Dismissed

M S Saileela v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2023WP/30062/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition seeking direction to allot an alternate site, agreeing with the respondent that the petitioners transacted post-acquisition notification under the 1991 Act. The petition was disposed off as devoid of merits, preserving liberty for proceedings against the original vendor.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to proceed against vendors within three months with immunity from limitation bars.

M S Saileela Vs the Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 30062 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 30062 OF 2015 (BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M S SAILEELA, W/O M.S. SWAMINATHAN, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1712, 17^TH CROSS, 21^ST MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 040.

¶9

M.S. SWAMINATHAN, S/O LATE M N SESHADRI SETTY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1712, 17^TH CROSS, 21^ST MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 040.

¶10

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

¶11

PETITIONER NO.1 REP BY GPA HOLDER P2

¶12

(BY SRI. C PRAKASH.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BENGALURU.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI.B VACHAN., PANEL ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD.19.8.2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEX-G AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT

¶19

¶20

WP No. 30062 of 2015

¶21

TO ALLOT SUITABLE SITES IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS HEREIN IN TERMS OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.26873/2005 [BDA] VIDE ANNEX-C.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioners are knocking at the doors of Writ Court essentially seeking a direction to the respondent-BDA to make allotment of an alternate site in lieu of the compensation payable in respect of the site that was subsumed in the land acquired. Learned counsel for the petitioners draws attention of the Court to the earlier rounds of litigation namely Division Bench judgment in W.A.No.1464/2007 wherein, challenge to learned Single Judge’s order in W.P.No.26873/2005 disposed off on 3.7.2007 favourably to his client has been negatived.

¶25

After service of notice, the respondent-BDA having entered appearance through its Senior Panel Counsel, opposes the Petition contending that the land in which the petitioners’ site are situate was subject matter of acquisition vide Preliminary Notification dated

¶26

¶27

WP No. 30062 of 2015

¶28

19.1.1989 followed by the Final Notification dated 19.1.1994 issued respectively under the provisions of Sections 17(1) & 19(1) of the Bangalore Development Act, 1976. The award having been passed, possession was also taken over way back in the year 1995 itself. Petitioners having bought the notified property vide registered Sale Deed dated 6.3.1993, nothing can be done in the matter in view of bar of transacting with such properties as enacted in section 3 of the Karnataka Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1991.

¶29

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this court is broadly in agreement with the submission of the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the BDA. Ordinarily, none should transact with the properties notified for acquisition; if one does it is at one’s peril in the light of 1991 Act mentioned supra. Granting relief to the petitioners virtually amounts to breaching the intent & policy content of the said Act in question since admittedly,

¶30

¶31

WP No. 30062 of 2015

¶32

sale transaction took place post acquisition notification.

¶33

Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA is more than justified in contending that if relief is granted to the petitioners, on humanitarian ground keeping in view the earlier rounds of litigation, that may open up the flood gates of litigation which is not a good thing to happen.

¶34

In view of the above, Writ Petition being devoid of merits, is disposed off, sans any relief reserving liberty to the petitioners to proceed against their vendors the respondent-Society, in accordance with law. If any such proceedings are instituted within a period of three months, the same shall not be dismissed only on the ground of limitation, delay, latches or the like. All contentions in that connection are kept open.

¶35

Costs made easy.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

cbc

M S Saileela v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M S Saileela v. the Commissioner

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

T Srinivas Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B C Lokesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Rajegowda Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

Sri. a Ramamurthy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mukundaiah C v Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Kempabyregowda. M. B. Vs the State of Karnataka