Disposed

Smt Punitha M v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Nov 2024WP/15266/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Bengaluru Development Authority to consider a representation by petitioners regarding compensation for land acquired for a layout project within three months. The judgment disposed of the writ petition filing under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Bengaluru Development Authority to consider the petitioners' representation dated 27.02.2024 within three months.

Smt Punitha M Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:46069 WP No. 15266 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 15266 OF 2024 (LA-BDA)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. PUNITHA M, W/O LATE NAGARAJA M, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.74, ULLALU BASTHI, ULLALU UPANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 056.

¶8

SRI. RAJITH N, S/O LATE NAGARAJA M, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.74, ULLALU BASTHI, ULLALU UPANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 056.

¶9

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA

¶10

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SRI. MANJUNATHA N, S/O LATE NAGARAJA M, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO.74, ULLALU BASTHI, ULLALU UPANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 056.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. ANANDA K., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:46069 WP No. 15266 of 2024

¶17

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶18

THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH B., AGA FOR R1; SRI. AJAY KUMAR M., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.02.2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AT ANNEXURE-L AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT AND TO GRANT OTHER ACQUISITION BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONERS IN LIEU OF ACQUISITION OF THE LAND IN SY.NO.160/p6, OLD NO.160 MEASURING 1 ACRE 1 GUNTAS SITUATED AT RAMASANDRA VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:46069 WP No. 15266 of 2024

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶28

The grievance of the petitioners in this petition is with regard to the fact that land in question is belonging to the petitioners and the declaration has been made in the suit in O.S.No.1035/2019 consequently in Ex.P.No.113/2022.

¶29

It is the grievance of the petitioners that the land belonging to the petitioners has been acquired by the respondent-BDA for the purpose of formation of Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout. In this regard, it is stated in the representation dated 27.02.2024 (Annexure-L) that petitioners are ready to relinquish their rights insofar as the land in question in favour of respondent-BDA and to claim compensation accordingly. Accordingly in this aspect of the matter petitioners have made representation dated 27.02.2024 (Annexure-L) to respondent No.2 and the representation is unattended.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:46069 WP No. 15266 of 2024

¶32

In that view of the matter, respondent No.2 is

¶33

directed to consider the representation dated 27.02.2024 (Annexure-L) within an outer limit of three months from the receipt of this order.

¶34

With the above observations, writ petition is disposed

¶35

of .

¶36

Sd/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶37

GPG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52 CT: BHK

Smt Punitha M v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Punitha M 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

Karnataka State Road Vs the Assistant Provident

Smt Jayamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Jemcy Ponnappa C P Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Thimmanaika Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Geedamma Alias Lingamma Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Shylaja H a Vs the State of Karnataka