Disposed

Sri a Sathyanarayanaswamy v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Jan 2023WP/227/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition filed seeking a direction to the BDA to exclude scheduled property and the State to de-notify it based on committee recommendations. The Court directed the BDA to submit a report within three months for a subsequent State decision.

What did the court decide?

The BDA to submit a report to the State Government within three months to consider the claim in light of the committee recommendation; the State Government to decide on denotification within three mon

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

¶1

¶2

WP No. 227 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 227 OF 2023 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. A. SATHYANARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O LATE CHIKKAPPAIAH, R/A THANISANDRA VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 077.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

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

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

¶13

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

¶14

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶15

M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY ITS COMMISSIONER, KUMARAPARK, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. SRIDHAR HEGDE, AGA FOR R1; SRI. K.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

¶20

WP No. 227 of 2023

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2 BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO TAKE STEPS TO EXCLUDE THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY (EXCEPT AN EXTENT OF 1719.89 SQ.MTS) FROM THE SECOND FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 18.06.2014 B.NO. UDD 426 MNJ 2011 BANSLOX VIDE ANNEXUER A FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDATIONS DATED 25.03.2022 OF HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE KESHAVANARAYANA COMMITTEE VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus to the 2nd Respondent - BDA to take steps to exclude the subject property from the acquisition process keeping in view the recommendation of Hon'ble Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana Committee dated 25.03.2022 as reflected at Annexure-C. The Petitioner also seeks a Writ of Mandamus to the 1st Respondent-State to de-notify the schedule property from the acquisition process under Section 48(1) of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶25

Learned AGA appearing for 1st Respondent -

¶26

State and learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for 2nd

¶27

¶28

WP No. 227 of 2023

¶29

Respondent - BDA on request oppose the petition

¶30

contending that in matters of Executive discretion, ordinarily, no Mandamus can be sought for. Having so contended, learned Panel Counsel now agrees to instruct his clients to look into grievance of the Petitioner keeping

¶31

in view the recommendation of Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana Committee in accordance with law; this is appreciable.

¶32

In view of the above, Writ Petition is disposed off keeping open all the contentions. The BDA shall consider the claim of the Petitioner in the light of the Committee recommendation and submit a report to the State Government which would then take a decision in the matter as to whether the land in question shall be denotified or not.

¶33

¶34

WP No. 227 of 2023

¶35

Time for compliance for the BDA to accomplish the

¶36

job is three months. Thereafter the State shall take a decision within three months next following.

¶37

Ordered accordingly, costs having been made easy.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Sri a Sathyanarayanaswamy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri a Sathyanarayanaswamy 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

Y K Jayaram Vs Chief Secretary

Smt Nayim Taj Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Parvathamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Official Liquidator of Vs Nil

Official Liquidator of Vs the Tahsildar

Mr. Santosh Shekhar Vs Dreamz Infra India Ltd.