Disposed

Smt. Kota Manjula v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC19 Dec 2024WP/516/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition without expressing an opinion on merits. It permitted the petitioner to file a representation to the Bangalore Development Authority with documents to establish land acquisition, directing the authorities to consider it and decide within three months.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to petitioner to file a representation with relevant documents to the respondent-Authorities within two weeks to establish land acquisition; Authorities directed to consider and dec

Smt. Kota Manjula Vs the Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:52602 WP No. 516 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.516 OF 2023 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. KOTA MANJULA W/O KOTA PURANDARIKASHYAM AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.407, SAI SMRUTHY ENCLAVE, YUSUF GUDA VENKATAGIRI, HYDERABAD - 500 045.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. R.S. RAJESH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, SANKEY TANK ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶13

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

¶14

THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, SANKEY TANK ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. B. VACHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT TO THE RESPONDENTS TO DETERMINE AND PAY THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT IN RESPECT OF THE SITE/LAND ACQUIRED FROM THE PETITIONER AS PER THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 25^TH SEPTEMBER, 2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-F UNDER

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:52602 WP No. 516 of 2023

¶20

SECTION 24(2) OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT; OR ALTERNATIVELY ALLOT A SITE OF THE SAME VALUE IN ANJANAPURA LAYOUT OR IN THE LAYOUT FORMED IN THE BANASHANKARI 6^TH STAGE, BENGALURU; AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, 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, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondent-Authorities to determine the compensation and to pay compensation in respect of the Site/land acquired from the petitioner. In this regard, the legal notice dated 25^th September, 2022 (Annexure-F) is caused at the instance of the petitioner.

¶25

Heard Sri. R.S. Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for

¶26

the petitioner and Sri. B. Vachan, learned counsel appearing for respondents.

¶27

Sri. B. Vachan, learned counsel appearing for respondents contended that the petitioner along with other claimants had filed Writ Petition No.39834-39844 of 2002,

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:52602 WP No. 516 of 2023

¶30

which came to be dismissed. Accordingly, he disputes the claim made by the petitioner insofar as the land in question.

¶31

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶32

parties and taking into account the factual aspects on record, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority along with relevant documents, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order to establish that the land belonging to the petitioner has been acquired by the respondents. If such a representation is made by the petitioner, the respondentAuthorities shall consider the same and take decision in the matter, within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of representation that may be made by the petitioner. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶33

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶34

ARK

Smt. Kota Manjula v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kota Manjula v. the Commissioner

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 Sumathi Sharada Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K Pratesh Kumar Vs the Commissioner

Sri T Srinivasulu Vs the Commissioner

Sri B N Venugopala Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Syed Farooq Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B H Honnappa Vs the State of Karnataka