Quashed

Sri Binoj Koshy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Nov 2024WP/21619/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the Committee's order recommending non-deletion of land from acquisition proceedings, holding that the failure to afford an opportunity of hearing violated natural justice. The matter was remanded to the Committee for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari issued quashing the impugned order; matter remitted to the Committee for fresh consideration after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Sri Binoj Koshy Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:46305-DB WP No. 21619 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 21619 OF 2023 (LA-BDA)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI BINOJ KOSHY, S/O LATE M KOSHY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.

¶12

SRI BIJU KOSHY, S/O LATE M KOSHY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

¶13

Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

BOTH OF THEM ARE R/AT KOSHY'S COTTAGE, AMAR JYOTHI LAYOUT, ASHWATHNAGAR, THANISANDRA, DR. SRK NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 077.

¶15

REP. THROUGH THEIR GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY SRI MUNEGOWDA R, S/O LATE RAMAIAH B.P., AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.336E, KEBBAKKANA MAIN ROAD, ASHWATH NAGAR, THANISANDRA, DR. SRK NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 077.

¶16

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI MANJUNATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI T SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:46305-DB WP No. 21619 of 2023

¶19

AND:

¶20

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

¶21

THE COMMISSIONER, THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HAVING OFFICE AT T CHOWDAIAH, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020.

¶22

THE HON'BLE KESHAVA NARAYANA COMMITTEE, KRUSHI BHAVAN, 4^TH FLOOR, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 002.

¶23

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI M RAJKUMAR, AGA FOR R-1;

¶26

SRI C.V KIRAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;

¶27

NOTICE TO R-3 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED

¶28

11.12.2023)

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED REPORT DRAWN UP BY THE RESPONDENT No. 3 COMMITTEE VIDE ORDER DATED 03.01.2023 IN ENQUIRY No. KNKC No. 54/2022, FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A

¶30

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

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and

¶32

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶33

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:46305-DB WP No. 21619 of 2023

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

¶36

The challenge in this petition filed under Articles 226

¶37

and 227 of the Constitution of India, is to the 3^rd respondent Committees order dated 03-01-2023 made in Enquiry No.54/2022, a copy where of avails at Annexure-

¶38

A. The Committee by the said order has recommended not to delete lands in question from the acquisition process relating to Arkavathi Layout at Bangalore.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since valuable right to property was involved in the said enquiry proceedings, the recommendation rejecting his claim could not have been done without affording an opportunity of hearing. He tells that even God is said to have given an opportunity of hearing to Adam & Eve before punishing them for eating the proscribed fruit, in the Eden Garden.

¶40

After service of notice, respondent No.1 is

¶41

represented by learned Additional Government Advocate

¶42

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:46305-DB WP No. 21619 of 2023

¶43

and respondent No.2-BDA is represented by its panel counsel; Notice to Respondent No.3 is dispensed with.

¶44

Both they submit that notice was sent in regular course by registered post acknowledgement due, although it was not served as such; even if opportunity of hearing had been given to the petitioner, the outcome of subject proceedings would not have been different. So contending they seek dismissal of petition.

¶45

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we are inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter on the ground that the principles of natural justice apparently are violated while making the order in question. We agree with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that cause of justice would be met if the matter is remanded for consideration afresh after setting at naught the impugned order.

¶46

In the above circumstance, this petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order; the

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:46305-DB WP No. 21619 of 2023

¶49

matter is remitted to Respondent No.3/Committee for consideration afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶50

The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 27-11-2024 at 11 O'clock without waiting for any formal other communication, in that regard.

¶51

All contentions of the parties are kept open. Costs made easy.

¶52

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶53

Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

¶54

tsn*

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Sri Binoj Koshy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Binoj Koshy 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

Rajesh B Vs Union of India

Sri. Mahesha. a Vs State of Karnataka

Mac- Precitec India Vs Smt Rekha S

Sundara Babu Vs the Tahsildar

Nagabhushan Reddy Vs the Tahsildar

The State of Karnataka Vs Smt. Manjula.K