Disposed

Smt B N Vishalakshamma, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2024WP/15247/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 to quash a preliminary notification regarding land acquisition. During hearing, the petitioners filed a memo withdrawing the petition due to procedural errors regarding the date of notification, seeking liberty to file a fresh petition. The court took the memo on record and disposed of the writ petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition withdrawn; liberty granted to file fresh petition with true facts and circumstances.

Smt B N Vishalakshamma, Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:38793-DB WP No. 15247 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 15247 OF 2023 (LA-BDA)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. B.N.VISHALAKSHAMMA W/O SRI SUBHRAMANYAM AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT SHAMARAJAPURA VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI

¶11

BENGALURU NORTH TALUK – 560 090.

¶12

SRI B.N.JAGADEESH S/O B.M.NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS

¶13

R/O DODDABETTAHALLI VILLAGE

¶14

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

YELAHANKA HOBLI

¶16

BENGALURU NORTH TALUK – 562 117.

¶17

SMT. M.C.PADMAVATHI W/O SRI B.N.JAGADEESH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O DODDABETTAHALLI VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI

¶18

BENGALURU NORTH TALUK – 562 117.

¶19

SMT. G.R.SAHANA D/O SRI B.N.JAGADEESH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38793-DB WP No. 15247 of 2023

¶21

R/O DODDABETTAHALLI VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI

¶22

BENGALURU NORTH TALUK – 562 117.

¶23

SRI B.K.SRINIVAS MURTHY S/O LATE B.M.KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O DODDABETTAHALLI VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK – 562 117.

¶24

SMT. SHOBHA W/O SRI B.K.SRINIVAS MURTHY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O DODDABETTAHALLI VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI

¶25

BENGALURU NORTH TALUK – 562 117.

¶26

…PETITIONERS

¶27

(BY SRI RUDRABHUSHAN C. B., ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶30

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU – 560 020.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:38793-DB WP No. 15247 of 2023

¶33

THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU – 560 020.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SMT. ANUKANKSHA KALKERI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI SHIVAPRASAD M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DTD 19/08/2022 MADE IN NO. BDA/DC(LA)/67/2022-23 ISSUED UNDER SEC 17(1) AND (3) OF THE BDA ACT ISSUED BY THE R-2 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A SO FAR AS THE PETITION LANDS ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.,

¶37

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

¶38

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶39

ORAL ORDER

¶40

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioners files a memo seeking

¶42

permission to withdraw the petition.

¶43

The memo of withdrawal reads as follows:

¶44

“Counsel for Petitioner hereby submits that the Petitioners have wrongly challenged the Preliminary Notification dated 19.08.2022 and the Final Notification dated 18.10.2022 in the above said Writ Petition instead of Preliminary Notification dated 30.12.2008 and Final Notification dated 30.10.2018. Therefore, the undersigned counsel on behalf

¶45

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38793-DB WP No. 15247 of 2023

¶46

of the Petitioner is filing this Memo for withdrawal to withdraw the above said case with a liberty to file fresh Writ Petition with true facts and circumstances before this Hon'ble Court. I pray this Hon'ble Court to take the said memo on record and dispose of above said Writ Petition as sought for, in the interest of Justice and Equity. .”

¶47

The memo is taken on record. The Writ Petition is

¶48

disposed in terms of the memo.

¶49

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶50

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶51

NVJ

¶52

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3 CT:SS

Smt B N Vishalakshamma, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt B N Vishalakshamma, 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

Erla Lakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Krishna Vs the State of Karnataka

Yashodamma D N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Deepu C R Vs Bengaluru Development Authority

Sri. R Chandrappa Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Gangamma Vs the State of Karnataka