Partly allowed

Nanjamma W/O Ramakrishna v. Commissioner for Housing

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2022WP/54575/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court partly allowed the petition. The court directed the respondents to consider a representation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders after affording an opportunity of hearing within two weeks, while pending applications were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit further documents; respondents to consider representation and pass orders after hearing within two weeks.

Nanjamma W/O Ramakrishna Vs Commissioner for Housing — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 54575 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 54575 OF 2015 (LA-KHB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NANJAMMA W/O RAMAKRISHNA, CHANDAPURA, ATTIBELE,

¶9

ANEKALA TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 099.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VIGHNESHWARA S SHASTRY, ADV FOR SRI S N SAMEER ., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

COMMISSIONER FOR HOUSING KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶14

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, BANGALORE-560 005.

¶15

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

MEMBER SECRETARY ANEKAL PLANNING AUTHORITY ANEKAL - 56106.

¶17

BANGALORE METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

¶18

NO.01, ALI ASKAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052.

¶19

SRINIVAS S/O UNKNOWN, YADAVANAHALLI, ATTHIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL THALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562106.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. VASANTH KUMAR H G., ADV FOR R1 & 2 SRI YOGESH D NAIK, ADV FOR R3 & 4 R5 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED )

¶22

¶23

WP No. 54575 of 2015

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION UNDER SEC.4(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT ON 02.01.2013 AT ANNEX-A AND ETC.,.

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

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

¶28

" a) Issue a writ or order in the nature of certiorari quashing notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 02.02.2013 in Ka Gru Ma: Bhu Swa. Vi/09/2013-14 at Annexure-A.

¶29

aa) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to denotify the acquisition process pertaining to the 1 acre of land sy.no.78/3 of Iggaluru Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk Bangalore City.

¶30

Or in the alternative

¶31

aa) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to ensure that the house of the petitioner is not demolished during the formation of the proposed connecting road for the sites formed by the KHB respondent No.1 in the ends of the justice and equity.

¶32

b) Pass any order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case in the ends of justice and equity "

¶33

After arguing the matter for sometime, learned counsel

¶34

for the petitioner has filed a memo signed by the counsel for the petitioner dated 04.07.2022 stating that the

¶35

¶36

WP No. 54575 of 2015

¶37

petitioner does not press the prayer (a) and (aa) as above and only requests for alternative prayer.

¶38

Learned counsel for respondents would submit that the respondents would consider the said representation in accordance with law and pass necessary orders within a period of two weeks' from today.

¶39

In view of the above, I pass the following:

¶40

:: ORDER ::

¶41

i. Writ petition is partly allowed.

¶42

ii. The respondents are directed to consider the representation submitted on 29.06.2022 in accordance with law and pass necessary orders.

¶43

iii. The petitioner is permitted to file such other further documents, which the petitioner wishes to rely upon within a period of two weeks' from today.

¶44

iv. Order to be passed by respondent No.1 within a period of two weeks' thereafter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶45

¶46

WP No. 54575 of 2015

¶47

Pending applications do not survive for consideration and

¶48

stand dismissed.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

NMS

Nanjamma W/O Ramakrishna v. Commissioner for Housing

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanjamma W/O Ramakrishna v. Commissioner for Housing

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

Sri M Ismail Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ravishaiah R Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Dinesh Batheja Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Shivappa Vs State of Karnataka

Gaaia Contractors Private Limited Vs Goldfinch Resorts Private Limited

Lakshmamma Vs the Mysore Urban Development Authority