Disposed

Smt Harshita S v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC20 Dec 2024WP/25110/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a mandamus directing BDA to delete her site from acquisition proceedings upon collection of betterment charges. Noting BDA had not considered her representation, the court directed BDA to consider it in accordance with law within three months.

What did the court decide?

BDA directed to consider petitioner's representation in accordance with law and pass appropriate order within three months.

Smt Harshita S Vs the Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:53128 WP No. 25110 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.25110 OF 2023 (LA-BDA)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. HARSHITA S. W/O RAMESH T. AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O MADARAHALLI VILLAGE, ARAKERE HOBLI, BALLEKERE POST, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. HALLI SHANTAPPA BASAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANANDCHAYA 1. THE COMMISSIONER Location: High Court BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, of Karnataka BENGALURU-560020.

¶12

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUSATION OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BENGALURU-560020.

¶13

CHIEF SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNEMNT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHAN SOUDHA,

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:53128 WP No. 25110 of 2023

¶16

DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R3)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO DELETE THE SITE OF THE PETITITONERS FROM THE ACQUISITION BY COLLECTING THE DEVELOPMENT / BETTERMENT CHARGES; AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶24

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of

¶25

mandamus directing the respondent - BDA to delete the site of the petitioner from acquisition proceedings and to collect

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:53128 WP No. 25110 of 2023

¶27

betterment charges in respect of the same, by considering the representation submitted by the petitioner.

¶28

Having taken note of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, the representation made by the petitioner has not yet been considered by the respondent - BDA. It is also open for the petitioner to make one more representation, if need arises. In that view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the respondent - BDA is directed to consider the said representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate order within three months from the date of receipt of the representation that may be made by the petitioner.

¶29

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶30

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶31

sac

¶32

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Smt Harshita S v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Harshita S v. the Commissioner

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 B H Honnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

T.B.R. Boranna Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Kota Manjula Vs the Commissioner

S. Murali Krishna Vs Special Deputy Commisisoner - 3

Sri Shivalingaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Kum Keerthi Vs the State of Karnataka