Disposed

M.Nagaraj v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC2 Jan 2024WP/11834/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging action for possession of civic amenity sites. Court directed Town Planning Member to hear petitioners on documents proving sites are not civic amenity. Directed authorities to initiate action against society if illegal sale is found. Petition disposed allowing appropriate orders post hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directing Town Planning Member to hear petitioners and pass orders within three months; restraining petitioners from creating third-party rights; directing Government/BDA/BBMP to initiate action again

M.Nagaraj Vs the Commissioner — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:104 WP No. 11834 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.11834 OF 2022 (BDA)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O. LATE SHIVANAHALLI MUNIYAPPA NO.11, 1ST CROSS, KAVERI LAYOUT LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA TEMPLE STREET NAGARABHAVI BANGALORE-560 040.

¶8

SMT. M.S. JOTHI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS W/O. RAJAKUMAR D.A. R/AT NO.309, 6TH CROSS 1ST 'B' MAIN, VINAYAKA LAYOUT 4TH STAGE, NAGARABHAVI

¶9

9TH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 072.

¶10

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

LOHITH BABU D. AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O. LATE V. DASAPPA R/AT NO.141, 5TH CROSS VINAYAKA LAYOUT, 4TH STAGE NAGARABHAVI, 9TH BLOCK BENGALURU-72.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:104 WP No. 11834 of 2022

¶18

BELLARY ROAD, KUMARA KRUPA BENGALURU-560 020.

¶19

TOWN PLANNING MEMBER BDA, CHOWDAIAH ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.

¶20

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR SUB DIVISON BBMP NEXT TO HOPCOMS NEHRU ROAD, NEAR SWAMY VIVEKANANDA PARK BEML 3RD STAGE

¶21

BANGALORE-560 098.

¶22

THE INDIAN TELEPHONE INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES DOORAVANINAGAR BENGALURU-560 016 BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶23

H.N. REVAIAH AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS S/O. LATE NANJUNDAIAH M.NO.EX.18209 NO.24, RANGANATHA NILAYA 4TH MAIN, GANGAPPA BLOCK GANGANAGAR, R.T. NAGAR POST BENGALURU-560 032.

¶24

(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DATED 27.03.2023)

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI K.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 & R.2; SRI G.A. ANTHONY CRUZE, ADVOCATE FOR R.5; R.3 & R.4 ARE SERVED.)

¶27

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO PASS A WRIT OF APPROPRIATE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT VIDE NO.BEMAAPRA/NAYOSA/PRL-15/2002-

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:104 WP No. 11834 of 2022

¶29

03/MIS-2041/1580/2020-21, DATED 23.02.2021, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AS PER ANNEXURE-K AND THE PUBLIC NOTICE VIDE NO.SA.KAA.AA/RAARAANAOOV/P.R/44/2022-23, DATED 17.05.2022, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AS PER ANNEXURE-L, IN RESPECT OF SITE NOS.104-B, 104/C & 104/D SITUATED AT MALATHALLI VILLAGE, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, AS ILLEGAL ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION ETC.

¶30

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The case of the petitioners is that they are members

¶33

of respondent no.4-Housing Co-operative Society. The said respondent no.4 formed a layout in Malathahalli,

¶34

Bengaluru North Taluk. The said layout was approved by respondent no.1/Bangalore Development Authority. On the ground that, apart from sites being formed where it was permitted, sites were also formed in civic amenity sites and sold to the members of respondent no.4, action has been initiated to recover the said civic amenity sites. Accordingly, action has been initiated against the petitioners herein wherein it has been alleged that the sites allotted to them are civic amenity sites, which should

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:104 WP No. 11834 of 2022

¶37

have been surrendered to respondent no.1/BDA. The same is challenged in the instant writ petition on the ground that, subsequently, a modified plan has been approved and the sites allotted to the petitioners do not come within the civic amenity sites and the impugned orders have been passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioners to show that their sites do not fall within the civic amenity sites.

¶38

In the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if an opportunity is given, the petitioners would establish that the sites allotted to them do not fall within the civic amenity sites but are proper housing sites which are to be allotted to the members of respondent no.4-Society.

¶39

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 submits that in spite of providing sufficient opportunity, the petitioners did not appear before respondent no.2, because of which the impugned orders

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:104 WP No. 11834 of 2022

¶42

have been passed and he justifies the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶43

If the sites allotted to the petitioners are indeed civic amenity sites as contended by respondent no.1 herein, then in that event, possession of the said sites will have to be taken over by Bangalore Development Authority ('BDA' for short) or Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('BBMP' for short), as the case may be and the petitioners cannot claim any right over the same. However, if the said sites are not part of the civic amenity sites, then in that event, no action can be initiated against the petitioners.

¶44

Under the said circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to direct respondent no.2 to hear the petitioners and pass appropriate orders and not to proceed with the matter till such a decision is taken. Further, this Court is also of the opinion that, if it is found that respondent no.4 had indeed sold portion of civic amenity sites in favour of the petitioners, then appropriate action has to be initiated against the persons

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:104 WP No. 11834 of 2022

¶47

responsible for functioning of respondent no.4 and the Government/BDA/BBMP be directed to initiate appropriate action against respondent no.4 and its office bearers both under civil and criminal law.

¶48

6. Hence, the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(i) Petitioners are directed to appear before respondent no.2 on 18th January 2024 without further notice and produce necessary documents to show that the sites allotted to them are not part of civic amenity sites. Respondent no.2 shall pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioners in accordance with law but not later than three months from 18.01.2024. Till such an order is passed, no precipitative action shall be taken against the petitioners. Further, the petitioners are also restrained from creating any third party rights over the property or otherwise changing the nature of the property;

¶51

(ii) Government/BDA/BBMP are hereby directed to initiate appropriate action against the erring officers of respondent no.4, if it is found that they have

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:104 WP No. 11834 of 2022

¶54

allotted part of civic amenity sites in favour of the petitioners or any other person.

¶55

(iii) The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Pending I.A.No.1/2023 filed for early hearing also stands disposed of.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

hkh.

M.Nagaraj v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Nagaraj v. the Commissioner

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

The Special Deputy Commissioner Vs Shri K K Sheriff

Mallappa S/O. Veerbadharappa Gadagin Vs the State of Karnataka

The Prathamika Krushi Pattina Sahakari Sangha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. B. G Umesh Vs Sri. N. Krishnappa

Sri M G Munirathna Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Srinivasa Vs the State of Karnataka