Disposed

Smt.M. Varalakshmi Alias Nalina v. the Bangalore Development Authority

Karnataka HC15 Oct 2024WP/16346/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landowners sought a direction to the BDA to refer their compensation claim for land acquired for Dr. Shivarama Karantha Layout to the Reference Court. The Court directed referral under Section 18 of the Bangalore Development Act, continued the interim restraint on disbursement, left all contentions open, and disposed of the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt.M. Varalakshmi Alias Nalina Vs the Bangalore… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:41513-DB WP No. 16346 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 16346 OF 2023 (LA-BDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT.M. VARALAKSHMI ALIAS NALINA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O K.S.THIMMARAJU, NO.23, 5^TH MAIN, BHUVANESHWARI NAGARA, T. DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK – 560 057.

¶10

Digitally signed by KAVYA G Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SRI. M. PURUSHOTHAMA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI. MUDDURAJU, R/A NO.43, 2^ND CROSS, HANUMANTHAPPA BADAVANE, CHIKKASANDRA, BANGALORE – 560 057.

¶12

SMT. M. KUMARI, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, D/O LATE MUDDURAJU, R/A NO.41, 1^ST FLOOR, 2^ND CROSS, HANUMANTHAPPA BADAVANE, CHIKKASANDRA, BANGALORE – 560 057.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. ARJITH R REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.K.N.SUBBA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:41513-DB WP No. 16346 of 2023

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, KUMARA PARK, BANGALORE – 560 020.

¶18

THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SHIVARAMA KARANTHA BADAVANE, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK, BANGALORE – 560 020.

¶19

SMT.AKKAYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, W/O LATE CHIKKANNA, R/AT NO.4, 2^ND CROSS, 12^TH MAIN, BAGALAGUNTE, NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE – 560 073.

¶20

SMT.LALITHA, W/O SREEPATHI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.4, 2^ND CROSS, 12^TH MAIN, BAGALAGUNTE, NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE – 560 073.

¶21

SMT.GANGAMMA, W/O MUDDARAJU, R/AT NO.L, 118/3, 11^TH CROSS, L.N.PURAM, SRIRAMPURA POST, BANGALORE – 560 021.

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:41513-DB WP No. 16346 of 2023

¶23

SMT.GIRIJAMMA, AGE 54 YEARS, W/O LATE HANUMANTHARAJU, R/AT GANIGARAHALLI, CHIKKABANAVARA POST, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK – 560 090.

¶24

SRI.VARADARAJU, AGE 30 YEARS, S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAJU, R/AT GANIGARAHALLI, CHIKKABANAVARA POST, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK – 560 090.

¶25

SMT.KUSUMAVATHI, D/O LATE HANUMANTHARAJU, AGE 30 YEARS, R/AT GANIGARAHALLI, CHIKKABANAVARA POST, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK – 560 090.

¶26

SRI.KUMARASWAMY, AGE 26 YEARS, S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAJU, R/AT GANIGARAHALLI, CHIKKABANAVARA POST, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK – 560 090.

¶27

SMT.ANUSUYA, W/O LATE NAGARAJU, AGE 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.662, 16^TH CROSS MAIN, MEI LAYOUT, HESARAGATTA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 073.

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:41513-DB WP No. 16346 of 2023

¶29

11. KUM.DIVYA,

¶30

D/O LATE NAGARAJU, AGE 23 YEARS, R/AT NO.662, 16^TH CROSS MAIN, MEI LAYOUT, HESARAGATTA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 073.

¶31

SRI.ASHWIN, S/O LATE NAGARAJU, AGE 13 YEARS, REP. BY R-8, R/AT NO.662, 16^TH CROSS MAIN, MEI LAYOUT, HESARAGATTA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 073.

¶32

SMT.JAYASHREE, W/O SHAMA SUNDAR, AGE 30 YEARS, R/AT 51/4, CHANDREGOWDA BUILDING, DEFENSE COLONY, NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE – 560 073.

