Disposed

P Chandrashekar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2024WP/34041/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landowner sought direction to the Bangalore Development Authority to consider his representation for regularisation under Section 38D of the BDA Act in respect of two sites in Kacharakanahalli Village where he resides. Court directed respondents 2 and 3 to decide the representations within four months and restrained coercive steps meanwhile.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 2 and 3 directed to consider representations dated 29.11.2024 within four months; interim restraint from coercive steps until then.

P Chandrashekar Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:51776 WP NO.34041 OF 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.34041 OF 2024 (LA-BDA)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

P. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O PONNURAH JAN AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO.7, 'D' STREET, CLEVELAND TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 005.

¶8

REP. BY HIS G.P.A. HOLDER ABDUL SALEEM S/O ABDUL KAREEM AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT NO.08, KEERTHI RESIDENCY, 1^ST MAIN, 1^ST CROSS, RAMADEV GARDEN OPP. INDIAN GAS, HENNUR ROAD, BENGALURU NORTH - 560 084.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA SHARMA ANAND CHAYA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND Location: High URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Court of Karnataka REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT: 5^TH MAIN ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 020. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:51776 WP NO.34041 OF 2024

¶16

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUASITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH B., AGA FOR R1; SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 and R3)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 29^TH NOVEMBER, 2024 GIVEN FOR THE BENEFITS UNDER SECTION 38D OF THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1976 VIDE ANNEXURE-Q WITH RESPECT TO SITE NO.29, DESCRIBED AS ITEM NO.1 OF THE PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY; AND ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Sri. Ravindranath B., learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1 and Sri. K. Krishna, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent No.2.

¶23

In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for direction to the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 29^th November, 2024 (Annexures 'Q' and 'R') for granting benefit under Section 38D of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 in respect of Site bearing No.29, Assessment No.15/3,

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:51776 WP NO.34041 OF 2024

¶25

Khata No.15/3/168/29 and Site bearing No.47, Assessment No.15/3 Khata No.15/3/168/47 situate at Kacharakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.

¶26

The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the schedule Sites bearing Nos.29 and 47 situate at Kacharakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk as per the registered Sale Deed dated 09^th March, 1981 (Annexure-A). It is further stated in the writ petition that the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike had issued sanction plan and betterment charges have been paid insofar as the land in question is concerned and as such, the petitioner has constructed a residential house in the schedule Sites.

¶27

It is also stated in the writ petition that the respondentBangalore Development Authority had interfered with the possession of the schedule property on the ground of acquisition and as such, the petitioner was constrained to file Original Suit Nos.25375 of 2021 and 26702 of 2022. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the petitioner is residing in the house built at the schedule Sites for more than three decades and therefore, sought for consideration of representations dated 29^th

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:51776 WP NO.34041 OF 2024

¶30

November, 2024 (Annexures 'Q' and 'R') seeking regularisation

¶31

of the Site bearing Nos.29 and 47respectively.

¶32

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶33

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶34

parties and on perusal of the writ papers, particularly the Photograph produced at Annexure-K would indicate that the petitioner is residing in the residential premises. Therefore, respondents 2 and 3 are directed to consider the representation dated 29^th November, 2024 (Annexures 'Q' and 'R') in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders, within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶35

It is made clear that, till the consideration of representations of the petitioner dated 29^th November, 2024 (Annexures 'Q' and 'R'), the respondents 2 and 3 shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner. With these observations, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶36

Sd/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶37

ARK

P Chandrashekar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Chandrashekar 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

G C Thammegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Manjula Vs the State of Karnataka

Shashidhara N D Vs State of Karnataka

Smt S Yashoda Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Narasamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Madaiah Vs State of Karnataka