Disposed

Smt. M. Sharadamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2022WP/28902/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition challenging the validity of the Mahalakshmi Layout scheme notification. It directed the petitioners to file an application for property allotment and restrained the BDA from interfering with the petitioners' possession pending consideration.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; Petitioner No.2 directed to file application for allotment under Section 38D BDA Act within four weeks; BDA restrained from interfering with possession.

Smt. M. Sharadamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 28902 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 28902 OF 2014 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. M. SHARADAMMA AGED 67 YEARS, W/O JAYARAME GOWDA, M. R/O NO.1205/26, SRI. MARUTHI NILAYA,

¶9

(L.NARAYANASWAMAPPA COLONY), YESHWANTHAPURA, BANGALORE-560 022.

¶10

SRI.NARENDRA KUMAR M.J., S/O LATE JAYARAMEGOWDA M AGED 56 YEARS NO.32, ‘SHRI RANGA’, NEW BEL ROAD, DEVANSADRA, OPP:M.S.RAMAIAH HOSPITAL RMV EXTENSION, 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 094.

¶11

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. R S HEGDE .,ADVOCATE)

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶16

¶17

WP No. 28902 of 2014

¶18

THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE-560 020, REPTD. BY ITS COMISSIONER.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.NITHYANANDA K.R., AGA FOR R1; SRI.G.LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE SCHEME OF FURTHER EXTENSION OF MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, PURSUANT TO FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 30.8.1979 GAZETTED ON 20.9.1979 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF BDA ACT, 1976 BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE - L, STOOD STATUTORILY LAPSED AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 27 OF BDA ACT, 1976 IN SO FAR AS SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Sri G. Lakshmeesh Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 confirms the receipt of amended cause title. Hence, office objection does not survive for consideration.

¶25

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following releifs:

¶26

¶27

WP No. 28902 of 2014

¶28

i. "Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions declaring that the Scheme of further Extension of Mahalakshmi Layout, pursuant to final notification dated 30.08.1979 gazetted on 20.09.1979 issued under Section 19(1) of BDA Act, 1976 by the 1st respondent in No.TWD.41.MNJ.78 vide Annexure - L, stood statutorily lapsed as contemplated under Section 27 of BDA Act, 1976 in so far as schedule property and,

¶29

ii. Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions directing, that the Respondents are not entitled to take action of illegal demolition of existing house constructions and dispossess the Petitioner from the schedule property, illegally claiming to enforce the impugned final notification dated 30.08.1979 gazetted on 20.09.1979 issued under Section 19(1) of BDA Act, 1976 by the 1st Respondent in No.TWD.41.MNJ.78 vide Annexure - L at this stage, in so far as schedule property and,

¶30

iii. Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the Respondents to allot the schedule property in favour of the Petitioner on collecting the sital value as may be fixed.

¶31

iv. Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as deemed just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity ."

¶32

After arguing the matter for sometime, this matter has been disposed of vide order dated 27.05.2022 and thereafter, the order came to be recalled on account of an application being filed by the petitioners. Petitioner No.1 has executed a gift deed in respect of the said property in the favor of her son. The said son is brought on record as Petitioner No.2

¶33

¶34

WP No. 28902 of 2014

¶35

Sri R.S. Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the very same order which has been passed on 25.07.2022 could be passed.

¶36

In view of the above, I pass the following:

¶37

: ORDER :

¶38

a) Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶39

b) Petitioner No.2 is directed to file necessary application/representation with the respondent -BDA under Section 38D of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 within a period of four weeks from today which shall be considered by the BDA within a period of four months from the date of receipt of application strictly in accordance with law.

¶40

c) Until the consideration of the said application/representation, the respondentBDA shall not interfere with the possession of petitioner No.2 as regards the petitioner's schedule property.

¶41

d) Respondents to act on a print out of the uploaded copy of this order on the website of this Court, if so furnished by the petitioner, without waiting for certified copy thereof. If

¶42

¶43

WP No. 28902 of 2014

¶44

respondents have any doubt about the order, respondents may verify the contents of the order from the website of this Court and or from the learned panel advocate appearing in the matter. The QR code on this order could also be scanned to view the website of the High Court to verify the order.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

KTY

Smt. M. Sharadamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. M. Sharadamma 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

Smt. Chennamma Vs State of Karnataka

Nagaraja S Vs National Highways Authority of India

Sri. S.M. Yarappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M N Lingaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Muniyappa Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Akkayyamma Vs State of Karnataka