Disposed

Sri. N. Krishnappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Apr 2023WP/53091/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging preliminary and final land acquisition notifications. Relying on a coordinate bench judgment, the Court granted liberty to approach the Justice K.N. Keshavanarayana Committee without disturbing land occupation.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to approach Hon'ble Justice K.N. Keshavanarayana Committee for redressal granted; occupation of site not to be disturbed. All contentions kept open.

Sri. N. Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 53091 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 53091 OF 2016 (LA-BDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. N. KRISHNAPPA , S/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶10

SRI. N. VENKATESH, S/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶11

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.385, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, HEBBAL, BANGALORE-560 024.

¶12

SRI. MUNIRAJU S/O. LATE VENKATASWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED

¶16

SRI. BALAKRISHNA, S/O. LATE VENKATASWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶17

SRI. V. SRINIVAS, S/O. LATE VENKATASWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶18

SL NO.3 TO 5 ARE R/AT NO.1^ST MAIN, HEBBAL, BANGALORE-560 024.

¶19

SRI. K.V. KRISHNAPPA S/O. LATE V. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶20

¶21

WP No. 53091 of 2016

¶22

R/AT NO., 1^ST MAIN ROAD, HEBBAL, BANGALORE-560 024. SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED

¶23

SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O. LATE GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.1^ST MAIN, HEBBAL, BANGALORE-560 024.

¶24

…PETITIONERS

¶25

(BY SRI. C M DESAI.,ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶28

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BY ITS COMMISSIONER, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020.

¶29

THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI.SRIDHAR HEGDE., AGA FOR R1; SRI. AJAY KUMAR M.,ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 03.02.2003 ISSUED BY THE R-2 UNDER SEC. 17(1) OF BDA ACT, VIDE ANNEX-C AND FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 23.02.2004, ISSUED BY R-1 UNDER SEC. 19(1) OF BDA ACT, VIDE ANNEX-F AND RE-MODIFIED NOTIFICATION DATED 18.06.2014 ISSUED BY R-1 U/S 19(1) OF THE BDA ACT, VIDE ANNEX-L IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS' PROPERTIES BEARING SY.NO.57/2 MEASURING 1 ACRE 36 GUNTAS AND SY.NO.57/3, MEASURING 1 ACRE 37 GUNTAS OF HEBBAL VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, IS CONCERNED AS LAPSED IN TERMS OF SEC. 24 OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION

¶33

¶34

WP No. 53091 of 2016

¶35

AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUSITION REHABILITATION KAND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 AND ETC.,

¶36

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

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The subject matter of this Writ Petition is

¶39

substantially similar to the one in W.P.No.51929/2014 and Connected Matters, between K.P.ANJANAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, disposed off, by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 27.09.2021, granting some reprieve to the litigants therein.

¶40

Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that his clients also need to be granted same relief as has been accorded to the litigants in the cognate writ petition in the absence of any derogatory factors. Learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the Respondents does not much dispute this submission and agrees that the Petitioner be given liberty to approach the Hon’ble Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana Committee for redressal of his grievance, in accordance with law.

¶41

¶42

WP No. 53091 of 2016

¶43

Ordered accordingly & Writ Petition is disposed off,

¶44

all contentions having been kept open.

¶45

If the parties are in the occupation of the subject site/s shall not be disturbed till after and subject to the outcome of decision of Hon’ble Justice

¶46

K.N.Keshavanarayana Committee.

¶47

No costs.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Bsv

Sri. N. Krishnappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. N. Krishnappa 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K S Yadiyur Sidalingeswara Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Jayamma Vs the Commissioner

Sri Shankaranna Vs the State of Karnatak a

Mr. M. Mahadevaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. K. S. Lalithamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Yes Bank Limited Vs Nel Holdings South Limited