Allowed

Smt. Bairamma v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC12 Jul 2022WP/5849/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition filed by an illiterate land owner against the Bengaluru Development Authority. The court directed the authorities to consider a petitioner's representation dated 19.01.2022 for allotment of developed sites or land in lieu of cash compensation, exercising the land loser's choice before payment.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed. The respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's representation and award land/site compensation instead of cash within eight weeks.

Smt. Bairamma Vs the Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 5849 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 5849 OF 2022 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. BAIRAMMA W/O LATE BALAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT BHEEMANAKUPPE VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE - 560 060.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY MS. ANIKA RASHMI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. RAKSHITHA D J, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BDA) T CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU - 560 020

¶13

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

2 . THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BDA) T CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU - 560 020

¶15

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA L.K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 19.01.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-C SEEKING FOR ALLOTMENT OF

¶17

¶18

WP No. 5849 of 2022

¶19

DEVELOPED SITES/LAND RATIO INSTEAD OF CASH COMPENSATION AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

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

¶23

a. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to consider the representations dated 19.01.2022 vide Annexure-C seeking for allotment of developed sites/land ratio instead of cash compensation awarded to the petitioner.

¶24

b. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to allot developed sites in favour of the Petitioner in lieu of acquisition of land bearing Sy.No.46 measuring 26 guntas situated at Bheemanakuppe village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk instead of cash compensation as per the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.16919/2013 vide Annexure-E to the petition in the interest of justice and equity;

¶25

c. Pass such other orders as the Petitioner is entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case including the cost of the proceedings, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶26

Petitioner is the absolute owner of the land bearing Sy.

¶27

No.46 measuring 26 guntas situated at Bheemanakuppe

¶28

¶29

WP No. 5849 of 2022

¶30

village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The said property was acquired by the respondent-BDA for formation of Nada Pradbhu Kempegowda Layout by final notification dated 18.02.2010. The petitioner claims that she is an illiterate person and an agriculturist having no worldly knowledge and as instructed by the respondent BDA, put her signature to the consent award. Furthermore, the petitioner was not aware that there were more options to receive compensation in terms of land which she came to know subsequently. Hence, she submitted a representation dated 19.01.2022 to award land/site instead of cash, since she has not withdrawn the cash compensation which has been deposited in Court. However, the respondent-BDA has not taken any action on the said representation. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶31

When the cash compensation is not withdrawn, it would be for the land looser to chose compensation by way of cash or land. Such choice may be exercised at any time

¶32

¶33

WP No. 5849 of 2022

¶34

before the actual payment is received by the respondentBDA.

¶35

Hence, I pass the following order:

¶36

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶37

(ii) The respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.01.2022 in accordance with law, as per the applicable Government Order, as award land/ site compensation instead of cash compensation, within a period of Eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶38

(iii) Respondent 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 respondent has any doubt about the order, respondent 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

¶39

¶40

WP No. 5849 of 2022

¶41

be scanned to view the website of the High Court to

¶42

verify the order.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Smt. Bairamma v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Bairamma v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. M. Sharadamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M N Lingaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Muniyappa Vs State of Karnataka

Mr K N Surendra Reddy Vs the Commissioner

Sri H.A. Ankegowda Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Rangamma Vs State of Karnataka