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADV., FOR R1 & R2;

¶35

SRI. H. SUBHASH CHANDRA, ADV., FOR R6 & R8; SRI. B.N. SUNIL KUMAR, ADV., FOR R7; SRI. S. SRIKANTH, ADV., FOR R10 TO R12)

¶36

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE REFERENCE COURT FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:41513-DB WP No. 16346 of 2023

¶39

COMPENSATION IN THE ACQUISITION OF THE PETITION MENTIONED LANDS BELOW OF THE PETITIONERS ACQUIRED FOR THE FORMATION OF THE DR SHIVARAMA KARANTHA LAYOUT VIDE NOTIFICATION DTD 30.10.2018 ANNEXURE-C.

¶40

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

¶41

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶42

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶43

ORAL ORDER

¶44

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

¶45

The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following

¶46

prayers:

¶47

"I. Issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other Writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent Authorities to refer the matter to the reference court for the adjudication of compensation in the acquisition of the petition mentioned lands below of the Petitioners, acquired for the formation of the Dr. Shivarama Karantha Layout vide notification dated 30.10.2018 - Ann-C.

¶48

II. ISSUE any other Writ, order or direction and such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case."

¶49

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Arjith R. Reddy, for

¶50

Sri.K.N.Subba Reddy, appearing for the petitioners, the learned

¶51

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:41513-DB WP No. 16346 of 2023

¶52

counsel Sri.Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, the learned counsel Sri.H.Subhash Chandra, appearing for respondent Nos.6 and 8, the learned counsel Sri.B.N.Sunil Kumar, appearing for respondent No.7 and the learned counsel Sri.S.Srikanth, appearing for respondent Nos.10 to 12.

¶53

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that if a direction is issued to the respondents - Authorities to refer the matter to the Reference Court for adjudication of a compensation in terms of Section 18 of the Bangalore Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), would suffice.

¶54

4. This Court while entertaining the petition had passed the following order:

¶55

"Sri. Vivek Subba Reddy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners makes an oral request to array the respondents in the Regular First Appeal (F.R No.1522/2023) who are the contesting parties, as additional respondents in this petition. The said request is acceded to. The petitioners are at liberty to array the private respondents in the R.F.A. (F.R No.1522/2023) as additional respondents in this petition. Necessary amendment to be carried out to the cause title forthwith. It is submitted that in terms of the notices issued at Annexure-E series, the respondent - BDA may disburse

¶56

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC:41513-DB WP No. 16346 of 2023

¶58

compensation to the private respondents without waiting for the outcome of R.F.A. (F.R No.1522/2023). In light of the said submission made, subject to further consideration, respondent - BDA is directed not to disburse compensation to the private respondents till the next date of hearing. Sri. K Krishna, learned counsel accepts notice for respondents 1 and 2. Issue notice to the private respondents."

¶59

In terms of the afore-quoted order, the amount of compensation that was then determined was directed not to be released to the private respondents, till the next date of hearing.

¶60

Since the prayer is for referring the matter to the Reference Court for adjudication of higher compensation, we deem it appropriate to direct the Bangalore Development Authority to refer the matter to the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act.

¶61

In the light of the interim order afore-quoted subsisting today, we deem it appropriate to continue the order, till the Reference Court would take up the matter and decide on any application filed by the concerned parties therein and regulate its procedure thereafter.

¶62

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:41513-DB WP No. 16346 of 2023

¶63

All contentions shall remain open.

¶64

With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands

¶65

disposed.

¶66

Ordered accordingly.

¶67

Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the

¶68

un-served respondents.

¶69

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶70

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶71

SJK

¶72

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Smt.M. Varalakshmi Alias Nalina v. the Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt.M. Varalakshmi Alias Nalina v. the Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri H Nataraja Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Chandrashekar R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri a Govindaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Suresh B R Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Lakshminarayana Vs State of Karnataka