Disposed

Dr.K.Prabhudas v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC14 Mar 2023WP/34423/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Division Bench disposed of a writ petition challenging a Bangalore Development Authority land acquisition notification by relegating the matter to a Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana Committee for redressal, ordering that petitioners be not dispossessed pending the Committee's decision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners relegated to the Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana Committee; restraint on dispossession of property pending Committee decision.

Dr.K.Prabhudas Vs the Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 34423 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 34423 OF 2014 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DR.K.PRABHUDAS, S/O LATE K.V.S. RAO, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, IVRI CAMPUS,HEBBAL, BANGALORE – 560 024.

¶9

SMT. B. SHALINI RAO D/O B. RAMACHANDRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT C/O DR. K. PRABHUDAS, IVRI CAMPUS, HEBBAL, BANGALORE - 560 024.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. SRINIVASA MURTHY S R.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 020.

¶16

THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 020.

¶17

THE SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. AMENDED V.C.O DATED 25.08.2014

¶18

¶19

WP No. 34423 of 2014

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. M B PRABHAKAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R3)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE R-2 AT ANNX-A DT.18.6.2014 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THE SAME IS UNENFORCEABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW AND PROTECT THE INTEREST OF THE PETITIONERS BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION AT ANNX-A AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Petitioners claiming to be the owners of the subject

¶26

land are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for laying a challenge to the Final Notification dated 18.06.2014 issued by State Government u/s.19(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. They also seek a writ of mandamus to the respondent not to dispossess them except by due process of law.

¶27

After service of notice, the respondent-BDA & its SLAO are represented by their Panel Counsel Sri M.B.Prabhakar; the 3^rd respondent is represented by the learned AGA. They submit that in matters of this kind

¶28

¶29

WP No. 34423 of 2014

¶30

already a Committee has been constituted headed by Hon’ble Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana, pursuant to order of a Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.51929/2014 & Connected Matters, between K.P.ANJANAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, is disposed off on 27.09.2021; therefore the petitioners may be relegated to the said Committee for redressal of their grievances. There is force in this submission since such a course has been adopted by this Court in several similar matters.

¶31

The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.932-933/1974 between A.V.VINODA & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY, disposed of on 11.12.1974, has held that the Court should treat the like-cases alike and if relief is granted to a litigant it has to be extended to a similarly situated litigant as well, there being no derogatory circumstances.

¶32

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed off. Petitioners are permitted to approach the

¶33

¶34

WP No. 34423 of 2014

¶35

Hon’ble Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana Committee for

¶36

redressal of their grievances in accordance with law, within six weeks. All contentions are kept open.

¶37

It is made clear that till the Committee takes a decision, the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the subject property.

¶38