N Jayalakshmi Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:405 WP No. 5199 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5199 OF 2017 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

N. JAYALAKSHMI

¶9

W/O PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.179, SOOLIKERE POST, RAMASANDRA VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.

¶10

K.G.RAMACHANDRAIAH S/O GANGANNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.134/9, 7^TH MAIN ROAD, K.B.NAGAR, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. VIGNESHWARA U., ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶16

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

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:405 WP No. 5199 of 2017

¶19

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. HANAMANTHRAYA LAGALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C. ULLAL FOR ADVOCATE R2 AND R3)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 21.05.2008 VIDE NOTIFICATION NO.BDA/COMMR/DC(LA)/ALAO/158/ 2008-2009 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 18.02.2010 VIDE NOTIFICATION NO.UDD 51 MNX 2010, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND TO DECLARE THESE NOTIFICATIONS AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Petitioners claiming to be the joint owners of a site bearing Site No.179, forming part of Sy. No.160 of Ramasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, which is subject matter of the acquisition by the respondent-BDA in terms of the notifications dated 21.05.2008 and 18.02.2010 are before this Court seeking quash of said acquisition.

¶27

Sri. Gowthamdev C. Ullal, learned counsel for the respondent-BDA draws attention of this Court to the judgment and order dated 22.02.2024, passed by the Division Bench of

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:405 WP No. 5199 of 2017

¶30

this Court in W.P.No.1783/2014 and other connected matters, wherein the Division Bench of this Court in paragraph Nos. b) and c) of the operative portion of the order has issued the following directions:

¶31

''b) Insofar as the site owners who have not made an application as contemplated in para (iii)(a) hereinabove:

¶32

i) They shall register themselves for allotment under the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 within three months from today by paying the registration fee. However, payment of initial deposit by them is exempted. The necessary documents along with the said applications are also to be filed to enable the BDA to verify the same;

¶33

ii) The BDA shall treat the applicants as being entitled for priority allotment and allot each of them a site measuring 30x40 feet in the Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout at the prevailing allotment prices subject to the applicants satisfying the dual requirements of allotment under the Rules that they must be the residents of Bengaluru (for 10 years) and should not be owning any residential property Bengaluru;

¶34

iii) In case the applicants/writ petitioners do not fulfill the requirements for allotment under the Rules, 1984 they may be considered for allotment of 20x30 feet sites as per the Bangalore Development Authority (Incentive Scheme for Voluntary Surrender of Land) Rules, 1989;

¶35

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

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:405 WP No. 5199 of 2017

¶38

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.''

¶39

Sri. Vigneshwara. U, learned counsel for the petitioners

¶40

does not dispute the same. He however submits that liberty be reserved to the petitioners to file application as envisaged in the aforesaid order of the Division Bench of this Court and a direction be issued to the respondent-BDA to consider the same in a time bound manner.

¶41

Submissions taken on record.

¶42

Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners

¶43

to file application as directed by the Division Bench of this Court in the order extracted hereinabove. The respondent-BDA shall consider the said application keeping in view the observation

¶44

and direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid order.

¶45

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

¶46

RL

N Jayalakshmi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N Jayalakshmi v. the 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Govindaraju Vs Deputy Commissioner

Sri H Ravi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri N Gangadhar Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs T G Shanthamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Muniyappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M. Prabhakar Vs the Commissioner