Disposed

Mrs. Elizabeth Simon George v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Jan 2023WP/54730/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposes a writ petition challenging land acquisition. The court directs the Respondent BDA to coordinate with a Justice Committee regarding the petitioners' claims and orders maintenance of status quo until the committee decides.

What did the court decide?

Status quo regarding possession and structures maintained; BDA directed to coordinate with Justice Committee for acquisition claims.

Mrs. Elizabeth Simon George Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.54730 OF 2014 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . MRS. ELIZABETH SIMON GEORGE AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, W/O DR. SIMON GEORGE, PYNUMOOTIL HOUSE, KUTTAPUZHA, TIRUVALLA, PAHANUMATHITTA DISTRICT, KERALA STATE,

¶9

REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER

¶10

MR. V.P. MATHEW, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS S/O LATE MATHAI, R/AT NO.13, HIGH STREET, COOKE TOWN, BANGALORE – 560 005 .

¶11

2 . DR. SIMON PYNUMOOTIL GEORGE S/O LATE MR. PYNUMOOTIL VARKEY GEORGE, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT PYNUMOOTIL HOUSE, IKUTTAPUZHA, TIRUVELLA, PAHANUMATHITTA DISTRICT, KERALA STATE,

¶12

REPRESENTED BY HER G P A HOLDER MR. V.P. MATHEW,

¶13

¶14

S/O LATE MATHAI, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/AT NO.13, HIGH STREET, COOKE TOWN, BANGALORE – 560 005

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY V.K., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOEVERNMENT URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶19

2 . THE BANAGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY B.D.A. OFFICE, SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 021

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. AJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 27.8.2010 AND 27.8.2010 AND

¶23

13.12.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-G, G1 AND G2 FOR EXEMPTION FROM THE ACQUISITION OF THE PETIITONERS SCHEDULE

¶24

¶25

PROPERTIES AND TO PERMIT THEM TO OWN AND CONTINUE IN THEIR HOUSE SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF DIFFERENCE IN MARET VALUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.,

¶26

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

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the subject matter of this Writ Petition is substantially similar to the one in W.P.No.51929/2014 & connected matters between SRI. K.P.ANJANAPPA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS , disposed off by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 27.09.2021, wherein some relief has been granted to the litigant therein and therefore, the same be extended to his clients as well.

¶29

In support of his contention, learned counsel cites a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in W.A.Nos.932-933/1974 between A.V.VINODA & ANOTHER

¶30

¶31

vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY, disposed off on 11.12.1974 . There is no much controversion as to the relief having been granted to the litigant in the cognate Writ Petition supra . If that be so, the same cannot be denied to the Petitioners who are similarly circumstanced in this matter. Whether relief needs to be granted or not, is for the Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana Committee constituted pursuant to an order of learned Single Judge of this Court in the above Writ Petition itself.

¶32

In view of the above, Writ Petition is disposed off. The Respondent - BDA is directed to co-ordinate in the matter before the above Committee for considering Petitioners’ claim for deletion of the lands/sites from the acquisition process or for allotment of some other site by way of alternate relief, in that regard, all contentions are kept open.

¶33

¶34

Till consideration of Petitioners’ claim takes place, the

¶35

status-quo with regard to possession & structures in the land shall be maintained.

¶36

Ordered accordingly and Writ Petition is disposed off,

¶37

costs having been made easy.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Mrs. Elizabeth Simon George v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Elizabeth Simon George 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

Mysore Venkataswamy Chettiar Trust Vs State of Karnataka

Vikram J Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B Chandrashekar Hebbar Vs the Commissioner

K v Srinivas Rao Vs State of Karnataka

Gajanana Kamath Vs State of Karnataka

Gajanana Govinda Pai Vs State of Karnataka