Disposed

Yashodamma D N v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Aug 2024WP/19848/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench disposed of the writ petition by reiterating the directions of the Supreme Court and a prior division bench order. The court directed the petitioner to approach the Bopaiah Committee for consideration of her grievances and ordered the BDA to notify applicants and maintain status quo until the Committee resolves disputes.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner relegated to appear before the Committee; BDA directed to notify in print and electronic media and maintain status quo.

Yashodamma D N Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:31996-DB WP No. 19848 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 19848 OF 2024 (LA-BDA)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

YASHODAMMA D N W/O V R SRIDHAR, AGED 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.30, AGS LAYOUT, 3^rd CROSS, MSR NAGAR, NEW BEL ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 054

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. B RAMESH, ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. BR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶17

BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST SANKEY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 020 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:31996-DB WP No. 19848 of 2024

¶20

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST SANKEY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 020

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. ANUKANKSHA KALKERI, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI VIKRAM A. HUILGOL, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHIVAPRASAD M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a)ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION BY QUASHING THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.BDA/COMMR/DC(LA)/SLAO/AS/PR/283/2008-09 BANGALORE DATED 30/12/2008 AND PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE DATED 31/12/2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-E AND THE FINAL NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.UDD/553/MNX/2018 BANGALORE DATED 30/10/2018 AND PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE DATED 01/11/2018 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31996-DB WP No. 19848 of 2024

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

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

¶29

Heard the learned counsel Sri.B.Ramesh, appearing for the petitioner, the learned High Court Government Pleader Smt.Anukanksha Kalkeri, appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned Senior counsel Sri.Vikram A. Huligol, along with the learned counsel Sri.Shivaprasad M. Shantanagoudar, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3/Bangalore Development Authority ('BDA' for short).

¶30

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:

¶31

"The Petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction as case may be and be pleased to stay all other proceedings pursuant to the Preliminary Notification bearing No. BDA/ Commr/DC(LA)/SLAO/A5/PR/283/2008-09; Bangalore dated: 30.12.2008 and published in the Gazette dated 31.12.2008 issued by the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents which is produced and marked as ANNEXURE 'C' , and the Final Notification bearing No.UDD/553/MNX/2018 Bangalore dated:30.10.2018 and published in the Gazette dated 01.11.2018 issued by respondents No.2 & 3 which is produced and marked as ANNEXURE-'D' , pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice and equity."

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:31996-DB WP No. 19848 of 2024

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would also approach the Committee, in the light of the order passed by this Division Bench on 11.07.2024 in W.P.No.23758/2023.

¶34

Learned Senior counsel Sri. Vikram A Huilgol, submits that in terms of the order ( supra) , the BDA has given vide publicity with regard to receipt of the application as directed, in four leading newspapers but not in the electronic media.

¶35

Therefore, the BDA is directed to forthwith notify the same, in the electronic media, as was directed by this Division Bench, in the order that is passed on 11.07.2024 in W.P.No.23758/2023.

¶36

The directions issued in the aforesaid writ petition, read as follows:

¶37

"4. The Apex Court, in its order dated 05-05-2021, answering Miscellaneous Application Nos.1614-1616 of 2019 notices the affidavit filed by the BDA in respect of previous layouts formed by the BDA in which purchasers of revenue sites in those layouts have been permitted to

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:31996-DB WP No. 19848 of 2024

¶40

apply for allotment of sites measuring 30x40’. The Apex Court observes as follows:

¶41

“….

¶42

(4) In our Order dated 18.03.2021, we had observed as under:

¶43

"It appears that certain persons belonging to poor and middle-income groups have purchased house sites from the land owners whose lands have been notified for the acquisition for the formation of the lay-out in question, prior to the date of the judgment dated 03.08.2018. We are of the view that their grievances also require to be redressed. we are informed that similar grievances of the purchasers of the sites in other layouts formed by the Bangalore Development Authority have been redressed by the Bangalore Development Authority. The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, is directed to place on record the mode and manner of redressal of the grievances of such site-holders adopted by the Bangalore Development Authority in the previously formed lay-outs within a period of four weeks from today."

¶44

(5) In compliance of the above order, the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority (B.D.A.), has filed an affidavit dated 12.04.2021 stating that in respect of the previous lay-outs formed by the B.D.A. such as Anjanapura Layout, sir M. Vishweshwaraiah Layout, Banashankari 6^th Stage layout, the purchasers of the revenue sites in those lay-outs have been permitted to apply for allotment of sites measuring 30 ft. x 40 ft. even though the sites purchased by them are bigger in dimension. The affidavit also indicates the other conditions based on which the sites were allotted to the revenue site holders.

¶45

(6) In consideration of the above, we are of the view that the purchasers of sites in Dr. Shivaram Karanth Layout are entitled for allotment of sites provided that their purchase of such sites is prior to the date of the judgment i.e. 03.08.2018.

¶46

(7) The purchasers of the sites in Dr. Shivaram Karanth Layout are permitted to get themselves registered in the B.D.A. as applicants for allotment of sites under the Bangalore Development Authority

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:31996-DB WP No. 19848 of 2024

¶49

(Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 ("B.D.A. Allotment of Site Rules") within 4 months from today.

¶50

(8) These purchasers should not he owning any other residential property in Bangalore and surrounding vicinity. They shall be bound by all the other terms and conditions for allotment of sites as per the B.D.A. Allotment of Site Rules.

¶51

(9) The General Power of Attorney holders and persons having an Agreement to Sell are not entitled for allotment of the sites.

