Disposed

Shariff Unnisa v. the Bangalore Development Authority

Karnataka HC16 Mar 2023WP/11934/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an eviction order for an unauthorized 20x30 sq.ft site. The court reserved the question for the petitioner to apply under Section 38D of the Bangalore Development Act, 1976, considering the humanitarian policy and the BDA's prior offer for an alternate site.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; liberty reserved to apply under Sec 38D of 1976 Act within three months; no coercive eviction pending decision.

Shariff Unnisa Vs the Bangalore Development Authority — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 11934 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 11934 OF 2019 (BDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHARIFF UNNISA, W/O LATE NISAR AHMED, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT # 195, 16^TH CROSS, VI MAIN, SARAKKI IV PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. ABHINAY Y T.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY., T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KP WEST, BANGALORE-560 020. REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. POONAM S PATIL.,ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 08.11.2013 VIDE ANNX-H PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT AND TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO ALLOT THE SITE BEARING NO.195 MEASURING 20 X 30 SITUATED AT SARAKKI IV PHASE, BENGALURU IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AND OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE ALLOT AN ALTERNATIVE SITE AS PER THE ORDER DTD 18.01.1997 VIDE ANNEXURE -D

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

WP No. 11934 of 2019

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioner, a lady admittedly unauthorized occupant small site admeasuring 20 x 30 Sq.ft is complaining before the Writ Court against the Endorsement which directed her to vacate the premises on the assurance that she would be provided another site elsewhere. After service of notice, the Respondent having entered appearance through the leaned panel Counsel, opposes the Writ Petition by filing the Statement of Objections on 28.02.2022.

¶23

Learned counsel for the Petitioner argues that

¶24

whether his client is in occupation of the subject property is not in dispute inasmuch as, the very text of the impugned Endorsement admits it; that being the position, she should be permitted to seek redressal of her grievance under Section 38D of the Bangalore development Act, 1976. Learned Panel Counsel opposes this submission contending that thought Petitioner was offered the site earlier, the same does not remain alive for all the time to come in eternity and Petitioner having not accepted the

¶25

¶26

WP No. 11934 of 2019

¶27

offer within a reasonable period, the offer should be treated as having committed a legal suicide.

¶28

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶29

and having perused the Petition papers, this Court of a considered opinion that the State legislature vide Section 38D has enacted the policy to provide for retention of unauthorized structures by the occupiers regardless of their title thereto, of course subject to certain parameters. Added, the BDA had offered to give an alternate site to the Petitioner. Thus, the case of Petitioner is further strengthened for invoking the provisions of Section 38(D).

¶30

In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the Petitioner to apply under Section 38D of 1976 Act, within three months and the BDA to consider the same in accordance with law keeping in view the humanitarian aspect enacted in the said provision coupled with earlier offer to provide alternate site. In that connection. All contentions are kept open.

¶31

¶32

WP No. 11934 of 2019

¶33

It hardly needs to be sated that till application in contemplation is decided after notice to Petitioner and result of consideration thereof is communicated to her, no coercive action shall be imitated for eviction/removal.

¶34

No costs.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

Bsv

Shariff Unnisa v. the Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shariff Unnisa v. the Bangalore Development Authority

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

Official Liquidator of Vs Sri Deepak Gupta

M/S Scorpion Express Private Limited Vs M/S Surin Automotive Private Limited

Smt Madhamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. B. v. Siddaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri D Shambaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Palanivelu Vs the State of Karnataka