Allowed

Sri H Nataraja v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2024WP/24415/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus to BDA to consider his representation dated 03.06.2023 opposing demolition of his buildings and interim protection from coercive action. The Court allowed the petition, directing BDA to decide the representation within four weeks and communicate the order, with a stay on coercive action meanwhile.

What did the court decide?

BDA directed to consider representation dated 03.06.2023 within four weeks, communicate order to petitioner; no coercive action against property till then.

Sri H Nataraja Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:38799-DB WP No. 24415 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 24415 OF 2024 (LA-BDA)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI H.NATARAJA S/O HALAPPA H., AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.4314, VHBCS LAYOUT GIRINAGAR 4^TH PHASE BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE BENGALURU – 560 085.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI N.DINESH RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SHYLAJA S. V., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:38799-DB WP No. 24415 of 2024

¶18

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, K. P. WEST BENGALURU – 560 020.

¶19

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DR. SHIVARAM KARANTH LAYOUT WITH LIMITS OF SOMASHETTIHALLI YESHAVANTHAPUR HOBLI YELAHANKA TALUK BENGALURU NORTH – 560 064.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY MS. ANUKANKSHA KALKERI., HCGP FOR R1; SRI SHIVAPRASAD M.SANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶22

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DTD. 03.06.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS, COPIES OF WHICH ARE PRODUCED AT ANNX-B RESPECTIVELY AND DISPOSE OF THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER AND TILL THEN NOT TO DEMOLISH ANY PORTION OF HIS BUILDINGS, MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN THE SCHEDULE HEREIN UNDER TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:38799-DB WP No. 24415 of 2024

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

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

¶29

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following

¶30

prayer:

¶31

“(i) ISSUE a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction directing the respondents to consider the representations dated 3.6.2023 submitted by the petitioners, copies of which are produced at Annexures – B respectively and dispose of the same in accordance with law after notice to the petitioner and till then not to demolish any portion of his buildings, more fully described in the schedule herein under, to meet the ends of justice.”

¶32

(ii) ISSUE any other writ or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶33

Heard Sri N. Dinesh Rao, learned counsel for petitioner, Ms. Anukanksha Kalkeri, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Shivaprasad M. Shantanagoudar, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶34

What has driven the petitioner to this Court is the apprehension of demolition of his property and seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to consider his

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38799-DB WP No. 24415 of 2024

¶36

representation dated 03.06.2023, submitted before the respondents – Bangalore Development Authority, requesting them not to demolish any portion of his property on the strength of the averments made in the representation. The apprehension of demolition of the building of the petitioner is looming large today.

¶37

Learned counsel for the respondents – Authority submits that if reasonable time is granted, the representation of the petitioner would be considered and necessary orders would be passed in accordance with law.

¶38

In the light of the aforesaid submission, we deem it appropriate to pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

a. The writ petition is allowed.

¶41

b. The respondents – Bangalore Development Authority to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 03.06.2023, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:38799-DB WP No. 24415 of 2024

¶44

c. The respondents – Bangalore Development Authority shall also communicate the order that would be passed on the representation, to the petitioner.

¶45

d. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive action qua the property of the petitioner.

¶46

Ordered accordingly.

¶47

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶48

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶49

NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14 CT:SS

Sri H Nataraja v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H Nataraja v. 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

Erla Lakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Krishna Vs the State of Karnataka

Yashodamma D N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Deepu C R Vs Bengaluru Development Authority

Sri. R Chandrappa Vs the Commissioner

Smt B N Vishalakshamma, Vs the State of Karnataka