Disposed

Smt. Mayamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Aug 2024WP/9854/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the acquisition of their lands. The court directed the Additional Land Acquisition Officer to fix a date for the petitioners to submit fresh representations on why their lands should be excluded from acquisition. The authorities are directed to consider the case per prior directions and maintain status quo.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to appear for fresh representation; respondent to consider case and pass appropriate orders; status quo maintained.

Smt. Mayamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:31129 WP No. 9854 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.9854 OF 2016 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. MAYAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S

¶9

1(a) T. SOMASHEKAR

¶10

AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS S/O J.C. THIMMARAYAPPA R/AT#2 (OLD NO.97) GANGANAGAR LAYOUT R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032.

¶11

1(b). NEERAJA

¶12

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS W/O DR. RAMAMOHAN RAO DESARAJU FLAT NO.103, HARI HARA NILAYAM RAMALAYAM STREET NEW NALLAKUNTA, MUSHEERABAD HYDERABAD-500 044.

¶14

REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER SMT. T. LALITHA W/O. VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT NO.53, MADHWA NILAYA 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN VIVEKANANDA INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL MUNESHWARA LAYOUT ATTUR POST, YELAHANKA BENGALURU-560 064.

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:31129 WP No. 9854 of 2016

¶16

1(c) T. GIRIRAJ

¶17

S/O J.C. THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT #3RD MAIN ROAD BESIDE H.P. GAS, DOMLUR 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560 071.

¶18

1(d) SMT. T. LALITHA W/O. VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT NO.53, MADHWA NILAYA 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN VIVEKANANDA INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL MUNESHWARA LAYOUT ATTUR POST, YELAHANKA BENGALURU-560 064.

¶19

1(e) SRI JAGADISH T.

¶20

S/O J.C. THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT 2085, ANOKHA 16TH C MAIN, H.A.L. 2ND STAGE INDIRANAGARA-560 038.

¶21

1(f) VENU THIMMARAYAPPA GOPAL S/O J.C. THIMMARAYAPPA R/AT 136 GROUND FLOOR, 15TH CROSS ESWARA LAYOUT INDIRANAGAR II STAGE BENGALURU-560 038.

¶22

…PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SRI RAJESHWARA P.N., ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA,

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31129 WP No. 9854 of 2016

¶27

DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶28

THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶29

THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560 020.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R.1; SRI K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R.2 & R.3.)

¶32

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ORDER OF SIMILAR NATURE, TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER AS PER THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.16133/2004,AS ANNEXURE - E DATED 06.06.2006 AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OF SIMILAR NATURE, QUASHING THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION, ISSUED UNDER SECTION 17(1) OF THE BDA ACT BEARING NO.BDA/SLAO/A4.PR.194/2002-03 DATED 07.11.2002, GAZETTED ON 21.11.2002, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AT ANNEXURE-C AND ALSO FINAL DECLARATION NO.UDD/750/BLA/2003 DATED 09.09.2003 GAZETTED ON 10.09.2003 AS PER ANNEXURE-D ISSUED UNDER SECTION 19(1) UNDER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1", IN SO FAR

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:31129 WP No. 9854 of 2016

¶34

AS THE PETITIONER'S LAND IS CONCERNED AS IS LAPSED ETC.

¶35

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶36

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

The petitioners are said to be owners of 4 acres 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.71/3 and 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.72(P) situated at Talaghattapura Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The said lands were notified for acquisition. Aggrieved by the same, the late mother of the petitioners has filed W.P.No.16133/2004. The said matter was clubbed with several other similar writ petitions and a common order has been passed on 06.06.2006 in the case of SMT.C.V.SHANTHA AND

¶39

OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

¶40

reported in 2006(5)Kar.L.J. 361 and a direction was issued to the Bangalore Development Authority to consider

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:31129 WP No. 9854 of 2016

¶42

the case of the garden and recognised nursery lands as per the directions issued by this Court in the said writ petitions. However, as the representation made in respect of the lands of the petitioners was not considered in terms of the directions issued, the mother of the petitioners preferred W.P.No.18154/2007. In the said writ petition, the endorsement issued by the BDA was quashed and the BDA was directed to re-consider the matter in the light of the judgment of this Court passed in W.P.No.16133/2004. Inspite of the same, on the allegation that the BDA has not considered the case of the petitioners, the present writ petition is filed.

¶43

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 - BDA submits that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.18154/2007, BDA has issued necessary notices to the petitioners to appear for hearing, but as they had left the said address by then, notices could not be served on them and hence, their request has not been considered so far.

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:31129 WP No. 9854 of 2016

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if a suitable date is fixed, the petitioners would appear personally appear or through their authorized representative or Advocate, give a fresh representation to the respondent - Authorities explaining why their lands have to be left out from acquisition and he prays a date may be fixed for hearing. Learned counsel for respondent

¶46

BDA is agreeable for the same. Hence, the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i. Petitioners shall appear before the respondent No.3 on 22.08.2024 at 11.30 a.m . and are given the liberty to make a fresh representation to respondent No.3 explaining why their lands have to be left out from acquisition.

¶49

ii. Respondent No.3 shall consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with law and more particularly, as per the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.16133/2004 and pass

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:31129 WP No. 9854 of 2016

¶52

appropriate orders. Till such time, all parties are

¶53

directed to maintain status-quo in respect of the

¶54

lands concerned.

¶55

iii. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶56

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶57

VMB

Smt. Mayamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mayamma 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

Smt. Hanumakka Vs the Bengaluru Development Authority

Sri. H. Srinivasa Vs Smt. Gangamma

Sri. Joseph Vs the State of Karnataka

Chandra Shekara Dikshith Vs S. Manjunathaiah

Mr a Mohammed Siddiqh Vs the State of Karnataka

T.D. Rajanna Siddappa Vs the State of Karnataka