Sri. Afzal Pasha Vs the Commissioner

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF SITE NOS. 8 AND 9, FORMED IN SY.NO.76 (76/10P) SITUATED AT GANAGEREHALLI (SOMASHETTIHALLI) YESHWANTPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Petitioners are before this Court claiming to have purchased the property bearing Site Nos. 8 and 9 forming part of land in Sy.No.76 (Sy.No.76/10P) situated at Ganagerehehalli (Somashettihalli), Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, from one Smt. V.Asha who in turn had purchased the said sites in terms of registered deed of sale dated 24.04.2006, seeking following reliefs;

¶26

"(a) Further issue of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to pay the compensation to the petitioner in respect of Site Nos.8 and 9, formed in Sy.No.76 (76/10P), situated at Ganagerehehalli (Somashettihalli), Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk .

¶27

(b) Grant any other order, writ or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant to the petitioner."

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:2510 WP No. 15992 of 2022

¶30

Case of the petitioners is that land in Sy.No.76 (76/10P) of which the site Nos.8 and 9 are forming part of, have been acquired by the respondent -BDA in terms of the preliminary notification dated 30.12.2008 and the final notification dated 30.10.2018 issued under Section 19(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short BDA Act) for the purpose of formation of Dr.Shivaram Karanth Layout. That petitioners claiming to be the purchasers of the said sites contend that in terms of the Scheme they are entitled for the compensation in accordance with law.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had sought for compensation which was declined, accordingly he caused issuance of notice. Since no action is taken by the respondent -BDA, petitioners are before this Court.

¶32

Learned counsel for the respondent -BDA on the other hand submits that petitioners have no locus standi to maintain petition, inasmuch as, they are not even agreement holders. He referring to the document at Annexure-E submits that petitioners claims to have entered into memorandum of

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:2510 WP No. 15992 of 2022

¶35

sale which would not give them any semblance of right to seek for any compensation. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition.

¶36

Heard. Perused the records.

¶37

Petitioners are making the claim for compensation

¶38

in respect of site Nos.8 and 9 purported to have been formed part of Sy.No.76(76/10P) in terms of a memorandum of sale dated 19.10.2007 and 18.10.2007 along with General Power of Attorney dated 23.10.2007 produced at Annexures-E to H respectively.

¶39

Though counsel for the respondent -BDA contends that petitioners have no locus standi to claim any compensation as they are neither agreement holders nor purchasers, the fact remains that the petitioners are claiming their right through and under one Smt. V.Asha who stated to have purchased the aforesaid sites in terms of registered deed of sale dated 24.04.2006 prior to issuance of notifications for acquisition by the respondent-BDA. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners do not have any locus standi for the purpose of maintaining the petition.

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:2510 WP No. 15992 of 2022

¶42

Be that as it is. Since, admittedly the respondent -

¶43

SLAO has passed the award and the same has not been approved by the State, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the respondent-SLAO by making a fresh representation by enclosing the documents in justification of their claim for compensation.

¶44

In view of the above, following;

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(1) Petition is disposed of.

¶47

(2) Petitioners shall submit their representations

¶48

within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶49

(3) On such representations being made, the respondent -SLAO shall consider the case of the petitioners, if need be by providing personal hearing and pass appropriate orders in accordance

¶50

with law within an outer limit of twelve (12) weeks from the date of approval of the award pending consideration before the State.

¶51

6 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:2510 WP No. 15992 of 2022

¶53

(4) It is made clear that no opinion is expressed with regard to the right, title interest of the petitioners which has to be independently considered by the respondent -SLAO considering the representation to be furnished by the

¶54

petitioners.

¶55

SD/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶56

RU

¶57

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Sri. Afzal Pasha v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Afzal Pasha v. the Commissioner

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

N.Sampath Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M Yallappa Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Sunandamma Vs Bengaluru Development Authority

Smt Rajamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M Nanjundaswamy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Yellappa @ Beemapura Yellappa Vs State of Karnataka