Allowed

Smt. N. v. Lakshmi v the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2024WP/5342/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought mandamus restraining BBMP from road widening on their land without complying with Article 300A, or alternatively TDR. Following an identical writ appeal order, the court held the respondents' action without acquisition violated Article 300A and directed BBMP to issue TDR certificates to the petitioners within two months.

What did the court decide?

BBMP directed to issue TDR certificates to the petitioners within two months from receipt of certified copy of the order.

Smt. N. v. Lakshmi Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:37916 WP No. 5342 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 5342 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. N. V. LAKSHMI W/O LATE M JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶9

MS. J RAVEENA GOWDA D/O LATE M JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

¶10

MS J. KEERTHANA GOWDA D/O LATE M JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,

¶11

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

ALL ARE R/AT NO.72, 3^RD FLOOR, MUTHOOT FINANCE BUILDING, BEHIND RAJESHWARI THEATRE BUS STOP, S.N.S. ARCADE ROAD, KONENA AGRAHARA, MURGESH PALYA, BENGALURU-560017.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. PRAKASH T. HEBBAR., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:37916 WP No. 5342 of 2023

¶19

HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560002.

¶20

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ROAD WIDENING DIVISION) BBMP NO.207, 2^ND FLOOR, ANNEX-3, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. BOPANNA.B., AGA FOR R-1; SRI.B.S. KARTHIKEYAN., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE R-2 AND 3 RELATING TO THE ACQUISITION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY BY THE RESPONDENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF UTILIZATION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY FOR PROPOSED ROAD WIDENING IN NEW BBMP WARD NO.88, PERUSE THE SAME HEAR THE PARTIES AND GRANT THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS TO THE PETITIONERS AS AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS, ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioners filed this writ petition seeking for a mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 and 3, not to carry on any construction activity or further construction or further road widening in the schedule property without complying with Article 300A of the Constitution of India, and alternative writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue TDR at the rate

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:37916 WP No. 5342 of 2023

¶30

of 1:2 ratio or as are applicable in law, jointly in the names of the petitioners covering the entire extent of the land acquired in lieu of illegally encroaching upon the schedule property and using the same for the purpose of road widening within the time frame with limit.

¶31

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as under:

¶32

The husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 M. Jayaram had purchased the suit schedule property under the registered sale deed dated 10.05.2010. The husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 died on 07.06.2017 leaving behind the petitioners as his legal heirs. After the demise of M.Jayaram husband of petitioner No.1, they applied for sanction of khata in the name of petitioner No.1 and the BBMP accepted the khata in Form-B in the name of petitioner No.1 and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 issued notice to the adjacent land owners of the petitioners for road widening. It is contended that respondents without issuing notice to the petitioners, started putting up jelly in the property of the petitioners to widen the road. It is contended that the

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:37916 WP No. 5342 of 2023

¶35

action of the respondents is in clear violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the action of the petitioners is illegal. Hence, filed this writ petition.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in an identical matter, this court directed the respondents BBMP to issue a TDR certificate to the petitioners therein and he submits that this writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the orders passed in W.P.No.1440/2021.

¶37

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the same.

¶38

Perused the records and considered the submissions

¶39

of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶40

Admittedly, the land in question was formed by the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 under the registered sale deed and he died leaving behind the petitioners as his legal heirs. After the demise of the husband of petitioner No.1, petitioner No.1 submitted the application to the BBMP to change khata in her name. BBMP has passed the order and transferred the khata in the name of petitioner No.1. The respondents without initiating acquisition proceedings are

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:37916 WP No. 5342 of 2023

¶43

trying to illegally encroach upon the property of the petitioners. The action of the respondents violates the Article 300A of the Constitution of India. In an identical matter of this court in the case of W.A.No.1440/2021 in the case of Commissioner, BBMP and others Vs. A.Babu and others disposed of on 26.09.2022, directed the respondents - BBMP to utilize the land belonging to the petitioners therein without taking of compensation. A direction was issued by the State Government to BBMP to take the land in question in the year 2011. The petitioners have executed a relinquishment deed in favor of BBMP and further directed the respondents to issue TDR certificates to the petitioners therein. The petitioners stand on the same footing. Accordingly, the petitioners herein are also entitled to a similar benefit in the instant petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed .

¶44

Learned counsel for the BBMP submits that the BBMP will issue TDR certificates to the petitioners. In view of the same, the respondent BBMP directed to issue TDR certificates to the petitioners, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:37916 WP No. 5342 of 2023

¶47

In view of the disposal of the petition,

¶48

I.A.No.1/2024 does not survive for consideration.

¶49

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶50

SKS,SSB

Smt. N. v. Lakshmi v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. N. v. Lakshmi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr B Ramaiah Vs Commissioner

Sri K M Jagadeesh Vs Kushalanagara Planning Authority

Karigowda. C Vs Chief Commissioner

Patalappa C Vs Muniyappa Since Dead by His Lrs

Sri. Nagesh H Vs the State of Karnataka

B R Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka