Disposed

Sri Balaji B v. Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Dec 2024WP/34336/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought directions not to demolish their properties without due process and compensation. The court found disputed questions of facts involved and disposed of the writ petition, clarifying authorities shall not dispossess petitioners without following due process of law if not already acquired.

What did the court decide?

Authorities not to dispossess petitioners without following due process of law if properties are not acquired; petition itself disposed.

Sri Balaji B v Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:52261 WP No. 34336 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.34336 OF 2024 (LA-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. BALAJI B.V. S/O.LATE. VENKATARATHNAM, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT KAMADENU ARCADE, SIDLAGHATTA ROAD, NEAR VISHWESHARAYA SCHOOL, WARD NO.29. CHAMARAJAPETE, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.

¶8

SRI. ABHINANDAN, S/O LATE. VENKATARATHNAM, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.188/1, WARD NO.2, OPP. CITIZEN CLUB, NORTH EXTENSION VAPASANDA, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.

¶9

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

¶10

SRI. NARASIMHAPPA, S/O ASHWATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.18^TH WARD, DEVARAYANASWAMY ROAD, KANDAVARA PETE, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. MURTHY K., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:52261 WP No. 34336 of 2024

¶17

CHIEF SECRETARY OF GOVERNMENT, VIDHANASOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶18

THE OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY SUB-DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 103.

¶19

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, NATIONAL HIGHWAY, K.R. IRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH B., AGA)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO DEMOLISH PETITION SCHEDULE ITEM NO. 1 TO 3 PROPERTIES BELONGS TO PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 3 RESPECTIVELY, WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND FURTHER TO GIVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY PETITIONERS TO FILE THEIR OBJECTIONS TO SUCH ACQUISITION AND TO PASS AN AWARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW FOR THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT PAYABLE TO THE PETITIONERS AND NOT TO DISPOSSESS THEM AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS FROM THEIR PROPERTY EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY WAY OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS.

¶23

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

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:52261 WP No. 34336 of 2024

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Sri. Ravindranath B., learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the

¶27

respondents 1 to 3.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶29

parties.

¶30

In this writ petition, the petitioners have sought for direction to the respondents not to demolish the petition schedule properties.

¶31

Having taken note of the submission made

¶32

by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the averments made in the writ petition, as the disputed question of facts are involved in this writ petition and as such, same cannot be considered under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of . However, it is made

¶33

clear that, respondent-authorities shall not dispossess

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:52261 WP No. 34336 of 2024

¶36

the petitioners from the schedule properties without

¶37

following the due process of law, if the same are not

¶38

acquired, as on today.

¶39

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶40

¶41

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Sri Balaji B v. Vs the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Balaji B v. Vs 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Nagendra H S Vs the Commissioner

Acharya Pathshala Trust Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

N/S Siggil India Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Mangalamma Vs State of Karnataka

Mr B Rama Mohan Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Channamma Vs State of Karnataka