Disposed¶52

Ramesh R v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Jan 2025WP/24724/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; liberty reserved to the petitioner to avail such other remedy as may be available under law. ¶52

Ramesh R Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; liberty reserved to the petitioner to avail such other remedy as may be available under law.

¶52

Issue for consideration

Maintainability: whether the writ petition can be entertained when it did not disclose the existence of 35 residential houses on the subject land and did not implead their owners/occupants, while seeking a direction to BDA to hand over vacant possession. +1 more

¶52

Court's answer

The petition, which did not disclose the existence of the 35 residential houses on the subject property and did not make their owners/occupants parties, cannot be entertained, especially where handover of vacant possession is sought; the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought.

¶52

Ratio / Principle

Even according to the respondent-BDA, though the final notification for acquisition of the petitioner's land was issued on 22.07.1991, till date neither award has been passed nor possession taken; the acquisition has not been completed in the manner known to law.

¶50-51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (M.G.S. Kamal, J.), oral order dated 22.01.2025 in W.P. No. 24724 of 2022 (LA-BDA): writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by Ramesh R. seeking quashing of the final notification dated 22.07.1991 (Annexure-G) issued by respondents 2 and 3 acquiring Sy.No.83/8, measuring 2 acres 20 guntas, Doddakallasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, notified vide preliminary notification dated 17.11.1988 for formation of the 'Jayaprakash Narayana Nagar, 9th Stage' layout, together with a direction to BDA to return vacant possession. BDA's statement of objections recorded that the land was fully built up with 35 residential houses whose owners were not parties, and that BDA had neither taken possession nor passed an award. The Court held the acquisition had not been completed in the manner known to law, but declined relief since the petition neither disclosed the 35 houses nor impleaded their owners/occupants; petition disposed of with liberty to pursue other available remedies.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:2818 WP No. 24724 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 24724 OF 2022 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAMESH R., AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA R/AT NO.119, 7^TH CROSS VASANTHAPURA BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU - 560 061.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VIDYA S.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA RERPESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDAH BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

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

¶14

URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDAH BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHROITY REPREENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALROE - 560 020.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. K. KRISHNA.,ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:2818 WP No. 24724 of 2022

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 22/07/1991 PASSED BY THE R2 AND R3 RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-G. CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE R3 TO RETURN AND HAND OVER VACANT POSSESSION OF THE SAID LAND TO THE PETITIONER.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Petitioner is before this Court seeking following reliefs:

¶25

''a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ/direction to quash the notification dated 22/07/1991 passed by the 2nd & 3rd respondent as per Annexure-G.

¶26

b) Consequently direct the 3rd respondent to return and hand over vacant possession of the said land to the petitioner.

¶27

c) Award cost and litigation expenses,

¶28

d) Pass such other order or direction that this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity.''

¶29

Case of the petitioner is that, his grandfather one Late.

¶30

Ramachandrappa @ Ramachandrabasappa was the absolute

¶31

owner of property bearing Sy.No.83/8 measuring 2 acres and 20 guntas of Doddakallasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, he having acquired the same in terms

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2818 WP No. 24724 of 2022

¶33

of a deed of sale dated 20.11.1922. That the said grandfather of the petitioner passed away on 10.06.1967 and thereafter the father of the petitioner namely Ramakrishnappa succeeded to the said property who also passed away on 15.03.1991. Ever since then the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property.

¶34

That the respondent-BDA had issued a preliminary notification dated 17.11.1988 proposing to acquire the aforesaid property for formation of layout called ''Jayaprakash Narayana Nagar, 9^th Stage". A final notification dated 22.07.1991 was also issued, however no compensation is paid to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner seeking quashing of the final notification.

¶35

Learned counsel for the respondent-BDA submits that the petitioner who claims to be the legal representatives of the original owner of the property has approached this Court after lapse of thirty one years, after having completely participating in the acquisition proceedings. He also refers to an application dated 23.03.1999, filed by the petitioner himself seeking compensation in respect of the acquired land for himself and on

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:2818 WP No. 24724 of 2022

¶38

behalf of his other brothers who have not been made party to the present proceedings. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner himself has filed another writ petition seeking allotment of site in lieu of compensation which has not been disclosed. Learned counsel for the respondent-BDA further referring to the contents of paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the statement of objections submits that though the notification was issued, since the land being claimed by the petitioner consisted of 35 residential houses and the same having been fully built up, the respondent-BDA has not taken possession of the said lands and award is also not passed. He on instruction further submits that the respondent-BDA has not proceeded further in the matter.

