Allowed

Bangalore Development Authoity v. the State of Karantaka

Karnataka HC19 Jan 2023WA/2822/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal against withdrawal of land acquisition challenge. Court disposed of appeal, dismissed writ petition as withdrawn, and directed BDA to consider site grant application within six months under 40:60 Scheme.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn; Writ appeal disposed of; BDA directed to consider application for incentive sites within six months.

Bangalore Development Authoity Vs the State of Karantaka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WA No. 2822 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023 PRESENT

¶4

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

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO. 2822 OF 2014 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHOITY K.P.WEST EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560 020. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶9

THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, K.P.WEST EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560 020.

¶10

…APPELLANTS

¶11

(BY SRI. M V CHARATI.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

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

¶15

SRI KALAPPA (SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR)

¶16

2(A) SRI K CHIKKANARASIMHAIH S/O LATE KALAPPA, AGE 69 YEARS, R/AT BHEEMANAKUPPE VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI - 560060,

¶17

¶18

WA No. 2822 of 2014

¶19

BENGALORE SOUTH TALUK.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.JEEVAN J. NEERALGI AGA FOR R1, ADVOCATE)

¶22

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.32870/2013 DATED 25/07/2014 AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

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

¶26

Shri. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, learned AGA for State and Shri.P.V.Chandrashekar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Smt.D.J.Rakshitha for respondent 2(A).

¶27

Shri.Chandrashekar, learned advocate for

¶28

respondent No.2 submits that petitioner desires to avail the compensation in the form of sites under 40:60

¶29

Scheme enumerated in the preliminary notification and

¶30

desires to withdraw the challenge to the acquisition. Same is stated in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the affidavit

¶31

¶32

WA No. 2822 of 2014

¶33

filed by Shri.Chikkanarasimhaiah, legal representative of deceased respondent No.2.

¶34

Shri.Charati for BDA submitted that if the writ petition is withdrawn, BDA would consider petitioner’s application and dispose of the same.

¶35

In view of the above, we proceed to pass the

¶36

following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(1) Writ appeal is disposed of.

¶39

(2) Writ petition No.32870/2013 is

¶40

dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to petitioner to file representation within

¶41

two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶42

(3) BDA shall consider the petitioner's application for grant of incentive sites in 40:60 Scheme within an outer limit

¶43

¶44

WA No. 2822 of 2014

¶45

of six months from the date of receipt

¶46

of copy of this order in accordance

¶47

with law.

¶48

(4) No costs.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

List No.: 3 Sl No.: 0

Bangalore Development Authoity v. the State of Karantaka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bangalore Development Authoity v. the State of Karantaka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Messers Vodafone Idea Ltd.

The Commissioner Vs the State of Karnataka

The Commissioner Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. H.B. Sunandamma Vs Sri. H.B. Nagaraj

Sumalatha Vs Smt. Seethalakshmi

Umme Khair Vs Sri B Nagaraju