Sri v Rama Rao Nimbalkar Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 21.05.2008 PUBLISHED IN KARNATAKA GAZETTE DATED 22.05.2008 ISSUED UNDER SEC. 17(1) & (3) OF THE BDA ACT, 1976 AT ANNEX-B BY R-2 AND FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 18.02.2010 ISSUED UNDER SEC. 19(1) OF THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976 ISSUED BY R-1 AT ANNEX-C IN SO FAR AS TO THE PETITIOENR'S SCHEDULE PROPERTY ARE COCNERNED.

¶35

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

¶36

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

Petitioners are before this Court seeking following reliefs;

¶39

"(i) QUASHING the Preliminary Notification dated 21/05/2008, bearing No. BDA / Commr/ DC (LA) /ALAO/158/2008-09, Bangalore, published in Karnataka Gazette dated 22/05/2008 issued under Section 17(1) & (3) of the BDA Act, 1976 at Annexure 'B', by the 2^nd Respondent and Final Notification dated 18/02/2010, bearing No.UDD51MNX2010, Bangalore, issued under Section 19 (1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, issued by the 1st respondent at Annexure-C in so far as to the petitioner's schedule Property are concerned.

¶40

(iii) AND for the issue of any other Writ, Order or Directions, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, including the costs of this Writ Petition, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶41

4 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:2663 WP No. 11362 of 2017

¶43

Case of the petitioners is that they are the absolute

¶44

owners of the land bearing Sy.No.9/2 measuring 2 acres 39 guntas situated at Manganahalli Village, Yeshwanthapur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. That the properties of the petitioners came to be acquired by the respondent-authorities for formation of Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout by issuance of preliminary notification dated 21.05.2008 followed by the final notification dated 18.02.2010 vide Annexures-A and B. The petitioners filed detailed statement of objections contending that their petition schedule land has been converted into residential plots and the petitioners have sold the same to several individual site purchasers. That during the pendency of several writ petitions, respondent-authorities have filed a memo stating that they would give up the land in which revenue sites have been formed but have not considered the case of the petitioners. Hence, the petition.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in the matter is covered by the order of the Division Bench of this Court passed in W.A.No.1783/2014 and connected matters. Case of the petitioners would fall under the paragraph 'C' of the operative portion of the said order.

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:2663 WP No. 11362 of 2017

¶48

4. Counsel for the respondent -BDA does not dispute

¶49

the same.

¶50

The relevant operative portion of the order of Division Bench passed in W.A. No.1783/2024 read as under;

¶51

"c) Insofar as the owners of residential sites who form part of a layout and who have sought for dropping their lands from acquisition in accordance with para (iii)(a) hereinabove, the BDA shall consider the same having regard to the observations made at para 66 hereinabove. If the BDA rejects their applications, the site owners who have first filed applications pursuant to para (iii)(a) hereinabove, shall be entitled to a further period of one month after the decision as contemplated therein is intimated to opt to and apply in the manner as contemplated in para (iii)(b) hereinabove.

¶52

iv) Till the aforesaid exercise directed to be undertaken by the BDA and the applications filed by the writ petitioners, either for allotment of sites or for dropping of the lands from acquisition are considered, their possession shall not be disturbed and the existing construction shall not be demolished."

¶53

6. In view of the above, following ;

¶54

ORDER

¶55

(1) Writ petition is disposed of.

¶56

(2) Petitioners are at liberty to seek remedy

¶57

as directed by the Division Bench of this

¶58