Disposed

Sri v. Hanumantarayappa v the Chairman

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2023WP/6168/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of writ petition challenging non-consideration of representation for land allotment instead of cash compensation. Respondents assured compliance with Government Guidelines and prior Court observations within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direct authorities to consider petitioner's representation for land allotment in lieu of cash compensation within three months.

Sri v Hanumantarayappa Vs the Chairman — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 6168 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 6168 OF 2022 (LA-BDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. V HANUMANTARAYAPPA, S/O LATE VENKATASHAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/A NO.670, 23^RD CROSS, IST STAGE, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 078. BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

THE CHAIRMAN, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 020.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 020.

¶16

THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 020.

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶18

¶19

WP No. 6168 of 2022

¶20

URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIDANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. B VACHAN.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R4)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 TO 3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06.11.2021 ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE R1 TO 3 FOR ALLOTMENT OF DEVELOPED SITES/LAND RATIO INSTEAD OF CASH COMPENSATION AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER AND ETC AS PER THE JUDGEMENT PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN W.P.NO.19619/2013, W.P.NO.42987678/2016, W.P.NO.7826/2021 ANNEXURES-G1 TO G3.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The short grievance of the petitioner is as to nonconsideration of his representation dated 6.11.2021, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-A wherein he has sought for allotment of site/land in lieu of cash compensation in the light of Government Guidelines dated 3.11.2011 at Annexure-D and certain observations made by a Coordinate Beech of this court in W.P.No.16919/2013 between YELLAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS , disposed off on 28.6.2013.

¶27

¶28

WP No. 6168 of 2022

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently

¶30

argues that once the citizen makes a representation airing his grievance, the respondent-authorities are bound to consider the same and inform result of such consideration as is mandated by Article 350 of the Constitution in the light of interpretation placed by this court thereon in a catena of decisions.

¶31

After service of notice, the learned AGA appears

¶32

for respondent No.4-State & learned Senior Panel Counsel appears for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3. They oppose the petition contending that where the land is acquired by consent, consideration of representation of the kind would not arise since that would militate against the consensus on which certain arrangement is established. Having so contended, the Panel Counsel now agrees to instruct his clients to look into the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law, keeping in view the subject Government Guidelines and the observations of the

¶33

¶34

WP No. 6168 of 2022

¶35

Coordinate Bench made in the case supra. He assures the court that this exercise would be done within a reasonable period. This is really appreciable.

¶36

In view of the above, Writ Petition is disposed off. Time for compliance for accomplishing the task undertaken is three months. All contentions are kept open.

¶37

Now, no costs.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

cbc

Sri v. Hanumantarayappa v the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri v. Hanumantarayappa v the Chairman

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

Dr L Umesh Vs State of Karnataka

M S Ramaiah City Residents Welfare Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Sri. Dinesh. L. S. Vs Union of India

Muralidhar K T Vs State of Karnataka

T v Sundar Raj Vs State of Karnataka

N Krishna Moorthy Vs the Bangalore Development Authority