Disposed

Mr. B. Sathyanarayanachar, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Jun 2023WP/9386/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging land acquisition notifications. The petitioner sought quashing of notifications and restraint on demolition of a nursery. The Court directed the respondent committee to decide a representation within four weeks, restrained demolition pending such decision, and explicitly abstained from expressing any opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent committee to decide the petitioner's representation within four weeks; restraint on action to demolish the nursery pending decision.

Mr. B. Sathyanarayanachar, Vs the State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:22183 WP No.9386 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.9386 OF 2023 (LA-BDA)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

MR. B. SATHYANARAYANACHAR S/O LATE RAGHAVENDRACHAR AGED ABOUT 91 YEARS NO.58, T P VENUGOPAL LAYOUT ANANDNAGARA, HEBBAL POST BENGALURU -560024.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. KIRAN V. RON, ADV.,)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.

¶17

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶18

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST, SANKEY ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:22183 WP No.9386 of 2023

¶21

JUSTICE A.V. CHANDRASHEKAR COMMITTEE FOR DR. SHIVRAMA KARANTH LAYOUT BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PREMISES, 5TH MAIN ROAD KUMARAPARK WEST, GUTTAHALLI BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560020 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. B. RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. JAY KUMAR S. PATIL, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADV., FOR R2 & R3 SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADV., FOR R4)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED FINAL NOTIFICATION DTD 30.10.2018 BEARING NO.UDD/553/MNX/2018 (ANNX-A) BENGALUR ISSUED BY THE R-1 THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT SECRETARIAT, R-1 IN SO FAR AS LANDS OF PETITIONER IS CONCERNED IN RESPECT TO SY NO.11/2 (NOW SY NO.11/8) AT KEMPANAHALLI VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI VADERAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH VIDYARANAPURA POST BENGALURU FOR DR K SHIVARAMKARNATH LAYOUT. DIRECTING THE R-2 TO GRANT COMPENSATION UNDER THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT 2013 & ETC.

¶25

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:22183 WP No.9386 of 2023

¶27

ORDER

¶28

In this writ petition, the petitioner who is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.11/2 (new No.11/8) situated at Kempanahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk measuring 1 acre, has assailed the validity of the preliminary notification dated 30.12.2008 as well as final notification dated 30.10.2018 issued under the Bangalore Development Act, 1976.

¶29

Mr.Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner in this petition is confined to the consideration of representation dated 23.09.2021 submitted by the petitioner to the respondent No.4 with regard to his grievance, and the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to respondent No.4 to consider the aforesaid representation. It is further submitted that steps are being taken to demolish the

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:22183 WP No.9386 of 2023

¶32

nursery and therefore, the respondent be restrained from demolishing the nursery.

¶33

On the other hand, Mr.Jayakumar S.Patil,

¶34

learned Senior counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that according to Bangalore Development Authority, such a representation has not been submitted to respondent No.4.

¶35

Be that as it may, respondent No.4 namely the Committee headed by Justice A.V.Chandrashekar shall decide the representation dated 23.09.2021 submitted by the petitioner with regard to his grievance, within a period of four weeks.

¶36

Needless to state that it would be open for the Committee to ascertain whether or not such a representation dated 23.09.2021 has been submitted by the petitioner and to take a decision on its merits.

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC:22183 WP No.9386 of 2023

¶38

¶39

Till the representation is decided, no action shall

¶40

be taken to demolish the nursery, if not already taken.

¶41

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits and claims of the parties.

¶42

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.

¶43