Disposed

Smt Reshmi Devi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2023WP/21385/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition involved a plea to acquire land and pay compensation after plan sanction was refused under a Ring Road Scheme. The court disposed of the petition directing the State and BDA to acquire the land lawfully within six months and pay compensation.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent-State and BDA to acquire the land in accordance with law and pay compensation within six months.

Smt Reshmi Devi Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:41249 WP No. 21385 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 21385 OF 2021 (LB-BMP)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT RESHMI DEVI

¶8

W/O LATE SAJJANRAJ AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT BASAVANAPURA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER MR TEJAS H V S/O H K VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶9

M/S VEDANT SURAKSHA PROPERTIES REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SY NO.9/3 BASAVANAPURA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU-560 083 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR TEJAS H V S/O H K VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶10

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. K.SUMAN, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. RADHANANDAN B S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

¶14

NC: 2023:KHC:41249 WP No. 21385 of 2021

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001

¶17

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE, BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶18

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING SOUTH BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE

¶19

BANGALORE-560 001

¶20

THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD BANGALORE-560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. V.G.BHANUPRAKASH, AAG FOR SRI.PRINCE ISSAC, AGA FOR R1,

¶23

SRI.S.N.PRASHANTH CHANDRA, ADV. FOR R2 AND 3, SRI.G.S.KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.N.R.GIRISHA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶24

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 04.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AND R-3 AT ANNX-A BY REFUSING TO SANCTION THE PLAN AND QUASH THE

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:41249 WP No. 21385 of 2021

¶26

ENDORSEMENT DTD 29.05.2021 VIDE ANNX-AC, ISSUED BY THE R-4 AND ETC.,

¶27

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

¶28

ORDER

¶29

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶30

Learned Senior Counsel Sri K.Suman, appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have obtained an order at the hands of this Court quashing the notification issued by the respondent - State for acquisition of the property belonging to the petitioners. Thereafter the petitioners have approached the respondent - BBMP seeking sanction for a plan to put up a residential apartment. However, the application is rejected on the ground that the property is within the designated area of Peripheral Ring Road Scheme. Learned Senior Counsel submits

¶31

that the peripheral Ring Road Scheme which was initially planned way back in the year 2006 has undergone many changes. The learned Senior Counsel has taken this Court to Annexure-U filed along with the writ petition which is a Google map. Learned Senior Counsel submits that in the proposed alignment of the PRR-II, the entire stretch has come up with

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:41249 WP No. 21385 of 2021

¶34

construction, except the property belonging to the petitioners. In that view of the matter, it was submitted that it would be impossible for the respondent authorities to continue PRR-II road on the proposed alignment.

¶35

During the course of these proceedings several directions were given to the Commissioner, Bengaluru Development Authority in order to find out as to whether there was any possibility of changing the alignment of the PRR-II, having regard to the admitted fact that several unauthorized constructions had come up between Gottigere-Basavanapura, a stretch of nearly 2 kms. However, in the opinion of the Commissioner, BDA, there is no scope for changing the alignment of PRR-II in the stretch between Gottigere to Basavanapura, having regard to the fact that Bannerghatta National Park is on one side of the PRR-II and other side has been fully developed.

¶36

Learned Senior Counsel Sri.K.Suman, appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have a right to develop their property in accordance with law, that right cannot be jeopardized at the hands of the respondent-BDA. Learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit that if not a direction to the local authorities to sanction the building plan, than a

¶37

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:41249 WP No. 21385 of 2021

¶38

direction may be issued to the Bengaluru Development Authority and the Government to acquire the property in question in accordance with law and pay the compensation to the petitioners which they are entitled in law.

¶39

To this submission of the learned Senior Counsel Sri.K.Suman, learned Senior Counsel Sri.Gurudas S Kannur, appearing for the respondent-BDA would submit that if there is no other option, than having regard to the admitted fact that the petitioners have succeeded in getting the previous notification quashed at the hands of this Court and the same having attained finality, appropriate direction may be issued by this Court.

¶40

In the light of the above, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i. Having regard to the peculiar circumstances of this case, this writ petition stands disposed of with a specific direction to the respondent-State and the BDA to acquire the lands in question in accordance with law and pay compensation to the petitioners in accordance with law.

¶43

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:41249 WP No. 21385 of 2021

¶44

ii. The situation also demands that a time frame has to be fixed to enable the State Government and BDA to conclude the proceedings.

¶45

iii. Therefore, a direction is issued to the respondent-State Government and Bengaluru Development Authority to ensure that the acquisition proceedings are concluded as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/JUDGE

CT: JL

Smt Reshmi Devi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Reshmi Devi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bitsport Private Limited Vs Union of India

Mr. S. K. Basavarajan Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri Gundu Rao D a Vs State Bank of India

Karnataka Parishista and Alpa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H N Suresh Kumar Vs the Commissioner

M L Srinath Vs Union of India