Disposed

Sri. Gangamarappa v. Banglaore Development Authority

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2024WP/221/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner claimed BDA utilized part of his Mallathahalli village land for a link road without following acquisition procedure and sought alternative site allotment via mandamus to consider his representation. The court disposed of the petition in terms of earlier writ petitions, directing BDA to assess utilization through joint survey and title verification.

What did the court decide?

BDA directed to consider petitioner's grievance and grant Arunachalalam benefits if land is found utilized for road formation; liberty reserved to establish title before BDA.

Sri. Gangamarappa Vs Banglaore Development Authority — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:44619 WP No. 221 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 221 OF 2017 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. GANGAMARAPPA, S/O. MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT 860, 6TH CROSS, JNANAJYOTHI NAGAR, MALLATHAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 056.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. MADANAGOUDA N. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE SECRETARY, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020.

¶15

THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020. …RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:44619 WP No. 221 of 2017

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 & 2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1.9.2014 MADE BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEX-B TO THE W.P. AND TO ALLOT THE ALTERNATE LAND/SITE IN LIEU OF UTILIZATION OF HIS LAND AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for writ of mandamus directing the respondent-BDA to consider the representation dated 01.09.2014 (Annexure-B), so also seeking allotment of alternative land/site, in lieu of utilization of his land by the respondent-BDA.

¶24

It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner claims to be the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.107/1A1 measuring 05 guntas situated at Mallathahalli Village, Bangalore North Taluk, having purchased the same as per registered sale deed dated 04.09.1997 (Annexure-A). It is also stated that the respondent-BDA, has utilized 2495 sq.ft of land in Sy.No.107/1A1 of Mallathahalli Village without following the

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:44619 WP No. 221 of 2017

¶27

acquisition procedure and acquired the same for the purpose of formation of link road from Jnanabharathi Layout to Sir.M.Visweshwaraiah Layout. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that under a similar situation, this Court, in WP.No.45695/2011 disposed of on 26.07.2012 (Annexure-G), laid down certain directions, wherein the claim made by the parties, seeking redressal of the grievance for having utilised his land by the respondent-BDA, without following the acquisition procedure.

¶28

In that view of the matter, taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, as the land belonging to the petitioner is acquired or not has to be made through a joint-survey to be conducted in the matter, so also the writ petitioner has to establish the title in respect of the land in question. In this regard, this Court in WP.No.11276/2014 and connected petitions disposed of on 26.08.2022 at paragraph Nos.8 and 9 held as follows:

¶29

"8. Having taken note of the fact that the grievance of the petitioners have to be considered in the light of the judgment rendered in the case of ARUNACHALAM's (supra), the next question to be answered in these writ petitions is in respect of dispute raised by the respondent-BDA with regard to title of the petitioners. In this regard, it is well

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:44619 WP No. 221 of 2017

¶32

settled principle in law that the respondent-BDA is bound to grant compensation to the petitioners or their legal representatives or nominees, only after such petitioners establishing their right over the schedule properties mentioned in the writ petitions. It is also made clear that unless the petitioners establish their right over the petition schedule property, such petitioners are not entitled for the relief granted by this Court in the case of ARUNACHALAM (supra). In the course of arguments, learned Senior Counsel representing respondentBDA disputed the title relating to the respective petition schedule properties and accordingly, in such cases wherever title is disputed by the respondentBDA, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach the respondent-BDA by making necessary representation along with the relevant documents to establish their right having regard to the factual aspects of the case and after considering the material on record, as the writ petitions are squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of ARUNACHALAM (supra), the respondent-BDA shall complete the entire exercise within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and convey the outcome of the same to the writ petitioners.

¶33

9. In some of the writ petitions, the petitioners have stated that the land belonging to the petitioners have been utilised, however, same has been denied by the respondent- BDA that they have not utilised such lands as contended by the counsel for the petitioners. In such cases, the respondent-BDA shall consider the grievance of such petitioners and if it arrives at a conclusion that the land belonging to the petitioners has been utilized for the purpose of formation of road, such petitioners are entitled for the benefit granted by this Court in case of ARUNACHALAM (supra). Needless to say that liberty is reserved to such writ petitioners also to establish their right and to approach the respondent-BDA with regard to clarification regarding utilization of their lands. Subject to these observations, petitions are disposed of."

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:44619 WP No. 221 of 2017

¶36

Following the observation made by this Court in the

¶37

above writ petitions, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the same and the respondent-BDA, shall consider the grievance of the petitioner and if it arrives at the conclusion that, the land belonging to the petitioner has been utilized for the purpose of the formation of road and thereby, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit granted by this Court in the case of

¶38

DR.R.ARUNACHALAM Vs. BDA and another in

¶39

WP.No.45695/2011 decided on 26.07.2012.

¶40

Needless to state that liberty is reserved to the petitioner to establish his right over the subject matter of the land and to approach the respondent-BDA with regard to clarification regarding utilization of such land as stated in the writ petition.

¶41

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶42

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62 CT: BHK

Sri. Gangamarappa v. Banglaore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Gangamarappa v. Banglaore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. M.S. Manjunath Vs M/S West Coast Optlinks

Sri Veerabhadraiah Vs Management of Csi Rural

The Management of Vs Ms Parul Kaushik

M/S Karnataka Beedi Industries Vs Government of Karnataka

Sri Narayanappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Muniyamma Vs the State of Karnataka