R Suresh v. the Bangalore Development Authority

Karnataka HC6 Jan 2025WP/19109/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP No. 19109 of 2021 (BDA), High Court of Karnataka, decided 06.01.2025 by M.G.S. Kamal, J.; BDA acquisition for Sir M Vishveswaraiah Layout (notifications 24.01.2002, 31.10.2002); Gramatana site, Khatha 179/194; alternative site allotment; representation dated 03.08.2013 (Annexure-D); SLAO recommendation (Annexure-G); Junjamma v. BDA, ILR 2005 KAR 608 relied on; writ of mandamus under Articles 226 and 227; petition disposed with direction to BDA to consider and pass orders within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent-BDA to consider the petitioner's representations (Annexures-B and D) and pass appropriate orders keeping in view the law laid down in Junjamma (ILR 2005 KAR 608), within three months from receipt of certified copy of the order. ¶¶35

R Suresh Vs the Bangalore Development Authority — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:8 WP No. 19109 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 19109 OF 2021 (BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

R. SURESH SON OF SRI. LATE H. RAJGOPAL, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.SF-2, 2^ND FLOOR, BHARGAVI APARTMENT, APARTMENT ROAD, KATTREGUPPA EAST, BSK 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU--560 085.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA K., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

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

¶14

THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-III BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:8 WP No. 19109 of 2021

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ALLOT AN ALTERNATIVE SITE AT SIR M VISHVESHWARAIAH LAYOUT AS PER HIS APPLICATION / REPRESENTATION DATED 03.08.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-D

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the relief of writ of mandamus to the respondents, directing them to allot an alternative site at Sir.M.Vishveswaraiah Layout, as per his representation dated 03.08.2013 as per Annexure-D.

¶24

The petitioner claims to have purchased a Gramatana Site bearing No.14, at Nuglipalya Village, Ullalu Village, Yeswanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk from his vendor in terms of deed of sale dated 26.08.1991. Khatha has also been issued assigning the said site with Katha No.179/194. The said site formed part of the land in

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:8 WP No. 19109 of 2021

¶27

Survey No.45, which was the subject matter of the acquisition by the respondent-BDA for the formation of Sir.M.Vishveswaraiah Layout in terms of the notification dated 24.01.2002 and 31.10.2002.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner drawing the attention of this Court to the order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, produced at Annexure-G, submits that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had indeed considered the case of the petitioner and had recommended for allotment of an alternative site in terms of the judgment of this Court passed in the case of JUNJAMMA AND ORS. VS THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT

¶29

AUTHORITY reported in ILR 2005 KAR 608. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that despite repeated requests, the respondents have not passed any appropriate orders and hence the petition.

¶30

Learned counsel for the respondents-BDA

¶31

submits, given sometime and if the petitioner satisfies the conditions mentioned in the judgment of this Court in the

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:8 WP No. 19109 of 2021

¶34

case of JUNJAMMA referred to above, his case would be considered in accordance with law. His submission is taken on record.

¶35

Petition is disposed off directing the respondent - BDA to consider the representation of the petitioner as per Annexures-B and D and pass appropriate orders keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the case of JUNJAMMA (supra). Such orders shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶36

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

¶37

¶38

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

R Suresh v. the Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Suresh v. the Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Syed Adil Basha Quadri Vs Syed Azadullah

The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Vs K v Forgings Pvt. Ltd.

Axis Bank Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Dr. Naveen S L Vs the Commissioner

Muniyamma Vs State of Karnataka

V Ramaiah Vs State of Karnataka