Disposed

Smt Rekha Hanu v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC17 Aug 2022WP/18846/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking quashing and correction of a Development Right Certificate, the Court accepted the parties' compromise petition filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC and disposed of the matter with a direction to the BDA to rectify the certificate within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondent No.1-BDA to rectify the Development Right Certificate to an extent of 1618.72 square meters as per Annexure-L within eight weeks from date of handing over original TDR Certificate.

Smt Rekha Hanu Vs the Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 18846 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 18846 OF 2018 (BDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. REKHA HANU D/O LATE DR.H.S.HANUMANTHAPAP AND W/O SRI.JAMES R.THOMAS II, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RSIDIGNA T 23670 N ELM ROAD, LINCOLNSHIRE, IL 60069.

¶10

SMT VIDYA HANU D/O LATE DR.H.S.HANUMANTHAPPA, W/O SRI.CHRISTOPHER MAYNARD, AGD ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT 2330, SUNRISE CIR AURORA IL 60503, UNITED STATES OF AMEIRCA

¶11

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SMT. SANDHYA HANU D/O LATE DR.H.S.HANUMANTHAPPA W/O SRI.MANJUNATHA NAGLAPUR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDIGN ATNO.13265, MIDDLETON FARM LANE, HERNDON, VIRGINIA 20171, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR DULY CONSTITUTED AGENT AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER BEING MISS S.PAULIENE DAUGHTER OF MR.G.SELVANANDAN AGED 37 YEARS, THE ESTATE, LEVEL FOUR, 121, DICKENSON ROAD,

¶13

¶14

WP No. 18846 of 2018

¶15

BENGALURU 560042.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. GIRIDHAR S V .,ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020.

¶20

SRI J MUSTAQ AHMED SON OF LATE M.A.JABBAR, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDIGN AT NO.7, N.N.FARMS, GEDDALAHALLI, SANJAY NAGAR, BENGALURU-560094.

¶21

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. G A GOPI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI S SARAVANA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI M DEVARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI K N PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BEARING CERTIFICATE NO.006 TO A TOTAL EXTENT OF 1618.72 SQUARE METERS EQUIVALENT TO APPROXIMATELY 17424 SQUARE AS AT ANNEXURE-L; AND ETC.,

¶25

¶26

WP No. 18846 of 2018

¶27

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

¶28

ORDER

¶29

In this petition, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:

¶30

a. Call for records on the file of the respondent No.1 with regard to Development Right Certificate bearing Folio No. BDA:TDR.Cell/DRC/05/2017-18 issued by the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, bearing Certificate No.006 to a total extent of 1618.72 Square Meters equivalent to approximately 17424 Square as at Annexure-L;

¶31

b. Issue a Writ of certiorari, similar writ, order or direction and quash the Development Right Certificate bearing Folio No. BDA:TDR.Cell/DRC/05/2017-18 issued by the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, bearing Certificate No.006 to a total extent of 1618.72 Square Meters equivalent to approximately 17424 Square as at Annexure-L;

¶32

c. Issue a writ of mandamus, Similar writ, order or direction and direct the respondent No.1 to issue the

¶33

¶34

WP No. 18846 of 2018

¶35

Development Right Certificate to a total extent of 1618.72 Square Meters equivalent to approximately 17424 Square in the joint names of the petitioners;

¶36

d. Pass such other Order/s including an Order as to the costs of the present writ petition as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case;

¶37

During the pendency of this petition, the

¶38

parties to the petition have filed compromise petition dated 01.08.2022 under Order XXIII, Rule 3 of Code of

¶39

Civil Procedure, whereunder it is stated that parties have amicably settled their disputes on the terms set out therein.

¶40

Parties to the petition submit that after having understood the contents of the compromise petition, they have affixed their signature out of their own wish without any fear or threat. Their signatures have been identified by their respective counsel.

¶41

¶42

WP No. 18846 of 2018

¶43

In the light of the aforestated undisputed acts,

¶44

there is no impediment for this Court to accept the compromise petition. It would reflect that, there is no fraud or coercion or undue advantage made at the time of entering the compromise by the parties.

¶45

In that view of the matter, accepting the compromise petition, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1-BDA to rectify the Development Right Certificate issued by the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority bearing Certificate No.006, to an extent of 1618.72 square meters equivalent to approximately 17424 square meters as per Annexure-L within eight weeks from date of handing over the original TDR Certificate (Annexure-L) dated 01.03.2018. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

¶48

Smt Rekha Hanu v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Rekha Hanu v. the Commissioner

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 M B Somanna Vs the Commissioner

The Commissioner Vs T G Nagaraj

The Commissioner Vs Durgoji Rao

R Annadanappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri v C Manjunath Vs Mr a S Bangaru Kuldeep

Smt. Arpitha N Vs Sri Arjun v