Disposed

Sri Vijayraj v. Government of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2022WP/42400/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.P. No. 42400 of 2015, the Karnataka High Court disposed of a petition challenging the BBMP's alleged unauthorized acquisition of land. The court directed the BBMP to consider the petitioners' representation for compensation or TDRs within two months, contingent on establishing entitlement.

What did the court decide?

Diplodirection to BBMP to consider representation for compensation/TDRs within two months of receiving certified copy of order, subject to establishing entitlement.

Sri Vijayraj Vs Government of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.42400 OF 2015 (LB - BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. VIJAYRAJ

¶9

S/O LATE AMAR CHAND

¶10

AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

¶11

SMT. UMRA BAI

¶12

W/O VIJAYRAJ

¶13

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

¶14

SMT. CHANDRA BAI

¶15

W/O DILIP KUMAR

¶16

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶17

REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER

¶18

SRI. VIJAY RAJ, PETITIONER-1

¶19

RATANLAL

¶20

S/O LATE HARJEE

¶21

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶22

REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER

¶23

SRI.VIJAY RAJ, PETITIONER-1

¶24

KISHANLAL

¶25

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER

¶26

SRI.VIJAY RAJ, PETITIONER-1

¶27

UTTAM CHAND

¶28

S/O GHAVER CHAND AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER

¶29

SRI.VIJAY RAJ, PETITIONER-1

¶30

¶31

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.6, HANUMAIAH REDDY ROAD ULSOOR, BANGALORE - 560 008. THE PETITIONERS 3 O 6 ARE REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER, VIZ THE PETITIONER-1.

¶32

… PETITIONERS

¶33

(BY SRI. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PARAS JAIN, ADVOCATE)

¶34

AND:

¶35

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA

BANGALORE - 560 009.

REPRESENTED BY ITS:

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

THE COMMISSIONER

¶40

BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE

¶41

HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 566 002.

¶42

… RESPONDENTS

¶43

(BY SRI.K.SHOBHA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.K.B.MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶44

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT/BBMP TO RESTORE THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY IT/FORCIBLY TAKEN BY IT, WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED UNDR THE LAW, CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 300A OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT.

¶45

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

¶46

¶47

ORDER

¶48

Heard Sri.Jagadish, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.K.B.Monesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶49

The grievance of the petitioners is that they are the absolute owners of the land bearing Sy.No.52 situated at Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, Dasarahalli, Bengaluru and that the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike without initiating any proceedings for acquisition of land under Land Acquisition Act or any other provision of law, acquired about 25,360 Sq.ft. in the year 2004 for the purpose of formation of a road and Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike has not considered the request of the petitioners for grant of compensation or issue of Transferable Development Rights corresponding to the extent of land acquired by them.

¶50

In the above factual background, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:

¶51

"1. To restore the possession of the property acquired by it/forcibly taken by it, without following the procedure prescribed under the law, contrary to

¶52

¶53

the provisions of Article 300-A, of Constitution of India and mandatory provisions of Land Acquisition Act.

¶54

2. To direct the respondent BBMP, to pay the rents/compensation for using illegally land of the petitioner, at the rate of Rs.10/- per square feet for the total area of Rs.25,360 square feet or at such other rate as this Hon'ble Court deem fit to determine, from the date of occupation till the date of restoration of the land to the petitioners, as per the law declared by the Apex Court.

¶55

3. To declare that the respondents have not legal right to acquire the land of the citizen, without acquiring the same in the manner known to law and without following the procedure prescribed for acquiring the land."

¶56

Learned counsel for the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike fairly submits that the grievance of the petitioners would be considered in accordance with law within an outer period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶57

The said submission is taken on record.

¶58

Accordingly, the petition is disposed off

¶59

directing the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palikeauthorities to consider the requisition/representation of

¶60

¶61

the petitioners for payment of compensation or issuance of Transferable Development Rights in accordance with law, subject to petitioners establishing their entitlement in respect of the acquired property, within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

¶63

NR/-

Sri Vijayraj v. Government of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vijayraj v. Government 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

Icon Infra Shelters India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Vedic Lore Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike

Smt. B v Venkatalakshmamma Vs the Commissioner

Shri N Venkata Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Chandramma Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Sri Istakees @ Joseph Vs the Commissioner