¶39

Paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the statement of objections dated 24.08.2023 filed on 01.03.2024 reads as under:

¶40

''3. It is submitted that after issuance of the preliminary notification, on the spot inspection conducted by the Engineering section of the BDA, it was found that the land in question was fully built up and consist of 35 constructed houses. The owners of the said 35 houses who have constructed the houses in the land in question are not made parties to the above writ petition. In view of the constructions of 35 houses by different

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:2818 WP No. 24724 of 2022

¶43

persons, the petitioner is not the owner of the land in question. Therefore, the above writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable.

¶44

4. It is submitted that the land in Sy. No.83/8 measuring 2 acres 20 guntas situated in Doddakallasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk along with certain other lands were notified for public purpose for the formation of layout called Jayaprakash Narayana Nagar 9th Stage layout vide preliminary Notification dated 17-11-1988 and Final Notification dated 22-7-1991. In respect of the land in Sy. No.83/8 is concerned Sri. Ramachannabasappa and others were the notified khatedars. Spot inspection of the land in question was conducted on 10-3-1997 and found that the land in question was fully built up area. The petitioner and his brothers made application dated 23-3-1999 seeking for compensation amount in respect of the land in question to them. The BDA has sought report from its Engineering Section about the status of the land in question and it was reported that total 35 houses were in existence in the land in question. In view of the same, BDA has not passed award in respect of the land in question.''

¶45

From the averments made in the statement of

¶46

objections referred to above, it is clear that even according to the respondent-BDA though the final notification for acquisition

¶47

of land belonging to the petitioner was issued on 22.07.1991 admittedly till date, neither the award has been passed nor the

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:2818 WP No. 24724 of 2022

¶50

possession has not been taken. In other words, the acquisition

¶51

has not been completed in the manner known to law.

¶52

In any event, since the petitioner has not disputed the existence of 35 residential houses on the subject property and as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondentBDA, petition without disclosing these aspect of the matter and without even making owners/occupants of the said residential houses as party to the present petition, same cannot be entertained, moreso when the relief in the nature of direction to the respondent-BDA to hand over the vacant possession of the subject land is sought for. Petitioner thus is not entitled for relief as sought for. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail such other remedy as may be available under law. Thus, petition is disposed of .

¶53

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

¶54

RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Final notification dated 22/07/1991 issued by respondents 2 and 3 (Annexure-G) acquiring the petitioner's land, challenged with a consequential direction to return and hand over vacant possession.¶20
Respondents 2 and 3 (Urban Development Department / Bangalore Development Authority) · 22/07/1991
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's grandfather Late Ramachandrappa @ Ramachandrabasappa acquired Sy.No.83/8 measuring 2 acres 20 guntas of Doddakallasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk by deed of sale dated 20.11.1922; after the grandfather's death (10.06.1967) the father Ramakrishnappa succeeded, and after his death (15.03.1991) the petitioner has been in possession.¶33
Prior proceeding
BDA issued a preliminary notification dated 17.11.1988 proposing acquisition of the property for formation of the layout called 'Jayaprakash Narayana Nagar, 9th Stage'.¶34
Prior proceeding
A final notification dated 22.07.1991 was issued, but no compensation was paid to the petitioner; hence the petition seeking quashing of the final notification.¶34
Prior proceeding
An application dated 23.03.1999 was filed by the petitioner himself seeking compensation for himself and his brothers, who are not parties to the present petition.¶35
Prior proceeding
The petitioner had filed another writ petition seeking allotment of a site in lieu of compensation, which was not disclosed in the present petition.¶38
Prior proceeding
Statement of objections dated 24.08.2023, filed on 01.03.2024, recording that spot inspection by BDA's Engineering section found the land fully built up with 35 constructed houses whose owners were not made parties.¶40
Prior proceeding
As submitted by BDA's counsel, BDA has not taken possession of the said lands and no award has been passed.¶38
Prior proceeding
Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the statement of objections dated 24.08.2023, filed on 01.03.2024, were placed on record and relied upon by the Court.¶39

Ramesh R v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh R v. 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

Sri. Afzal Pasha Vs the Commissioner

Dodda Narayana Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

M Ramaiah Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

Sri v Rama Rao Nimbalkar Vs the State of Karnataka

Munegowda S Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Malathi S. Shetty Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer