Disposed

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

Karnataka HC16 Mar 2023WP/2146/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WP No. 2146 of 2023, the petitioner sought a No Objection Certificate for land acquisition. The court disposed of the writ petition after the responding KIADB counsel undertook to consider the petitioner's representation in a time-bound manner.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is disposed of. Respondents to consider the petitioners representation issue NOC within three months.

Sri. B. v. Siddaiah Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 2146 of 2023

¶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. 2146 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. B. V. SIDDAIAH S/O. B. V. VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT NEAR STATE BANK OF INDIA, BIDADI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 109. SENIOR CITIZENSHIP FEE RELAXATION NOT CLAIMED …PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHARAN N MAJAGE.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, ROOM NO. 106, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD

¶15

REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER, 4^TH LOOR, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-1, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO. 39, BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING, 4^TH FLOOR, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;

¶18

SRI. PRADEEP KUMAR H L.,ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶19

¶20

WP No. 2146 of 2023

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R-2 AND 3 TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS REPRESENTATIONS DATED 26/09/2022 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW THEREBY ISSUE NOC BY IDENTIFYING THE LAND IN SY.NO.180 MEASURING 15 GUNTAS BELONGS TO THE PETITIONER WHICH IS SITUATED IN BANANDUR VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The short grievance of the Petitioner is as to nonconsideration of his Representation dated 26.09.2022 a copy whereof is at Annexure –E wherein he has sought for issuance of NOC in respect of 15 Guntas of land in Sy.No.180 of Bandanur Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although a part of the land to the extent of 01 Acre & 06 Guntas, in the said survey number has already been acquired, the remainder is still with his client and therefore, the KIADB should not have any constraint for issuing NOC in terms of the Representation.

¶25

Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the Respondent – KIADB opposes the Petition contending that

¶26

¶27

WP No. 2146 of 2023

¶28

matters of this kind should go before the Civil Court, writ remedy being unsuitable. Having so contended, now he agrees instruct his clients to look into the grievance of the Petitioner as has been aired in the subject Representation, in accordance with law and in a time bound way. This is appreciable.

¶29

In view of the above, the Writ Petition Is disposed off. Time for compliance is three months. All contentions are kept open.

¶30

It is open to the answering Respondent to solicit any information/documents from the side of Petitioner as is required for the due consideration of subject Representation; however, in the guise of such solicitation, no delay shall be brooked.

¶31

Now, no costs.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

Bsv

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. B. v. Siddaiah 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

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 D Shambaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Shariff Unnisa Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

Sri Palanivelu Vs the State of Karnataka