Allowed

Sri Suresh B R v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Oct 2024WP/24545/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a mandamus directing the Bangalore Development Authority to consider their representation against demolition of their building. The BDA consented to consider it; the Court directed consideration within four weeks, communication of the outcome, and restraint from coercive action meanwhile.

What did the court decide?

BDA directed to consider 18.05.2024 representation within four weeks, communicate the decision, and refrain from coercive action against the property till then.

Sri Suresh B R Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:41514-DB WP No. 24545 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 24545 OF 2024 (LA-BDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. SURESH B.R., S/O SRI. B.N.RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶10

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SMT. SHANTHALA SURESH, W/O SRI. B.R.SURESH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.6, "SAI RAM", LAKSHMI LAYOUT, BEHIND MAHA LAKSHMI TEMPLE, PIPE LINE ROAD, ABBIGERE, CHIKKABANAVARA POST, BENGALURU – 560 090.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. N.DINESH RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:41514-DB WP No. 24545 of 2024

¶18

VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶19

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

¶20

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DR. SHIVARAMKARANTH LAYOUT WITH LIMITS OF SOMASHETTIHALLI, YESHVANTHAPUR HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU NORTH – 560 064.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI.SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.05.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS, COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE - D AND DISPOSE OF THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER NOTICE TO THE PETITIONERS AND TILL THEN NOT TO DEMOLISH ANY PORTION OF THEIR BUILDING, MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN THE SCHEDULE HEREIN UNDER AND ETC.,

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

¶25

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:41514-DB WP No. 24545 of 2024

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and

¶28

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

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

¶31

The petitioners are before this Court, seeking the

¶32

following prayers:

¶33

“(i) ISSUE a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 18.5.2024 submitted by the petitioners, copy of which is produced at Annexure – D and dispose of the same in accordance with law after notice to the petitioners and till then not to demolish any portion of their building, more fully described in the schedule herein under, to meet the ends of justice.”

¶34

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

¶35

Heard Sri N. Dinesh Rao, learned counsel appearing

¶36

for the petitioners, Sri. M. Rajakumar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Shivaprasad M. Shantanagoudar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶37

What has driven the petitioners to this Court is the apprehension of demolition of their property and seeks a writ in

¶38

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:41514-DB WP No. 24545 of 2024

¶39

the nature of mandamus to the respondents to consider their representation dated 18.05.2024, submitted before respondent Nos.2 and 3 – Bangalore Development Authority, requesting

¶40

them not to demolish any portion of their property on the strength of the averments made in the representation. The apprehension of demolition of the building of the petitioners is looming large today.

¶41

Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 – the Bangalore Development Authority submits that if reasonable time is granted, the representation of the petitioners would be considered and necessary orders would be passed in accordance with law.

¶42

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

¶43

ORDER

¶44

a. The writ petition is allowed.

¶45

b. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 – the Bangalore Development Authority to consider the representation of the

¶46

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:41514-DB WP No. 24545 of 2024

¶47

petitioner dated 18.05.2024, within four weeks from

¶48

the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶49

c. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 - the Bangalore Development Authority shall also communicate the order that would be passed on the representation, to the petitioners.

¶50

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

¶51

Ordered accordingly.

¶52

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶53

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶54

SJK

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Sri Suresh B R v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Suresh B R 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

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

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

Sri Lakshminarayana Vs State of Karnataka