Disposed

The Archbishop of Bangalore v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Jul 2024WP/3668/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 14(2)(b) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. The court noted no challenge had been made to Regulation 17 of the BIAAPA Zonal Regulation and disposed of the petition, reserving liberty to file a fresh writ petition, with all contentions kept open.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to petitioner to challenge Regulation 17 of the BIAAPA Zonal Regulation by fresh writ petition; all contentions kept open.

The Archbishop of Bangalore Vs State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:29267 WP No. 3668 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 3668 OF 2018 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE ARCHBISHOP OF BANGALORE, ARCHBISHOP S HOUSE, NO.75, MILLERS ROAD, BENSON TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 046. PRESENTLY MOST REV DR. BERNARD MORAS, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,

¶8

(PETITIONER IS NOT CLAIMING ANY SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFITS)

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. JOSEPH ANILKUMAR A.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, MULTI-STORIED BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

THE JOINT DIRECTOR AND MEMBER SECRETARY, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING AUTHORITY, BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY, NO.333/1, V J COMPLEX, I FLOOR, SHANTHINAGAR, SULIBELE ROAD, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOVT ADVOCATE FOR R1.,ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-ISSUE ORDER

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:29267 WP No. 3668 of 2018

¶18

DECLARING THE SUB-SECTION (2) SECTION 14(B) OF THE KARNATAKA TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT, 1961 AS NULL AND VOID AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS BEING ULTRA VIRES ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA AND ULTRA-VIRES RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013;

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)

¶23

Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 argued that in the absence of challenge to Regulation 17 of the Zonal Regulation published by the Bengaluru International Airport Area Planning Authority (in shourt 'BIAAPA') the present petition is not sustainable.

¶24

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of .

¶25

Liberty is reserved with the petitioner to the challenge

¶26

the validity of Regulation 17 of the Zonal Regulation published by 2^nd respondent by filing a writ petition afresh.

¶27

All contentions of the parties are kept open .

¶28

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶29

KVR

¶30

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

The Archbishop of Bangalore v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Archbishop of Bangalore v. 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

Smt Yashodamma Vs the Principal Secretary

Rekha M R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B Y Srinivas Vs the City Muncipal Council

Manyata Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Development Commissioner

Smt Farah Raffi Vs the State of Karnataka

Anand Kelkar Vs the Authorized Officer, Repco Bank