Disposed

Raghavendra C v. the Commissioner Bangalore Development Authority

Karnataka HC25 Jul 2024WP/4809/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought allotment of a site for the petitioner, a revenue site holder in Dr. Shivaram Karanth Layout. The High Court disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to appear before the Bopaiah Committee to have his grievance considered as part of the batch of revenue site holders.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; petitioner relegated to Bopaiah Committee; BDA directed to notify applicants and grant 4 weeks for applications; Committee granted 3 months to resolve disputes.

Raghavendra C Vs the Commissioner Bangalore Development… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:29254-DB WP No. 4809 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 4809 OF 2024 (LA-BDA)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

RAGHAVENDRA C., S/O CHANDRASHEKAR B.V., AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS FLAT 313, SRILAKSHMI ENCLAVE SRIRAMPURA PHASE II RACHENAHALLI THANISANDRA

¶11

BENGALURU NORTH – 560 064.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI RAKESH B. BHATT, ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER

¶17

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOUDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU – 560 020.

¶18

THE COMMITTEE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOUDAIAH ROAD

¶19

KUMARA PARK WEST

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:29254-DB WP No. 4809 of 2024

¶22

BENGALURU – 560 020.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, AAG A/W

¶25

SRI SHIVAPRASAD M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER PETITIONER’S APPLICATION SEEKING ALLOTMENT OF SITE AT SHIVARAM KARANTH LAYOUT (ANNEXURE-F AND G).

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, M.NAGAPRASANNA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and

¶29

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶32

Heard Sri Rakesh B Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri Vikram Huilgol, learned Additional Advocate General along with Sri Shivaprasad M. Shantanagoudar, learned counsel appearing for respondents/Bangalore Development Authority (‘BDA’ for short).

¶33

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:29254-DB WP No. 4809 of 2024

¶34

The petitioner is said to be holder of revenue sites bearing Nos.12 and 13 of Kalatammanahalli village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, which came to be acquired for formation of Dr. Shivaramakaranth Layout. The petitioner though seeks consideration of his representations submitted on 14-03-2023 and 15-12-2023 seeking allotment of site pursuant to the orders of the Apex Court, the issue would be entitlement of the petitioner for the relief qua the sites he had held.

¶35

The learned counsel appearing for BDA Sri Shivaprasad M. Shantanagoudar submits that the Apex Court has considered the grievances of the revenue site holders in the layout formed in Dr. Shivaramakaranth Layout.

¶36

The Apex Court, in its order dated 05-05-2021, answering Miscellaneous Application Nos.1614-1616 of 2019 notices the affidavit filed by the BDA in respect of previous layouts formed by the BDA in which purchasers of revenue sites in those layouts have been permitted to apply for allotment of sites measuring 30x40’. The Apex Court observes as follows:

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:29254-DB WP No. 4809 of 2024

¶39

“…. ….

¶40

(4) In our Order dated 18.03.2021, we had observed as under:

¶41

"It appears that certain persons belonging to poor and middle-income groups have purchased house sites from the land owners whose lands have been notified for the acquisition for the formation of the lay-out in question, prior to the date of the judgment dated 03.08.2018. We are of the view that their grievances also require to be redressed. we are informed that similar grievances of the purchasers of the sites in other layouts formed by the Bangalore Development Authority have been redressed by the Bangalore Development Authority. The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, is directed to place on record the mode and manner of redressal of the grievances of such site-holders adopted by the Bangalore Development Authority in the previously formed lay-outs within a period of four weeks from today."

¶42

(5) In compliance of the above order, the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority (B.D.A.), has filed an affidavit dated 12.04.2021 stating that in respect of the previous lay-outs formed by the B.D.A. such as Anjanapura Layout, sir M. Vishweshwaraiah Layout, Banashankari 6^th Stage layout, the purchasers of the revenue sites in those lay-outs have been permitted to apply for allotment of sites measuring 30 ft. x 40 ft. even though the sites purchased by them are bigger in dimension. The affidavit also indicates the other conditions based on which the sites were allotted to the revenue site holders.

¶43

(6) In consideration of the above, we are of the view that the purchasers of sites in Dr. Shivaram Karanth Layout are entitled for allotment of sites provided that their purchase of such sites is prior to the date of the judgment i.e. 03.08.2018.

¶44

(7) The purchasers of the sites in Dr. Shivaram Karanth Layout are permitted to get themselves registered in the B.D.A. as applicants for allotment of sites under the Bangalore Development Authority

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:29254-DB WP No. 4809 of 2024

¶47

(Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 ("B.D.A. Allotment of Site Rules") within 4 months from today.

