No. 11317 of 2022

¶30

All the aforesaid land was acquired by respondent-BDA for the purpose of formation of Banashankari VI Stage as per the preliminary notification dated 01.12.2000 and the final notification dated 21.08.2001. After the issuance of the final notification, the respondent-BDA allotted the alternative sites to the petitioner in respect of the land acquired under Sy.Nos.16/1 and 16/2. However, no sites were allotted insofar as the land acquired in respect of Sy.No.20/1.

¶31

This being so on account of there being a dispute as regards the title of the property and the same was Referred to the reference Court in LAC No.251/2002. The said proceedings have attained finality on 12.11.2021, confirming the ownership rights of the petitioner as regards Sy.No.20/1 i.e. 2 acres 39 guntas.

¶32

In pursuance thereof, the petitioner submitted the representations on 04.04.2022 and 05.03.2022 at annexures H and J for allotment of incentive sites. Despite the same having been received, the respondent

¶33

¶34

WP No. 11317 of 2022

¶35

has not acted upon and as such, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶36

It is not in dispute that the land of the petitioner in Sy.No.20/1 measuring 2 acres 21 guntas has been acquired and/or that the petitioner is entitled for allotment of incentive site as regards the same in terms of the resolution subject No.137/2001 passed by the respondent-BDA on 16.08.2001 at Annexure-K.

¶37

In view thereof, I pass the following

¶38

:ORDER :

¶39

a) Writ petition is allowed.

¶40

b) The respondents are directed to consider the representation dated 04.04.2022 and 05.03.2022 vide Annexures H and J with reference to resolution dated 16.08.2001 at Annexure – K within a period of 8 weeks’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

KTY

Smt Nalina Bai v. Bengaluru Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Nalina Bai v. Bengaluru Development Authority

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

Mr K N Surendra Reddy Vs the Commissioner

Sri H.A. Ankegowda Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Bairamma Vs the Commissioner

Sri. Sampangappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri L Prakash Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri S L Raghavendra Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer