Disposed

Sri D K Mohan v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Nov 2024WP/13903/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A landowner sought direction to the Bangalore Development Authority to pay balance land acquisition compensation or allot an alternative site. The court directed respondent No.3 to consider his representation in accordance with law in light of an earlier writ petition's order within four months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.3 to consider Annexure-N representation per earlier court order within four months.

Sri D K Mohan Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:45585 WP No. 13903 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.13903 OF 2024 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. D.K. MOHAN S/O LATE R KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT NO.303, 4^TH 'B' CROSS 3^RD BLOCK, H R B R LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560043.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAMA MOORTHY B.V., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHROITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:45585 WP No. 13903 of 2024

¶18

S. NIRANJAN FATHER NAME IS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITONER AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS AEE, INFRASTURURE DIVIISON BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06.09.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-N AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO PAY THE BALANCE COMPENSATION AMOUNT OF RS.2,64,46,390.00/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12 PERCENT PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF ACQUISITION OF THE LAND TILL REALIZATION ALTERNATIVELY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO ALLOT ALTERNATIVE SITE TO THE PETITIONER EITHER IN HRBR LAYOUT OR HBR LAYOUT, BANGALORE TO THE PETITIONER BY WAY OF ISSUE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:45585 WP No. 13903 of 2024

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the writ papers.

¶28

The grievance made out by the petitioner is to consider the representation dated 06.09.2022 produced as Annexure-N to the writ petition, in the light of the Order dated 29.03.2021 passed in W.P. No.24685/2019 (Annexure-H), in respect of the land being acquired by the respondent - BDA.

¶29

In that view of the matter, respondent No.3 herein is directed to consider the representation produced at Annexure-N in accordance with law, in the light of the Order of this Court dated 29.03.2021 in W.P. No.24685/2019, within outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶30

The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶31

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶32

sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Sri D K Mohan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri D K Mohan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Mangamma Vs the Principal Secretary

Reddy Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Yashoda Veeramayanna Vs Karnataka Industrial Area

The Magadi Taluk Agricultural Produce Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.K.M. Somanna Vs Bangalore Development Authority

K Narayan Vs the Commissioner