Dismissed

Smt H a Leenatha Reddy v. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.

Karnataka HC9 Oct 2023WP/33709/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought to quash land acquisition notifications issued under the KIAD Act, claiming the building was completed prior to notification. However, the respondent established that no portion of the acquired land was part of their property, leading the court to dismiss the petition reserving liberty for further remedies regarding open space compliance.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty to avail further remedy reserved.

Smt H a Leenatha Reddy Vs Bangalore Metro Rail… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:36718 WP No. 33709 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 33709 OF 2016 (LA-KIADB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. H.A. LEENATHA REDDY, W/O LATE SRI. H.J. ASHWATHARAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.

¶10

SRI. VENKATESH GOUTHAM REDDY, S/O LATE SRI. H.J. ASHWATHARAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶11

BOTH PETITIONERS ARE RESIDING AT NO.857, 5^TH CROSS, INDIRANAGAR, 1^ST STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 038.

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. C.K. NANDAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SMT. LEKHA CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 3^RD FLOOR, B.M.T.C COMPLEX, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:36718 WP No. 33709 of 2016

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶19

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, K.I.A.D.B., NO. 3, 1^ST CROSS, KHENI BUILDING, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶20

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO 14/3, II FLOOR, RASHTROTHANA PARISHAT BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶21

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF

¶22

TOWN PLANNING, MAHANAGARA PALIKE OFFICES, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT DIRECTOR.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. HARISH N.N., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. LAGALI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGA FOR R2; SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4; SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 21/22.09.2015 ISSUED UNDER SEC.28(1) OF KIADB ACT ISSUED BY R-2 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:36718 WP No. 33709 of 2016

¶28

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

¶29

ORDER

¶30

In this writ Petition, petitioners are seeking quash of the Preliminary Notification dated 22.09.2015 issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short 'KIAD' Act) and the Final notification dated 04.04.2016 issued under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act and also for quashing of notice dated 27.04.2016 issued under Section 28(6) of the KIAD Act with direction to the respondent not to handover the possession of the schedule property to the respondent No.3.

¶31

Case of the petitioners is that they are the absolute owner of the petition schedule property and has been held privately by the petitioners. That the petitioners have put up the residential apartment building on the Schedule Property. That the construction consisting of basement ground+18 upper floors was carried on and completed after obtaining sanction from the Bangalore

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:36718 WP No. 33709 of 2016

¶34

Development Authority and Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) in terms of plan dated 08.11.2011. That after completion of the building, petitioner had also applied and obtained occupation certificate from the BBMP on 15.09.2015. That, it is further contention of the petitioners, that the preliminary notification and the final notification in question have been issued subsequent to completion of the building by the petitioners. It is further contended that if the acquisition is allowed, the petitioners may have to accommodate additional open space to comply with requirement of building bye-laws, which would be impractical and impossible under the circumstances. Hence, the petition.

¶35

Objection statement to the petition has been

¶36

filed by the respondent No.1-BMRCL, wherein at paragraph 10 it is stated as under:

¶37

"While it is true, that there exists an apartment complex on the land in Sy No.151, the acquired portion falls within the park area/ open space/ area earmarked for road widening, which has been relinquished in favour of the

¶38

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:36718 WP No. 33709 of 2016

¶39

BDA as aforesaid. No portion of the building is subject matter of acquisition".

¶40

Learned Senior counsel Sri.Nanda Kumar

¶41

appearing for the petitioners along with learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the said averment made in the objection statement by the respondent No.1, submits

¶42

that since a categoric statement is made by the respondent No.1 that no portion of the property belonging to the petitioners has been acquired, petitioners would not

¶43

insist or press for the relief sought for in the writ petition.

¶44

He further submits that the only apprehension

¶45

which constrained petitioners to file this petition, is if there was any acquisition, the same would affect the rights of the petitioners, inasmuch as, the acquisition would reduce the area required to be left open in terms of building bye-laws. He further submits that, since the respondent No.1 has made a categoric statement of they having not acquired any portion of the land belonging to the petitioners, the relief sought for may not survive.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2023:KHC:36718 WP No. 33709 of 2016

¶48

Submission taken on record.

¶49

It is necessary to note that this Court at request of

¶50

the senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, had permitted the petitioners to implead Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike as a party respondent No.5, inasmuch as the issue regarding open space that may emerge in view of the statement made in paragraph 10 of statement of objection, would have to be dealt with by respondent No.5-BBMP. But there is no representation on behalf of BBMP. However without expressing any view on the said aspect of the matter taking note of the aforesaid development, and the statement made in the objection statement, this petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail such remedy if need be, and if so advised in the matter.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

PHM

Smt H a Leenatha Reddy v. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt H a Leenatha Reddy v. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.

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

Siddalingaiah @ Siddalinge Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mallesh Vs State of Karnataka

Ms H C Meena Rani Vs the Commissioner

Smt Gangalakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri I M Omkar Vs State of Karnataka

K Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka