Disposed

Sri.C.N.Chitti Babu v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2023WP/7272/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition sought quashing of a notification and direction for alternate site allotment or compensation. The High Court held that representations cannot remain in cold storage and directed the Bengaluru Development Authority to consider the Petitioners' grievances within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd Respondent (BDA) to consider Petitioners' representations within three months and communicate results.

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

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^th DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.7272 OF 2022(LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.C N CHITTI BABU, S/O NARAYANA SWAMY NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, NO.59/3, 4^TH MAIN, 8^TH STAGE, MALAGALA, NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU – 560 091.

¶9

SMT.SUMATHI, W/O C N CHITTI BABU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, NO.59/3, 4^TH MAIN, 8^TH STAGE, MALAGALA, NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU – 560 091.

¶10

SRI.M.CHENNAVEERAIAH, S/O SIDDHALINGAYA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, NO.792, VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, GROUND FLOOR, OPP:ABJI PARK, TRIVENI FOOD, BENGALURU – 560 022.

¶11

SRI.SURESH T, S/O LATE THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, NO.81, G CROSS, NEW EXTENSION, BYATARAYANAPURA, OPP TO GALAXY BAR, BENGALURU – 560 026.

¶12

¶13

SMT.S.GEETHA, W/O SRUESHA T, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, NO.81, G CROSS, NEW EXTENSION, BYATARAYANAPURA, OPP TO GALAXY BAR, BENGALURU – 560 026.

¶14

SRI.H.R.RAJU, S/O H R RANGARAMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO.81, G CROSS, NEW EXTENSION, BYATARAYANAPURA, OPP TO GALAXY BAR, BENGALURU – 560 026.

¶15

SMT.PUSHPAVATI, W/O H R RAJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, NO.81, G CROSS, NEW EXTENSION, BYATARAYANAPURA, OPP TO GALAXY BAR, BENGALURU – 560 026.

¶16

SMT.A GOWRAMMA, W/O LATE BALARAJU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, NO.539, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, NEW BINNY LAYOUT, NEAR MUTTYALAMMA TEMPLE, BINNYPET, BENGALURU – 560 023.

¶17

SRI.ASHWATH, S/O G ANANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO.428, BINNI NEW LAYOUT, BINNIPET, BENGALURU – 560 023.

¶18

SRI.R.SUNDER RAJU, S/O LATE G RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO.16 & 17, 4^TH CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, NAVODAYANAGAR, J P NAGAR, 7^TH PHASE, BENGALURU – 560 076.

¶19

¶20

SMT.HEMALATHA B GIRIMATH, W/O BASAVARAJ B GIRIMATH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, NO.227, 7^TH CROSS, ANUBAVANAGAR, NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 072.

¶21

T PADMAKSHI, W/O RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, NO.307-J, BANDE MARAMMA PARK ROAD, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, 9^TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI 2^ND STAGE, 11^TH MAIN ROAD, NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU – 560 076.

¶22

T RANGAIAH, S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.296, 6^TH CROSS, BEHIND WATER TANK, J C NAGAR, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH.

¶23

MANJUNATHACHAR, M A, S/O LATE AJJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.25, PRAKRUTHI NILAYA, NEAR RR SCHOOL, DODDABMOMMASANDRA, VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU – 560 097.

¶24

...PETITIONERS

¶25

(BY SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH R P, ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶28

¶29

THE COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHROITY, KUMARAPARK, BENGALURU – 560 020.

¶30

THE SPL.LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDL.AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 002.

¶31

THE COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD, KAVER BHAVAN, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶32

NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES, NO.1 MID-FIRD GISYEM NUD FORD GARDEN MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.

¶33

… RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI.R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. S G HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. GOPAL V BILALMANE, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. B S SHRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B L SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SMT. ANUSHA DEVI H, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 08.05.2003 ISSUED BY THE R3 AND ISSUE DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO ALLOT ALTERNATE SITE OR IN THE ALTERNATE TO PAY COMPENSATION OF RS.60/- LAKHS PER SITE AND ETC.,

¶36

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

¶37

¶38

ORDER

¶39

Petitioners are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for the consideration of their Representation for the allotment of alternate sites allegedly, their property having been taken up for the benefit of 5^TH Respondent – Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises (‘NICE’ for short), which in turn has allotted it to BWSSB which is undertaking some construction activity in a part thereof. Learned counsel for the Petitioners vehemently argues that his clients are entitled to the grant of alternate sites and till their representation for such a grant is duly concerned, they should be protected from being dispossessed from their holding.

¶40

Learned counsel appearing for the KIADB and

¶41

for BWSSB oppose the Petition contending that the acquisition having taken place decades ago, possession of property has also been resumed in favour of 2^nd Respondent – NICE whose counsel too argues the same adding that the BWSSB has been in the possession of the

¶42

¶43

subject property. So contending, all they seek dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶44

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶45

parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court is of a considered opinion that when a citizen makes a representation airing the grievance, the same cannot be kept in a cold storage ad infinitum. Within a reasonable time, the consideration of such representation should take place in accordance with law at the hands of the jurisdictional authority, consistent with the constitutional mandate under Article 350 as interpreted by this Court in a catena of decisions. This having not happened, Petitioners are more than justified in complaining to the Writ Court.

¶46

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed off directing the 2^nd Respondent – BDA to consider Petitioners’ Representations in accordance with law also individually all they should be made known the

¶47

¶48

result of such consideration within three months. All contentions are kept open.

¶49

It is open to the 2^nd Respondent – BDA to solicit any information/documents from the side of Petitioners as is/are required for the due consideration of representation in question; of course, subject to the rider that in that guise, delay shall not be brooked.

¶50

Costs made easy.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

Bsv

Sri.C.N.Chitti Babu v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.C.N.Chitti Babu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Anasuyamma Vs the Bengaluru Development

Smt Sahana Subramanya Vs State of Karnataka

Official Liquidator Vs Nil

Nanjundappa Vs Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Dyavanna @ Dyavappa Vs the State of Karnataka

A K Jayachandra Reddy Vs the Bangalore Development Authority