Bangalore Development Authority Vs Smt. Narasamma

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.06.2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.11771/2023 (LA-BDA) AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,

¶31

IN CCC NO. 556/2024

¶32

BETWEEN:

¶33

SMT. NARASAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

¶34

SRI B N VENKATARAMANAIAH S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

¶35

SRI RAJASHEKAR S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶36

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF HOLEBYROHALLI VILLAGE SULIKERE POST, KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE 560 060.

¶37

...COMPLAINANTS

¶38

(BY SRI. P P HEGDE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VENKATESHU Y., ADVOCATE)

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:52326-DB W.A. No.1139/2023 C/W C.C.C. No.556/2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

AND:

¶43

SRI JAYARAM N IAS COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMAR PARK WEST BANGALORE - 20.

¶44

SMT. KRUPALI ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMAR PARK WEST BANGALORE 20.

¶45

...ACCUSED

¶46

(BY SMT. LATHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MURUGESH V CHARATI, ADVOCATE)

¶47

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHEREIN PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO INITIATE CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED HEREIN AND TO TAKE SUITABLE ACTION FOR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER IN W.P.NO.11771/2023 DATED 19.06.2023 AND GRANT ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.

¶48

THIS WRIT APPEAL CONNECTED WITH C.C.C. ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶49

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶50

5 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:52326-DB W.A. No.1139/2023 C/W C.C.C. No.556/2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶54

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

¶55

This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka

¶56

High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 19.06.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11771/2023 (LA-BDA).

¶57

Sri.Murugesh V.Charati, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the appellants called upon the respondents to get the sale deed rectified in order to disperse the compensation. It is submitted that admittedly, there was an error in respect of the survey number in the sale deed and the RTCs with regard to the land claimed by the respondents. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have relegated the respondents to the revenue authorities for getting the RTCs corrected. The decision of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.42151/2019 was only a direction to the appellants to take steps for payment of compensation to the respondents

¶58

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:52326-DB W.A. No.1139/2023 C/W C.C.C. No.556/2024

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

and in view of the said direction, an endorsement came to be issued by the appellants for the correction of sale deed and survey number in the revenue records, which ought not to have been faulted. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal by directing the respondents to get the records corrected and thereafter, approach the appellants for payment of compensation.

¶61

Per contra , Sri.P.P.Hegde, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents supports the impugned order by contending that the issuance of endorsements at Annexures-A and B is contrary to the decision of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.42151/2019, wherein a clear finding is recorded with regard to the discrepancy in the survey number and the said finding is based on the very report of the appellant-BDA. Hence, they cannot re-agitate the issue which has already been answered by the learned Single Judge in the earlier round of litigation. It is also submitted that the appellant-BDA have committed a gross illegality and contempt of Court in issuing the endorsements at

¶62

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:52326-DB W.A. No.1139/2023 C/W C.C.C. No.556/2024

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

Annexures-A and B. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal and also seek prayer to frame charges against the appellant/accused by punishing them under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶65

We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on both the sides.

¶66

The records indicate that the respondents filed W.P.No.42151/2019 seeking prayer to call for the records in respect of Sy.No.51/1A of Kommaghatta Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangaore South Taluk, with regard to the acquisition of the said land under the preliminary notification dated 21.05.2008 and the final notification dated 18.02.2010, further prayer to quash the award dated 03.08.2016, and further more to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to consider the representation dated 05.08.2019, etc. The learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated

¶67

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:52326-DB W.A. No.1139/2023 C/W C.C.C. No.556/2024

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

16.04.2021 considered the interim orders passed in the said writ petition and held that the appellant-BDA had conducted an enquiry and a memo with a report of the Special Task Force of the BDA was filed. In the said report, it was specifically stated that the appellant-BDA would address the grievance of the respondents in relation to the compensation payable in favour of the respondents and directed the appellants to take necessary steps with regard to the payment of compensation by way of cash / allotment of developed land in lieu of the compensation in favour of the respondents in terms of the report dated 06.04.2021 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶70

The appellant-BDA passed orders dated 04.04.2022 and 21.04.2022, wherein the appellant-BDA has directed the respondents to produce the sale deed after rectification of the survey number which is erroneously mentioned as 51/2, from the competent authority and also to produce the revenue records. In our considered view, such an order and endorsements would run contrary to the

¶71

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:52326-DB W.A. No.1139/2023 C/W C.C.C. No.556/2024

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.42151/2019 dated 16.04.2021. The learned Single Judge, in an earlier round of litigation has accepted the memo and the report of the Special Task Force of the BDA and directed to either pay the compensation or allot an alternate site in lieu of the compensation. The appellants cannot be allowed to re-agitate the issue already held in favour of the respondents in the earlier round of litigation, which was based on the report of the appellants. The learned Single Judge, under the impugned order recorded a detailed finding by considering all the contentions advanced by the appellant-BDA and allowed the writ petition by directing the appellant-BDA to allot the eligible developed sites to the respondents. We do not find any error or perversity in the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge under the impugned order calling for interference in this intra Court appeal.

¶74

For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is

¶75

devoid of merits and is accordingly, rejected.

¶76

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:52326-DB W.A. No.1139/2023 C/W C.C.C. No.556/2024

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

Six weeks' time is granted to the appellants to comply

¶79

the directions of the learned Single Judge.

¶80

In view of the aforesaid order, the contempt

¶81

proceedings in CCC No.556/2024 are closed with liberty to the respondent/complainant to file a fresh contempt petition if the appellants fail to comply with the directions within the stipulated time. Notice issued to the accused shall stand discharged.

¶82

No order as to costs.

¶83

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶84

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶85

RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Bangalore Development Authority v. Smt. Narasamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bangalore Development Authority v. Smt. Narasamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Komala S.P. Vs Smt. Asha L Alias Asha Chetan Kumar

The Executive Engineer Vs Mr M.P. Nrupathunga

The Karnataka Industrial Areas Vs N Narayanaswamy

High Court of Karnataka Vs Veracious Vanivilas

Karnataka State Minorities Commission Vs Anthony Vedar Fernandez

Smt. Savitramma Vs the Assistant Commissioner