¶48

(8) These purchasers should not he owning any other residential property in Bangalore and surrounding vicinity. They shall be bound by all the other terms and conditions for allotment of sites as per the B.D.A. Allotment of Site Rules.

¶49

(9) The General Power of Attorney holders and persons having an Agreement to Sell are not entitled for allotment of the sites.

¶50

(10) Purchasers of sites, through registered sale deeds, prior to 03.08.2018, are alone entitled for allotment of sites as per this order.

¶51

(11) The B.D.A. shall calculate the compensation payable to the applicants in respect of their acquired sites and give credit accordingly by adjusting the same towards the allotment price for the sites to be allotted and call upon the applicants to pay the balance, if any.

¶52

(12) The allotment of sites is restricted to sites measuring 30 ft. x40 ft. being the maximum extent irrespective of the measurement of their sites that have been acquired by the B.D.A.

¶53

(13) The applicants have to withdraw the cases filed by them, if any, challenging the acquisition of their lands, before filing an application with the B.D.A. in terms of this order

¶54

(14) The purchasers of the sites are permitted to apply for allotment of sites to the B.D.A. along with selfcertified photocopy of the title deeds on or before 17.09.2021. It is clarified that they need not pay the initial deposit. The documents submitted by the applicants along with their applications for allotment of sites in terms of this order shall be referred by the Commissioner, B.D.A., to a committee of retired District Judges comprising of a Chairman and two Members. The Committee so appointed shall examine the title deed of the applicants and submit a report as to the ownership of the sites to the Commissioner, B.D.A. The rival claim(s), if any, shall also be decided by the committee. The B.D.A.

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:29254-DB WP No. 4809 of 2024

¶57

would allot sites only to those applicants who are duly certified by this Committee as the owners, subject to their satisfying other conditions of this order.”

¶58

The Apex Court, in terms of the aforesaid order, directed constitution of a Committee to go in the issue of revenue site holders. In furtherance of the direction so issued, Bopaiah Committee is constituted to specifically go into the issue of the revenue site holders and their respective claim.

¶59

In the light of the direction by the Apex Court as quoted supra , and the constitution of the Bopaiah Committee, the petitioner will have to be relegated to appear before the Committee, as in terms of the said order, it is for the Committee to decide the grievance of the petitioner and answer the same. In that light, we are of the considered view that this petition could be disposed, with a direction to the Committee to consider the grievance of the petitioner – revenue site holder and redress the same.

¶60

The learned counsel for the BDA submits that several applications are pending before the Committee and there are several applications to be placed before the Committee, they

¶61

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:29254-DB WP No. 4809 of 2024

¶62

could be of the notification of the year 2018 or 2022. In that light, we deem it appropriate to direct the BDA to consider the grievances of those persons i.e., the revenue site holders, by the Committee, notwithstanding the fact that they are petitioners before the Court or otherwise. It is also necessary

¶63

for the BDA to notify that the Committee is taking up the applications of the revenue site holders by giving adequate publicity.

¶64

In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

(a) The petition stands disposed.

¶67

(b) The petitioner is relegated to appear before the Committee qua his grievances.

¶68

(c) The BDA shall, within one (1) week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, notify to the general public, both in print and electronic media to sensitize the applicants who are revenue site holders in

¶69

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:29254-DB WP No. 4809 of 2024

¶70

Dr.Shivaramakaranth Layout, to submit their applications before the Bopaiah Committee.

¶71

(d) The BDA shall grant four (4) weeks time on and from the date of such notification/publication, in both print and electronic media.

¶72

(e) All applications concerning 2018 notification or 2022 notification shall bear consideration at the hands of the BDA.

¶73

(f) The Committee is at liberty to take assistance of experts from the BDA to resolve the grievances of the applicants.

¶74

(g) The Committee is granted three (3) months time from the last date indicated in terms of clause (d) supra i.e., the last date for receipt of the applications from the applicants – revenue

¶75

site holders, to resolve the dispute, strictly in consonance with law.

¶76

¶77

NC: 2024:KHC:29254-DB WP No. 4809 of 2024

¶78

(h) The resolution of the dispute in the form of a report, be placed before us on the expiry of three (3) months.

¶79

(i) The grievance of the petitioner also shall bear consideration at the hands of the Committee like all the other applications that would bear consideration, as observed hereinabove.

¶80

(j) Till the Committee decides on the applications of the respective applicants, status quo, qua the property, be maintained by the parties.

¶81

Ordered accordingly.

¶82

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶83

Sd/(M. NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶84

Bkp List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Raghavendra C v. the Commissioner Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghavendra C v. the Commissioner Bangalore Development Authority

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

Gogga Channabasavaraja Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Kusuma N Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. P Govardhan Vs the Commissioner

Mohan S S Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Chitra Krishna Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

P G Lokesh Vs the State of Karnataka