¶52

(10) Purchasers of sites, through registered sale deeds, prior to 03.08.2018, are alone entitled for allotment of sites as per this order.

¶53

(11) The B.D.A. shall calculate the compensation payable to the applicants in respect of their acquired sites and give credit accordingly by adjusting the same towards the allotment price for the sites to be allotted and call upon the applicants to pay the balance, if any.

¶54

(12) The allotment of sites is restricted to sites measuring 30 ft. x40 ft. being the maximum extent irrespective of the measurement of their sites that have been acquired by the B.D.A.

¶55

(13) The applicants have to withdraw the cases filed by them, if any, challenging the acquisition of their lands, before filing an application with the B.D.A. in terms of this order

¶56

(14) The purchasers of the sites are permitted to apply for allotment of sites to the B.D.A. along with self-certified photocopy of the title deeds on or before 17.09.2021. It is clarified that they need not pay the initial deposit. The documents submitted by the applicants along with their applications for allotment of sites in terms of this order shall be referred by the Commissioner, B.D.A., to a committee of retired District Judges comprising of a Chairman and two

¶57

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:31996-DB WP No. 19848 of 2024

¶58

Members. The Committee so appointed shall examine the title deed of the applicants and submit a report as to the ownership of the sites to the Commissioner, B.D.A. The rival claim(s), if any, shall also be decided by the committee. The B.D.A. would allot sites only to those applicants who are duly certified by this Committee as the owners, subject to their satisfying other conditions of this order.”

¶59

The Apex Court, in terms of the aforesaid order, directed constitution of a Committee to go in the issue of revenue site holders. In furtherance of the direction so issued, Bopaiah Committee is constituted to specifically go into the issue of the revenue site holders and their respective claim.

¶60

5. In the light of the direction by the Apex Court as quoted supra, and the constitution of the Bopaiah Committee, the petitioner will have to be relegated to appear before the Committee, as in terms of the said order, it is for the Committee to decide the grievance of the petitioner and answer the same. In that light, we are of the considered view that this petition could be disposed, with a direction to the Committee to consider the grievance of the petitioner – revenue site holder and redress the same.

¶61

7. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶62

ORDER (a) The petition stands disposed. (b) The petitioner is relegated to appear before the Committee qua her grievances.

¶63

(c) The BDA shall, within one (1) week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, notify to the general public, both in print and electronic media to sensitize the applicants who are revenue site holders in Dr.Shivaramakaranth Layout, to submit their applications before the Bopaiah Committee.

¶64

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:31996-DB WP No. 19848 of 2024

¶65

(d)	The BDA shall grant four (4) weeks time on and from the date of such notification/publication, in both print and electronic media.
(e)	All applications concerning 2018 notification or 2022 notification shall bear consideration at the hands of the BDA.
(f)	The Committee is at liberty to take assistance of experts from the BDA to
	resolve the grievances of the applicants.
(g)	The Committee is granted three (3) months time from the last date indicated in terms of clause (d) supra i.e., the last date for receipt of the applications from the applicants – revenue site holders, to resolve the dispute, strictly in consonance with law.
(h)	The resolution of the dispute in the form of a report, be placed before us on the expiry of three (3) months.
(i)	The grievance of the petitioner also shall bear consideration at the hands of the Committee like all the other
	applications that would bear
	consideration, as observed hereinabove.
(j)	Till the Committee decides on the
	applications of the respective
	applicants, status quo, qua the property, be maintained by the parties.

¶66

Ordered accordingly."

¶67

In the light of the petitioner being similarly situated and

¶68

the submission that he would also approach the Committee, the reasons and the directions so issued in the aforesaid

¶69

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:31996-DB WP No. 19848 of 2024

¶70

W.P.No.23758/2023 would become applicable to the case of the petitioner as well.

¶71

In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶72

ORDER

¶73

a) The petition stands disposed.

¶74

b) The petitioner is relegated to appear before the Committee qua her grievances.

¶75

c) The BDA shall, within one (1) week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, notify to the general public, both in print and electronic media to sensitize the applicants who are revenue site holders in Dr.Shivaramakaranth Layout, to submit their applications before the Bopaiah Committee.

¶76

d) The BDA shall grant four (4) weeks time on and from the date of such notification/publication, in both print and electronic media.

¶77

10 -

¶78

NC: 2024:KHC:31996-DB WP No. 19848 of 2024

¶79

e) All applications concerning 2018 notification or 2022 notification shall bear consideration at the hands of the BDA.

¶80

f) The Committee is at liberty to take assistance of experts from the BDA to resolve the grievances of the applicants.

¶81

g) The Committee is granted three (3) months time from the last date indicated in terms of clause (d) supra i.e., the last date for receipt of the applications from the applicants – revenue site holders, to resolve the dispute, strictly in consonance with law.

¶82

h) The resolution of the dispute in the form of a report, be placed before us on the expiry of three (3) months.

¶83

i) The grievance of the petitioner also shall bear consideration at the hands of the Committee like all the other applications that would bear consideration, as observed hereinabove.

¶84

11 -

¶85

NC: 2024:KHC:31996-DB WP No. 19848 of 2024

¶86

j) Till the Committee decides on the applications of the respective applicants, status quo, qua the property, be maintained by the parties.

¶87

Ordered accordingly.

¶88

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶89

Sd/-

¶90

(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶91

KG List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

Yashodamma D N v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yashodamma D N 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghavendra C Vs the Commissioner Bangalore Development Authority

Smt. Chitra Krishna Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohan S S Vs the State of Karnataka

P G Lokesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Murali Raju K Vs the State of Karnataka

N Thyagaraju Vs the State of Karnataka