Disposed

Smt Meenamma v. Special Land Acquisiton Officer-I

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2024WP/29112/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought directions that the Special Land Acquisition Officer consider their objections and not disburse compensation or developed sites to respondents Nos.2 to 9 while a title suit over shares was pending. The High Court disposed of the petition directing the officer to decide only after conclusion of the suit crystallising parties' rights.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt Meenamma Vs Special Land Acquisiton Officer-I — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:50090 WP No. 29112 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.29112 OF 2023 (LA-BDA)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. MEENAMMA D/O LATE G. VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT TEACHERS COLONY BAGALUR VILLAGE HOSUR, TAMILNADU - 635109.

¶8

SRINIVAS REDDY S/O LATE GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/A VITTASANDRA

¶9

BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 014.

¶10

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA

¶11

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

BALAKRISHNA REDDY S/O LATE YELLAMMA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/A GUNIAGRAHARA SHIVAKOTE POST, HESARGHATTA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 090.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. LOKESH B., ADVOCATE)

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:50090 WP No. 29112 of 2023

¶17

AND:

¶18

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER-I DR. SHIVARAMA KARNATHA LAYOUT, BDA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶19

P.C. SHAMASUNDARA REDDY S/O LATE CHIKKANNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶20

GOPAL REDDY S/O LATE CHIKKANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶21

NARAYANA REDDY S/O LATE CHIKKANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶22

MAHENDRA REDDY S/O MUNIKRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶23

SMT. JAYA W/O NANJAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶24

RESPONDENTS NO. 2 TO 6 ARE

¶25

R/AT HAMLRT OF SOMASHETIHALLI VILLAGE, YESHWANTHPURA HOBALI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 090.

¶26

HAMSAVENI D/O LATE CHIKKANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/A FLAT NO.1010 PRAGATHI NILAYA 17^TH MAIN ROAD, BTM 1^ST STAGE, BENGALURU - 560029.

¶27

SMT. P.C. YASHODHA D/O LATE CHIKKANNA REDDY AGED: MAJOR,

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:50090 WP No. 29112 of 2023

¶29

R/A NO.96, THAMMANEHANHALLI CHIKKABANAVARA

¶30

BENGALURU - 560090.

¶31

RADHA C. D/O CHIKKANNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/A NERIGA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK

¶32

BENGALURU - 560087.

¶33

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O B.M. JAYARAM REDDY AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/AT NO.90, PANATHUR MAIN ROAD

¶34

BALAGERE CROSS BALAGERE

¶35

BENGALURU - 560 103.

¶36

SMT. KOWSALAYA W/O SRINIVASA REDDY D/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

¶37

R/AT DAVANAGONDI HOSAHALLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560 067.

¶38

SMT. LALITHAMMA D/O NAGAMMA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT 2/4/19, SANESHETTIHALLI MAIN ROAD ASHWATHKATTE BACKSIDE SOMASHETTIHALLI CHIKKABANAVARA BENGALURU - 560 090.

¶39

…RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SRI. SANTHOSH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.S. VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4; SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. J. JAGADEESHWAR, ADVOCATE FOR R10 AND R11

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:50090 WP No. 29112 of 2023

¶43

SRI. NAUMAN SHARIFF, ADVOCATE FOR R12; R6 AND R7 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶44

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS / OBJECTION DATED 04/08/2023 AT ANNEXURES - C, D AND E OF THE PETITIONERS AND NOT TO DISBURSE ANY COMPENSATION AMOUNT / DEVELOPED SITES IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 9 IN RESPECT OF THE ACQUIRED LAND BELONG TO PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 9, PENDING DISPOSAL AND DETERMINATION OF THEIR SHARE IN O.S. NO. 1559/08 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

ORAL ORDER

¶48

Sri. K. Krishna, learned counsel accepts notice for

¶49

respondent-BDA.

¶50

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶51

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:50090 WP No. 29112 of 2023

¶52

In this writ petition, the grievance of the

¶53

petitioners is with regard to non-consideration of the representation/objections dated 04.08.2023 and 02.08.2023 produced at Annexures-C, D and E by the respondent No.1-Special Land Acquisition Officer, seeking direction to the respondent No.1-authority not to disburse the compensation amount/developed sites in favour of respondent Nos.2 to 9, in view of the pendency of the suit in OS No.1559 of 2008, before the Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore.

¶54

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and taking into consideration that the petitioners and the private respondents herein are entitled for the share in the compensation amount that may be determined by the respondent No.1 and in that view of the matter, the respondent No.1 shall take decision in the matter only after the conclusion of

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:50090 WP No. 29112 of 2023

¶57

the suit in OS No.1559 of 2008 pending before the competent Court, where the rights of the parties will be crystallized in the said suit. Accordingly, the writ

¶58

petition is disposed of .

¶59

Sd/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶60

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Smt Meenamma v. Special Land Acquisiton Officer-I

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt Meenamma v. Special Land Acquisiton Officer-I

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commander Vs Valerian Rodrigues

The Deputy Chief Engineer Vs Sri.M.v.Venkatarame Gowda

Smt. a G Indumathi Vs the Commissioner

Sri. C. Govindaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahadeva Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Mahadevashetty Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer