Disposed

Sri Satish v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Jan 2023WP/10180/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka disposed two writ petitions filed under Article 226 seeking an order restraining respondents from interfering with scheduled property until a specific Committee submits its report on allegations, directing both parties to maintain the status quo.

What did the court decide?

Directed both sides to maintain status quo in respect of subject property until the decision of the Hon'ble Justice K N Keshavanarayana Committee.

Sri Satish Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 10180 of 2022

¶2

C/W WP No. 10178 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 10180 OF 2022 (LA-BDA) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 10178 OF 2022(LA-BDA)

¶8

IN W.P.NO.10180/2022:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. SATISH, S/O D V NARAYANAWAMY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT DASARAHALLI VILLAGE, K R PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK- 560 016.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. N K MALLIKARJUN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SAMPATH A., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, MULTISTORYED BUILDING DR B R AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU- 560 001.

¶16

BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BY ITS COMMISIONER,KUMARAPARK WEST, BENGALURU- 560 001.

¶17

¶18

WP No. 10180 of 2022

¶19

C/W WP No. 10178 of 2022

¶20

LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARAPARK WEST, BENGALURU- 560 001.

¶21

SRI V SHIVA REDDY, S/O VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.51/5, 6^TH MAIN, 13^TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU- 560 003.

¶22

SRI S S SRINIVASARAO, S/O PROF. S L SEETHARAMARAO, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO. FLAT NO.309, PALASHA RENAISSANCE, NO.26, 9^TH CROSS,5^TH MAIN, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU- 560 003.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. M V CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; SRI. K V MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY UNTIL THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE KESHAVA NARAYANA COMMITTEE CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.10.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND PASS A REPORT OT THE BOARD OF BDA TO TAKE A DECISION WHETHER TO EXCLUDE OR ACQUIRE THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY.

¶26

¶27

WP No. 10180 of 2022

¶28

C/W WP No. 10178 of 2022

¶29

IN W.P.NO.10178/2022:

¶30

BETWEEN:

¶31

D V CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O D.V. VEERANNA, R/AT DASARAHALLI VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK 560 016.

¶32

…PETITIONER

¶33

(BY SRI.N K MALLIKARJUN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SAMPATH A, ADVOCATE)

¶34

AND:

¶35

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, MULTISTORYED BUILDING, DR B R AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 001.

¶36

BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BY ITS COMMISIONER, KUMARAPARK WEST, BENGALURU- 560 001.

¶37

LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARAPARK WEST, BENGALURU- 560 001.

¶38

SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY, S/O VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.51/5, 6^TH MAIN, 13^TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU- 560 003.

¶39

¶40

WP No. 10180 of 2022

¶41

C/W WP No. 10178 of 2022

¶42

SRI. S. S. SRINIVASARAO, S/O PROF. S L SEETHARAMARAO, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO. FLAT NO.309, PALASHA RENAISSANCE, NO.26, 9^TH CROSS,5^TH MAIN, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU- 560 003.

¶43

…RESPONDENTS

¶44

(BY SRI. R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. L K MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; SRI. K V MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5)

¶45

¶46

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

The essential grievance of the Petitioner is that he is seeking refuge at the hands of the Hon’ble Justice K N Keshavanarayana Committee appointed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.51929/2014 and Connected

¶49

¶50

WP No. 10180 of 2022

¶51

C/W WP No. 10178 of 2022

¶52

Matters, disposed off on 27.09.2021 (Annexure-F). Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that till the Committee decides the matter, the Respondents are not supposed to interfere with the possession & the structure standing on the subject land, if any.

¶53

Learned AGA appearing for the 1^st Respondent, learned Panel Counsel appearing for the BDA & the advocate appearing for the private Respondents all oppose the Petitions contending that the sites in question are all vacant and no structures have been put up thereon. The private advocate also says that there is no disturbance from his client’s side at all. They also insist that ordinarily the status quo order till disposal of the proceedings by the Committee is being sought for on the grounds of equity, it is necessary that even the Petitioner should be directed to maintain status quo .

¶54

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶55

and having looked into the Petition papers, this Court is

¶56

¶57

WP No. 10180 of 2022

¶58

C/W WP No. 10178 of 2022

¶59

broadly in agreement with the submission made on behalf of the Respondents as also the Petitioner.

¶60

In the above circumstances, these Petitions are disposed off directing both the sides to maintain status quo in respect of subject property till after and the subject to decision to be taken by the Hon’ble Justice K N Keshavanarayana Committee, in accordance with law.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

BSV

¶63

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Sri Satish v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Satish v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Siddagangamma Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Moola Investments (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Iqbal Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka

Dharmashekaraiah Vs the Commissioner

Karnataka Road Development Corporation Ltd. Vs Rangegowda