Smt.Lalitha v Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS; ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 14/05/2014, 02/09/2015 AND 20/09/2017 (ANNEXURES-N, P AND Q RESPECTIVELY) MADE BY THE PETITIONER NO.1 AND ALLOT SITE AS AN INCENTIVE UNDER THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (INCENTIVE SCHEME FOR VOLUNTARY SURRENDER OF LAND) RULES, 1989 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS, AS AGAINST THE 11 GUNTAS OF ‘A’ KHARAB LAND SITUATED AT SY.NO.3/2, UTTARAHALLI MANAVARTI KAAVAL VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI – KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE, ACQUIRED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 – AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 09/09/2003 (ANNEXURE-C), TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE DATE ON WHICH THE COMPENSATION FOR THE SAID LAND WAS FIXED i.e. ON 20/11/2003 (ANNEXURE-D), THE DURATION FROM THE DATE OF FIXING THE COMPENSATION TILL INCENTIVE SITE IS ALLOTTED TO THE PETITIONERS AND THE MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND AT SY. NO.3/2, UTTARAHALLI MANAVARTI KAAVAL VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI – KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46539 WP No. 20261 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

TALUK, BANGALORE, AS ON TODAY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representations dated 14.05.2014, 02.09.2015 and 20.09.2017 (Annexures-N, P and Q respectively) and to allot an incentive site under the Bangalore Development Authority (Incentive Scheme For Voluntary Surrender of Land) Rules, 1989 (for short ‘the Rules, 1989),

¶32

Heard Sri M.S.Bhagwat, learned Senior Counsel

¶33

for the petitioners, learned AGA for respondent No.1/State and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3-Bangalore Development Authority (BDA).

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46539 WP No. 20261 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the respondent-authority has allotted incentive sites for a portion of the acquired land, no allotment has been made in respect of 0.22 guntas of ‘A’ kharab land in Sy. No. 3/2, Uttarahalli, Manavarti Kaaval Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, which was also acquired and for which compensation had been fixed on 20.11.2003. It is submitted that despite repeated representations seeking an incentive site against the ‘A’ kharab portion and though Rule 3 of the Rules, 1989 contemplates allotment of incentive sites to landowners who have voluntarily surrendered possession in terms of the acquisition proceedings, no action has been taken by the respondentauthority.

¶37

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3-BDA submits that the representations so submitted shall be considered in accordance with law within a reasonable time. In fact he states that incentive sites have already been allotted to the petitioners as per

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46539 WP No. 20261 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

the Sub-Committee’s report to the extent of 1 acre 39 guntas and that compensation has been paid in respect of

¶41

‘A’ kharab portion as well.

¶42

In order to appreciate the nature of dispute, it is necessary to refer to Rule 3 of the Rules, 1989 which reads thus :

¶43

“ 3. Allotment of sites.

¶44

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984, and subject to the provisions of Rule 4, the Authority, with a view to facilitating expeditious acquisition of land, may as per Annexure appended to these rules, allot sites as incentives to an owner of land.—

¶45

(i) if, in response to the notice given under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, he voluntarily hands over to the Deputy Commissioner possession of the land, which is being acquired from him under the said Act on behalf of the authority, free from any objection whatsoever and from any unauthorised

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46539 WP No. 20261 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

construction and the said land has vested in the Authority; or

¶49

(ii) where his land has been acquired by the authority under Section 35 of the Act:

¶50

Provided that where two or more persons jointly own such land, unless all such persons have voluntarily handed over possession in accordance with these rules, no eligibility for allotment shall accrue to any one of them.

¶51

Explanation.-- A person who had not handed over possession of the land before the commencement of this rule, shall be deemed to have voluntarily handed over possession of such land if immediately after such commencement, he hands over possession of the same free from all unauthorised constructions and after withdrawing all objections relating to possession, whether such objections have been preferred before a Court of law or not.”

¶52

The grievance of the petitioners pertains to non-

¶53

allotting of an incentive site in respect of 0.22 guntas of ‘A’

¶54

kharab land for which they claim eligibility under the Rules, 1989. Their representations in this regard have been pending before the respondent-BDA since 2014.

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:46539 WP No. 20261 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

Having regard to the nature of reliefs sought, this Court deems it appropriate to issue necessary directions to the respondent-BDA. Accordingly, this Court pass the

¶58

following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

(i) The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶61

(ii) The respondent-BDA is directed to consider the petitioners representations dated 14.05.2014, 02.09.2015 and 20.09.2017 (Annexures-N, P and Q respectively) seeking allotment of an incentive site in respect of ‘A’ kharab land and pass appropriate orders in accordance with Rule 3 of the Rules, 1989 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶62

Sd/-

¶63

______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶64

CKL

¶65

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Smt.Lalitha v. Vs State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Lalitha v. Vs State of Karnataka

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

The Executive Engineer (Ele) Vs Smt.S.Sunand @ Sunandamma

The Executive Engineer Vs Mahanthappa @ Mahanthesh N @ Mahantheshi

Sri Chenappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H K Kodandarama Vs Deputy Commissioner and Arbitrator (National Highway)

The Executive Engineer Vs G R Manjunatha

Mr L N Srinivasa Murthy Vs State of Karnataka