Allowed

R Shashidhar v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2024WP/5730/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this writ petition filed by a landowner against the Bangalore Development Authority. The court set aside endorsements issued by the BDA that raised the petitioner’s financial obligation for site allotment. The court directed the BDA to reconsider the file and adjust compensation appropriately based on a prior order, within four months, without disturbing the allotment itself

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsements dated 26.03.2018 and 11.09.2018 are set aside; matter remitted to BDA for fresh consideration within four months.

R Shashidhar Vs the Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:49946 WP No. 5730 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.5730 OF 2019 (BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

R SHASHIDHAR S/O RAJASHEKARSWAMY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS # 221,NEETHI MARGA 2ND STAGE,15TH MAIN SIDDARTHANAGAR MYSURU-570 011

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. JAGADEESH C M.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BENGALURU-560 020

¶14

(BY SRI. SACHIN B S.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENTS BY THE COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BENGALURU BDA/DS-3/2681/SMVL, 1^ST BLOCK/2017-18 DATED:

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:49946 WP No. 5730 of 2019

¶18

26.03.2018 AND BDA/DS-3/2681/SVML., 1^ST BLOCK/201819 DATED 11.09.2018 AS PER ANNEXURES-A AND B; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO REFUND THE AMOUNT OF RS.12,79,720/- AND RS.1,75,760/- COLLECTED AS PER ANNEXURES-F AND G.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the Endorsements dated 26.03.2018 and 11.09.2018 (Annexures-A and B respectively) issued by the respondent-BDA, rejecting the claim made by the petitioner in so far as payment of compensation and directing the petitioner to pay excess of amount in furtherance of the same.

¶22

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner claims to be the owner of the Site No.18, Katha No.1664 situated at Malathahalli Gramatana, Yeshwanthpur Hobli,

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:49946 WP No. 5730 of 2019

¶24

Bangalore North Taluk, measuring 62 * 40 feet. It is stated in the writ petition that the said site has been acquired by the respondent-BDA for the purpose of formation of Sir.M.Vishweshwaraiah Layout during 2003. The petitioner has challenged the acquisition proceedings before this Court in W.P.No.51861/2003 and this Court, vide order dated 08.12.2005 (Annexure-C), disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent-BDA to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Junjamma

¶25

and others Vs. the Bangalore Development Authority reported in ILR 2005 KAR 608.

¶26

It is further pleaded in the writ petition that the petitioner has made representation to the respondent-BDA seeking compensation in so far as the acquisition of site is concerned, interalia , sought for the allotment of an alternative site in terms of the order passed by this Court at Annexure-C to the writ petition.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:49946 WP No. 5730 of 2019

¶29

It is further stated in the writ petition that the respondent-BDA has allotted Site No.2681 in

¶30

Sir.M.Vishweshwaraiah Layout, Bangalore, and as such directed petitioner to pay cost of Rs.12,78,720/- towards the consideration of the site and the allotment letter is produced at Annexure-E to the writ petition.

¶31

It is the case of the petitioner that the respondentBDA has not granted compensation in so far as the Site No.18 acquired by them for the purpose of formation of Sir.M.Vishweshwaraiah Layout and in the event of petitioner securing the compensation in so far as the land in question, which has been acquired by respondent-BDA, the same would be adjusted towards the subsequent allotment made as per the allotment letter at Annexure-E to the writ petition.

¶32

It is the contention of the petitioner that, the respondent-BDA without considering the aspects in the right perspective, passed the impugned Endorsements have been issued seeking reduction of the price of the

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:49946 WP No. 5730 of 2019

¶34

allotment of the site is concerned and as such, presented this writ petition.

¶35

Heard C.M.Jagadeesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.B.S.Sachin, learned counsel appearing for respondent-BDA.

¶36

Sri.C.M.Jagadeesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited attention of this Court to the order dated 08.12.2005 passed in W.P.No.51861/2003 (Annexure-C) and contended that respondent-BDA has misconstrued the case of the petitioner after making allotment of new site as per Annexure-E. Therefore, sought for interference of this Court.

¶37

Per contra, Mr.B.S.Sachin, learned counsel appearing for respondent-BDA submitted on instructions that the award is passed and the same is deposited in the Civil Court in respect of acquisition of the land in question, including other sites carved out of survey number specified

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:49946 WP No. 5730 of 2019

¶40

by the petitioner herein. Hence, sought to justify the impugned Endorsements at Annexures-A and B.

¶41

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the site belonging to the petitioner was acquired by the respondent-BDA for the purpose of formation of Sir.M.Vishweshwaraiah Layout during 2003 and the petitioner has approached this Court in W.P.No.51861/2003 and this Court, vide order dated 08.12.2005 (Annexure-C), at paragraphs-2 and 3 has held as under:

¶42

“2. The petitioners would be satisfied as per the case determined in the case of JUNJAMMA VS. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY reported in ILR 205 KAR 608.

¶43

3. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petition is disposed of granting liberty for the petitioners to give a representation within three months from today to the Bangalore Development Authority to consider their case as per the direction issued by

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:49946 WP No. 5730 of 2019

¶46

this Court in Junjamma’s case. If such a representation is filed by the petitioners, the same shall be considered by the Bangalore Development Authority in accordance with law.”

¶47

In furtherance of the same, the petitioner has made representation dated 14.08.2018 (Annexure-F) and sought to deposit the site value in furtherance of the allotment of the new site as per Annexure-E. In this regard, the petitioner has sought for clarification in so far as the passing of the award in respect of the acquisition of the earlier Site No.18, Katha No.1664 of Malathahalli Gramatana, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the compensation that may be awarded in so far as the said site, be adjusted towards the consideration that may be in so far as the new allotment of site at Annexure-E to the writ petition.

¶48

In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the reasons assigned at Annexures-A and B to the writ petition, I am of the view that the respondent-BDA has

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:49946 WP No. 5730 of 2019

¶51

misconstrued the case of the petitioner, and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,75,760/and

¶52

Rs.12,79,720/- and thereafter, the plea made by the petitioner would be considered.

¶53

13. In that view of the matter, the reasons assigned by

¶54

the respondent-BDA at Annexures-A and B is non-est and not considering the case of the petitioner in right perspective in terms of the order passed by this Court at Annexure-C to the writ petition. Hence, I pass the following order:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶57

ii) The Endorsements dated 26.03.2018 and 11.09.2018 at Annexures-A and B respectively issued by the respondent-BDA, are hereby setaside and the matter is remitted to respondentBDA to reconsider the issue afresh and take decision in the matter in the light of the order passed by this Court at Annexure-C at the earliest, within an outer limit of four months form the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶58

¶59

NC: 2024:KHC:49946 WP No. 5730 of 2019

¶60

iii) It is made clear that the allotment made in favour of the petitioner at Annexure-E shall not be disturbed, having remitted the matter to the respondent-BDA for fresh consideration in this writ petition.

¶61

Sd/ - (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶62

¶63

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

R Shashidhar v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Shashidhar v. the Commissioner

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

Commander Vs Valerian Rodrigues

The Deputy Chief Engineer Vs Sri.M.v.Venkatarame Gowda

Smt. a G Indumathi Vs the Commissioner

Sri. C. Govindaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahadeva Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Mahadevashetty Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer