Disposed

Sri Muni Reddy v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC10 Dec 2024WP/33595/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to restrain BDA and BWSSB from trespassing on his schedule properties used for laying water pipes. The court held the authorities must compensate him, directing decision under Section 36 of the BDA Act, 1976, with compensation per Vidya Devi, leaving settlement negotiation open, and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction that petitioner be compensated for use of his land per Vidya Devi (2020) 2 SCC 569; liberty to negotiate settlement.

Sri Muni Reddy Vs the Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:51037 WP No. 33595 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 33595 OF 2024 (BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI MUNI REDDY S/O MUNSISWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, No.427, MARUTHI NILAYA, PALLOTTI NILAYA ROAD, BESIDES VINCENT PALLOTTI COLLEGE, CHALLAKERE, KALYAN NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. AMIT M HEGDE.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, T CHOWDIAH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶14

BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, 2^ND FLOOR, KAVERI BHAVAN, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.K. KRISHNA.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:51037 WP No. 33595 of 2024

¶20

RESPONDENTS NOT TO TRESPASS THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER IN THE GUISE OF OFFICIAL DUTY AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

In this writ petition, petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent not to trespass into the schedule properties belonging to the petitioner and not to take possession of the schedule properties without due process of law.

¶25

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶26

Having taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, as the respondent - authorities are utliising portion of the land belonging to the petitioner for the purpose of laying of water pipes and in this regard, it is the duty of the respondent to compensate the petitioner. It is submitted by Sri. K. Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 - BDA that one of the adjacent owners of the land in question has consented for the laying of pipes and therefore, I am of the view that, it is open for the petitioner to approach the respondent - authorities

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:51037 WP No. 33595 of 2024

¶29

seeking compensation in so far as utilisation of the land belonging to the petitioner herein is concerned.

¶30

In that view of the matter, recording the submission made by Sri. K. Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent that, BDA would take decision in the matter in accordance with Section 36 of the BDA Act, 1976, and as such, no interference is called for in this Writ Petition. However, it is made clear that since the land belonging to the petitioner is being utilised by the respondent - authorities, the petitioner be compensated in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VIDYA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in (2020) 2 SCC 569. Further, it is also open for the petitioner to negotiate for settlement with regard to award of compensation is concerned, if so advised.

¶31

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶32

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶33

sac List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

Sri Muni Reddy v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Muni Reddy v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K Srinivasa Vs the Spl Land Acquisition Officer

Madhuri P Kagi Vs State of Karnataka

B. M. Anjaneya Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Prema S Vs Mysuru Urban Development Authority

Smt Lakshmi Devi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Shamshad Begum Vs the Commissioner