Dismissed

B R Chandrashekaraiah v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Jun 2022WP/34387/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to quash land acquisition proceedings via writ of certiorari. Court observed that since the petitioner had applied for incentive sites under consideration, there was no utility in continuing the petition, and disposed of the matter reserving liberty to follow up on the incentive application.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of, with liberty to follow up on the application for allotment of incentive sites filed with BDA.

B R Chandrashekaraiah Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 34387 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 34387 OF 2014 (LA-BDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

B. R. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH S/O LATE RUDRAPPA AGED 63 YEARS, R/O BANGALE VILLAGE, SULIKERE POST, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. M.C. BASAVARAJU.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001

¶14

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY

¶16

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

¶17

REPRESETNED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶18

THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020

¶19

¶20

WP No. 34387 of 2014

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. B.V.KRISHNA, AGA FOR R1;

¶23

SRI. B.VACHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND 3)

¶24

THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS OF THE R-2, VIDE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 15.11.2006 PUBLICATION IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE ON 16.11.2006, VIDE PUBLICATION NO. 1526 AS FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AT SL.NO. 850 AT PAGE NO. 67 FOR SY.NO.23 OF SULIKERE VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, MEASURING 4 ACRES 28 GUNTAS VIDE ANN-J AND ETC.,

¶25

THIS WP COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶28

following reliefs:

¶29

a. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the acquisition proceedings of the 2nd respondent, The Commissioner, The Bangalore Development Authority, T. Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West Bangalore - 560 020 Vide preliminary notification No.BDA/COMMR/ DC(LA) SALAO/80/2006-07, Bangalore dated 15.11.2006 publication in the Karnataka Gazette on 16.11.2006, vide publication No.1526 as far as the petitioner is concerned at Sl.No.850 at page No.67 for Sy.No.23 of Sulikere Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 4 Acres 28 Guntas vide Annexure-'J'.

¶30

¶31

WP No. 34387 of 2014

¶32

b. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the final notification passed by the 1st respondent, The Under Secretary to Government, Urban Development Department, Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore - 560 001, vide final notification No.UDD 169 MNX 2011, Bangalore dated 27.07.2011 published in the Karnataka Gazette on 29.07.2011, vide publication No.709 as far as the petitioner is concerned at Sl.No.68 at page No.1 for Sy.No.23 of Sulikere Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 4 Acres 28 Guntas, vide Annexure-K.

¶33

c. Issue any other writ or order or orders as this Hon'ble Court be deems fit it necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶34

Sri. M.C.Basavaraju, learned counsel for the

¶35

petitioner would submit that during the pendency of the above matter, the petitioner had approached the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) seeking for allotment of incentive sites which are being considered. Sri. B.V.Krishna, learned Additional Government Advocate upon instructions submits that the application is under process.

¶36

¶37

WP No. 34387 of 2014

¶38

If that be so, there would be no purpose in keeping this petition alive. The petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to follow up on the application filed by the BDA for allotment of incentive

¶39

sites.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

GJM

B R Chandrashekaraiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B R Chandrashekaraiah 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Munihanumaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri R Muniraju Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Windmills of Your Mind Owners Association Vs the Commissioner

Smt Jayalakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. H. M. Kumar Vs Bengaluru Development Authority

Sri v a Mathew S/O Abraham Vs the Commissioner