Disposed

Sri S Jayakumar v. Bengaluru Development Authority

Karnataka HC25 Oct 2024WP/25412/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought consideration of their representation to the BDA for dropping land acquisition proceedings and regularizing their sites in Vaderahalli Village. The court directed the BDA to consider the representation within four weeks and not precipitate matters against the petitioners' property meanwhile, without expressing any view on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to BDA to consider representation dated 01.04.2024 within four weeks and communicate decision; no precipitating action till then.

Sri S Jayakumar Vs Bengaluru Development Authority — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:43016-DB WP No. 25412 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

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. 25412 OF 2024 (LA-BDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. S. JAYAKUMAR, S/O R. SAM RAJU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/O NO.39, 1^ST FLOOR, 3^RD CROSS S.P. EXTENSION, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE 560 003.

¶10

Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI. SEETU V, S/O VEERAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/A NO.130, 9^TH MAIN, NEAR SAMBRAM COLLEGE, MUNESHWARA LAYOUT, VADERAHALLI VILLAGE, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BANGALORE 560 097.

¶12

SMT. NAGAVALLI, W/O JAYAPRAKASH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.9, RAILWAY COLONY, RMV 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE 560 094.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P H.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, SANKEY ROAD, BENGALURU 560 020.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:43016-DB WP No. 25412 of 2024

¶19

REPRSENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶20

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUSITION OFFICER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU 560 020.

¶21

STATE OF KARNATAKA, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE 560 001. REPRSENETED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.M RAJAKUMAR., AGA FOR R3; SRI.SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR.,ADV.,FOR R1 & 2)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE SIMILAR NATURE DIRECTING THE 1^ST RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01.04.2024 VIDE ANNXURE-G FILED BY THE PETITIONER NO.1 AND CONSIDER THE CASE OF PETITIONER NOS.2 AND 3 FOR DROPPING OF THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF THE IMMOVABLE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES BEARING SITE NOS.11, 14 AND 22 SITUATED AT VADERAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK MEASURING EAST TO WEST 40 FEET AND NORTH TO SOUTH 30 FEET EACH AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER EXPEDITIOUSLY BY REGULARIZING THE SITES IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONERS HEREIN AND ETC.,

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:43016-DB WP No. 25412 of 2024

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶29

and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M NAGAPRASANNA)

¶32

The petitioners are before this court seeking a

¶33

direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for consideration of a representation dated 01.04.2024.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA appearing for the respondent-State and Sri.Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA.

¶35

The petitioners claim to be the owners of certain extents of land in respect of Sy.No.36 situated at Vaderahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. On the notification of acquisition for formation of Dr.Shivaram Karanth Layout, the petitioners have submitted a representation seeking certain relief as is obtaining in the representation. Non-consideration of the same has driven the petitioners to this court in the subject petition.

¶36

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:43016-DB WP No. 25412 of 2024

¶37

Learned counsel Sri.Shivaprasad M

¶38

Shantanagoudar, appearing for the respondent-BDA submits that if reasonable time is granted, representation would meet its consideration in accordance with law and necessary orders would be passed.

¶39

In that light, we deem it appropriate to dispose the petition with a direction to the respondent-BDA to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 01.04.2024 within an outer limit of four weeks and communicate the decision taken to the petitioners thereon. Till the consideration of the representation happens at the hands of the respondent-BDA, the BDA shall not precipitate the matter qua the property of the petitioners.

¶40

With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed.

¶41

It is made clear that we have not considered the merit of the claim of the petitioner.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:43016-DB WP No. 25412 of 2024

¶44

Ordered accordingly.

¶45

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶46

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶47

cbc List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Sri S Jayakumar v. Bengaluru Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S Jayakumar v. Bengaluru Development Authority

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

Smt. Vandana Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B N Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka