Disposed

Smt. Chitra Krishna Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Jul 2024WP/5571/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging land acquisition notifications was rendered infructuous because one petitioner submitted a representation to receive compensation. The Court directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to consider the representation and pass orders within eight weeks, disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed Special Land Acquisition Officer to consider representation and pass orders within eight weeks.

Smt. Chitra Krishna Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:29256-DB WP No. 5571 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. 5571 OF 2024 (LA-BDA)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. CHITRA KRISHNA KUMAR W/O SRI P.V.KRISHNA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS NO. 428/4, I FLOOR 8^TH ‘A’ CROSS, SECTOR A RAGHAVENDRASWAMY TEMPLE ROAD YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BENGALURU – 560 064.

¶11

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT. PUSHPAVALLI BADI W/O SRI RAMKRISHNA THOPPIAN AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS NO.428/4, I FLOOR, 8^TH ‘A’ CROSS, SECTOR A RAGHAVENDRASWAMY TEMPLE ROAD YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BENGALURU – 560 064.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. DARSHAN GOUDA P.PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:29256-DB WP No. 5571 of 2024

¶18

VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶19

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶20

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARKRUPA WEST, GUTTAHALLI BENGALURU – 560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶21

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER - 4 DR. K.SHIVARAM KARANTH LAYOUT BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARKRUPA WEST, GUTTAHALLI BENGALURU – 560 022.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. ANUKANKSHA KALKERI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, AAG A/W., SRI SHIVAPRASAD M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i)ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND THEREBY QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.BDA.COMM.DC(LA).SLAO.A5. PR.283.2008-09 BENGALURU DATED 30/08/2008 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AT ANNEXURE-B IN SO FAR AS LAND BEARING SY.NO.60 MEASURING 2 ACRES 19 GUNTAS, SY.NO.61 MEASURING 14 GUNTAS AND 65/2 MEASURING 2 ACRES OWNED BY THE PETITIONERS SITUATED AT SITUATED IN JARAKABANDEKAVAL (J.B. KAVAL) VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, M.NAGAPRASANNA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:29256-DB WP No. 5571 of 2024

¶27

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and

¶28

CORAM:

¶29

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

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

¶32

The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following

¶33

prayer:

¶34

“I. Issue a Writ of certiorari and thereby quash the preliminary notification bearing no. BDA.Comm. DC(LA).SLAO.A5.PR.283.2008-09 Bengaluru dated 30.08.2008 issued by Respondent no. 1 at Annexure B in so far as land bearing Sy. No. 60 measuring 2 acres 19 guntas, Sy.no. 61 measuring 14 guntas and 65/2 measuring 2 acres owned by the Petitioners situated at situated in Jarakabandekaval (J.B. Kaval) village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.

¶35

II. Issue a Writ of certiorari and thereby quash the Final notification bearing no. UDD/553/MNX/2018, Bengaluru dated 30.10.2018 issued by Respondent no. 1 at Annexure E in so far as land bearing Sy. No. 60 measuring 2 acres 19 guntas, Sy.no. 61 measuring 14 guntas and 65/2 measuring 2 acres owned by the Petitioners situated at situated in Jarakabandekaval (J.B. Kaval) village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.

¶36

III. Issue a Writ of certiorari and thereby quash the (i) award notice bearing no. BDA/SLAO04/1835/01/2023-24 dated 12.4.2023 for land in Sy. No. 61 measuring 14 guntas owned by the Petitioners (Annexure G) , (ii) award notice bearing no. BDA/SLAO-04/1836/174/2021- 22 dated 29.12.2021 for land in Sy. No. 65/2 measuring 2 acres owned by the Petitioners (Annexure G1) and (iii) award notice bearing no. BDA/SLAO- 04/1848/181/2021-22 dated

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:29256-DB WP No. 5571 of 2024

¶39

21.1.2022 for land in Sy. No. 60 measuring 2 acres 19 guntas owned by the Petitioners (Annexure G2).

¶40

IV. Further this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant such other reliefs as deemed fit in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶41

Heard Sri Darshan Gouda P. Patil, learned counsel for petitioners, Smt. Anukanksha Kalkeri, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Vikram Huilgol, learned Additional Advocate General along with Sri Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶42

Sri Vikram Huilgol, learned Additional Advocate General representing respondent Nos.2 and 3 would submit that petitioner No.2 has submitted a representation to respondent No.3 indicating that she is ready and willing to receive the compensation for the acquisition of the property.

¶43

In the light of the representation so submitted by petitioner No.2, the petition is rendered infructuous and respondent No.3 is directed to consider the representation

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:29256-DB WP No. 5571 of 2024

¶46

dated 19.01.2024 and pass necessary orders in accordance

¶47

with law, within an outer limit of eight weeks, if not earlier.

¶48

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed. It is needles to state that the decision taken on the representation submitted by petitioner No.2 would enure to the benefit of petitioner No.1 as well.

¶49

Ordered accordingly.

¶50

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶51

Sd/(M. NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶52

NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36 CT:SS

Smt. Chitra Krishna Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Chitra Krishna Kumar 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

Statutes considered

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

Raghavendra C Vs the Commissioner Bangalore Development Authority

P G Lokesh Vs the State of Karnataka