Allowed

Smt a C Bhaygamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Feb 2023WP/1224/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 seeking alternative site allotment following land acquisition. Court disposed of petition by extending relief granted in cognate W.P.No.1225/2023, applying principle of treating similar cases alike without derogatory factors.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed off by extending same relief as granted in cognate W.P.No.1225/2023 mutatis mutandis.

Smt a C Bhaygamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 1224 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 1224 OF 2023 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. A C BHAYGAMMA, W/O NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/AT 563/O, 1^ST ‘A’ CROSS, 3^RD STAGE, 4^TH BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 079. (THE PETITIONER IS NOT CLAIMING SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT)

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SUNDARESH H C.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPT BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU – 560 020.

¶15

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU – 560 020.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.R SRINIVASA GOWDA.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. MURUGESH V CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶18

¶19

WP No. 1224 of 2023

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2 DTD 16.07.2015, 06.11.2018 AND 09.01.2020 AS PER ANNEXURES-E, E1 AND E2 RESPECTIVELY FOR ALLOTMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITES IN LIEU OF ACQUISITION OF PETITIONERS REVENUE SITE BEARING NO.184, KHATHA NO.26/3, MEASURING 30 X 40 SITUATED AT SONNENAHALLI VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK FOR THE PURPOSE OF FORMATION OF SIR M V LAYOUT, PURSUANT TO INTIMATION LETTER BEARING NO.BDA/SLAO/113/05-06 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-D DTD 06.01.2006 BY FIXING ALLOTMENT PRICE PREVAILING AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION FOR ALLOTMENT OF SITE.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The subject matter of this Writ Petition is substantially similar to the one in W.P.No.1225/2023, between SMT. B UMA VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS , disposed off by this court vide judgment dated 14.02.2023. The operative portion of the said judgment reads as under:

¶24

“In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed off, costs having been made easy. The entire task as undertaken by Respondents shall be accomplished within a period of three months, all contentions being kept open.

¶25

It is open to the answering Respondent to solicit any information/documents from the side of the Petitioner for due consideration of his

¶26

¶27

WP No. 1224 of 2023

¶28

Representation. However, in the guise of such solicitation, no delay shall be brooked.”

¶29

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that

¶30

his client being placed with similar situation, relief needs

¶31

to be extended to him, there being no repugnant factors that militate against the grant.

¶32

The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.932-933/1974 between A.V.VINODA & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY disposed off on 11.12.1974, has held that the Court should treat likecases alike and if relief is granted to a litigant, similar relief cannot be denied to other similarly circumstanced litigant as well, there being no derogatory circumstances.

¶33

In view of the above, Writ Petition is disposed off extending the same relief as has been granted to the litigant in the cognate Writ Petition mutatis mutandis .

¶34

Costs made easy.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

cbc

Smt a C Bhaygamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt a C Bhaygamma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Shenoy Vs State of Karnataka

Somashekhar Vs the Secretary

Smt Kadiramma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri R Venu @ R Venugopal Vs the State of Karnataka

Blossom School Vs the Bangalore Development Authority (Bda)

Sri. Premkumar Vs Bangalore Development Authority