Dismissed

The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike v. Sri. H. v Tejas

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2023WA/1061/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge in an intra-court writ appeal dismissed the appeal by the BBMP, agreeing with the respondents that the appellant was not an aggrieved party and the order directed only the BDA to issue TDR or pay compensation, which the appellant was not concerned with.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed as it was devoid of merit with costs awarded.

The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:40307-DB WA No. 1061 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO. 1061 OF 2022 (BDA)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. (BY SRI. SANJEEV B.L, ADVOCATE)

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SRI. H.V. TEJAS, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O SRI. H.K. VENKATASWAMY, NO.77, BTM II STAGE, 3^RD MAIN, DOLLARS COLONY, N.S. PALYA, BENGALURU-560 076.

¶16

SMT. B. CHANDRAPRABHA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, W/O. SRI. D. JANARDHAN, NO.360, 24^TH ‘B’ CROSS, 9^TH MAIN, BSK II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 070.

¶17

THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SANKEY ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, RAJAMAHAL GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 020,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:40307-DB WA No. 1061 of 2022

¶20

REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.K.SUMAN, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SIDDARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1 & 2; SMT. SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R4)

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19/09/2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.10272/2020 (BDA) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS THE APPELLANT IS CONCERNED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

This intra court appeal seeks to lay a challenge to the learned Single Judge’s order dated 19.09.2022 whereby private respondents’ W.P.No.10272/2020 (BDA) having been favoured a Writ of Mandamus has been issued to the 3^rd respondent-BDA to issue TDR and in the alternative to pay compensation for the land taken, under the provisions

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:40307-DB WA No. 1061 of 2022

¶29

of Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

¶30

Learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the appellant-BBMP vehemently argues that the impugned order for issuance of TDR or in the alternative for payment of compensation in respect of the land utilized, could not have been made since the land is in the occupation of the appellant and that would prejudice him. So arguing, he seeks invalidation of the impugned order.

¶31

Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the private respondents points out that the direction in the impugned order is to the BDA and not to the appellant; secondly, even otherwise the appellant-BBMP is not an aggrieved party inasmuch as the land in question is not ordered to be restored to the said respondents; he points out that what is ordered is only the issuance of TDR Certificate or the compensation, with which the appellant-BBMP is not concerned. We are in full agreement with this submission and therefore decline indulgence in the appeal.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:40307-DB WA No. 1061 of 2022

¶34

In the above circumstances, this appeal being

¶35

devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed.

Costs made easy.

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

cbc

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8

The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike v. Sri. H. v Tejas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike v. Sri. H. v Tejas

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

Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited Vs Sri P Narayanappa

Mr.S. Akram Vs Mrs Bhagyalakshmi

State of Karnataka Vs Dr. Varsha. D

High Court of Karnataka Vs Smt Mary Cyriac

Sri. Diwakar J Vs Sri. Anand v Gangur

Rangaswamy. B. T. Vs Union of India