Disposed

The Commissioner v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Jan 2023WA/2809/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this single-paragraph order, the High Court disposed of the writ appeal founded on the withdrawal of the underlying writ petition by the landowner respondent. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn while permitting the petitioner to seek the 40:60 Scheme benefit via a fresh representation to the BDA.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal disposed of; underlying W.P. dismissed as withdrawn; Respondent permitted to file representation to BDA for 40:60 Scheme extension.

The Commissioner Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WA No. 2809/2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO. 2809 OF 2014 (LA-BDA)

¶10

BETWEEN :

¶11

Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, K.P. WEST BANGALORE.

¶13

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, K.P. WEST

¶14

BANGALORE-560 020. …APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SHRI. M.V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND :

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001.

¶18

SRI. GALI SWAMY AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS S/O LATE GALAPPA @ DODDA NARASAIAH R/AT NO.37, 2^ND MAIN ROAD

¶19

¶20

WA No. 2809/2014

¶21

BTM LAYOUT, 2^ND STAGE BHCS LAYOUT

¶22

BANGALORE-560 076. …RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1; SHRI. D.L. JAGADEESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. SUNIL NARAYAN NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.32909/2013 DATED 01/08/2014.

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J. , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Heard Shri. M.V. Charati, learned Advocate for BDA,

¶28

Shri. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and Shri. D.L. Jagadeesh, learned Senior Advocate for Shri. Sunil Narayan Naik, respondent No.2 – BDA.

¶29

Learned Advocate on record for respondent No.2

¶30

has filed a Memo dated 18.01.2022 seeking dismissal of the writ petition as not pressed and that in view of the same, writ appeal does not survive for consideration.

¶31

Shri. D.L. Jagadish, learned Senior Advocate

¶32

submitted that the writ petitioner would be satisfied if his

¶33

¶34

WA No. 2809/2014

¶35

representation for grant of 40% of the land as per the scheme is considered by the BDA. Shri. Sunil Narayan Naik,

¶36

learned Advocate on record has filed another Memo of even date seeking leave to withdraw W.P. No.32909/2013 and to pursue his representation with the BDA.

¶37

Shri. Charati, for BDA submitted that if the writ

¶38

petition is withdrawn, BDA would consider petitioner’s application and dispose of the same.

¶39

In view of the above, the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

(a) Writ appeal is disposed of .

¶42

(b) Writ petition No.32909/2013 is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶43

(c) Respondent – land owner is permitted to file a representation to the BDA to seek extension of benefit of 40:60 Scheme.

¶44

(d) The BDA shall consider the same in accordance with law, within an outer limit of

¶45

¶46

WA No. 2809/2014

¶47

six months from the date of receipt of such representation along with a copy of this

order.

No costs.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

SPS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0

The Commissioner v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner 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

M/S Arval India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr T Phani Mahesh Vs Mr Mokshith Reddy Chennareddy

Mr Syed Nayeem Ahmed Vs Mrs Khursheed Begum

Sri. Palghat Ramanathan Seshadri Vs the Income Tax Officer

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Cit (a) Vs Messers Gmr Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

The Commissioner Vs the State of Karnataka