Disposed

Smt. Vandana v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Oct 2024WP/25184/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a mandamus directing the BDA to consider their representations for regularization of their house. The BDA's counsel agreed to consider the representations in accordance with law; the court disposed of the petition with a four-week timeline and interim status quo.

What did the court decide?

BDA directed to consider regularization representations within four weeks; status quo to be maintained till decision communicated.

Smt. Vandana Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:43138-DB WP No. 25184 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 25184 OF 2024 (LA-BDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. VANDANA W/O RANGANATH G., AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶10

H.NO.77, KEMPEGOWDA ENCLAVE SHYAMARAJPURA, YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH DISTRICT BENGALURU – 560 097.

¶11

RANGANATH G., S/O LATE SRI VITTAL RAO AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

H.NO.77, KEMPEGOWDA ENCLAVE SHYAMARAJPURA, YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH DISTRICT BENGALURU – 560 097.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SMT. K.SHOBHA, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN LAND DEVELOPMENT DEPT. VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:43138-DB WP No. 25184 of 2024

¶20

REPRESENTED BY

¶21

ITS UNDER SECRETARY.

¶22

THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SANKY ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU – 560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶23

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SANKY ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU – 560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

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

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1. ISSUE WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND THEREBY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONERS AS PER ANNEXURE-A, B, C FOR REGULARIZATION OF H. No. 77, IN Sy. No. 14 OF KEMPEGOWDA ENCLAVE AND THEREBY DIRECT THE BDA TO REGULARIZE RESPECTIVE HOUSE BY ISSUING THE CERTIFICATE.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:43138-DB WP No. 25184 of 2024

¶29

CORAM:

¶30

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

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

¶33

The petitioners are knocking at the doors of writ Court

¶34

with the following prayers:

¶35

“(i) Issue writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby direct the Respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioners as per Annexures – A, B, C for regularization of H.No.77, in Sy. No.14 of “KEMPEGOWDA ENCLAVE” and thereby direct the BDA to regularize house by issuing the certificate.

¶36

(ii) To grant such other and further relief so as to cost of the proceedings as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶37

The learned panel counsel appearing for the Bangalore

¶38

Development Authority having opposed the petition, now fairly

¶39

agrees that the subject representations would be considered in accordance with law and in a time bound manner, if liberty is granted. This is a happy thing to happen in the judicial process.

¶40

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:43138-DB WP No. 25184 of 2024

¶41

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed off, directing Respondent Nos.2 & 3 – Bangalore Development Authority to consider the subject representations dated 19.12.2020, July, 2022 and 14.12.2023 respectively, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks. All contentions are left open. Till the consideration takes place and the result of such consideration is communicated to the petitioners, the status quo shall be maintained by both the parties.

¶42

It is open to Respondent Nos.2 & 3 to solicit any information or documents from the petitioners as are required for due consideration of the subject representations; however, in that guise, delay shall not be brooked.

¶43

Ordered accordingly.

¶44

Costs made easy.

¶45

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶46

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶47

NVJ/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60 CT:SS

Smt. Vandana v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vandana 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Lakshminarayana Vs State of Karnataka

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

Sri Suresh B R Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Lalitha K Vs the Commissioner

Sri B N Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri S Jayakumar Vs Bengaluru Development Authority