A Anand Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT, THE SCHEME CALLED “BYRASANDRA TAVAREKERE MADIVALA IV STAGE LAYOUT”. PUBLISHED VIDE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 06.08.1988 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND VIDE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 03.11.1990 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 ANNEXURE-C HAS LAPSED UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976 IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY, LAND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF/S THERETO.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:47052 WP No. 52250 of 2019

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking for the following prayers:

¶34

“a) Declare that, the Scheme called “Byrasandra Tavarekere Madivala IV Stage layout”. Published vide Preliminary Notification bearing No.BDA/ALAO/A1.PR.117/87-88 dated 06.08.1988 issued by Respondent No.2 (Vide Annexure-B) and vide Final Notification bearing No.HUD/334/MNX 90 dated 03.11.1990 issued by Respondent No.1 (Annexure-C), has lapsed under Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 in respect of the Schedule Property, and grant all consequential relief/s thereto.

¶35

b) Declare the acquisition proceedings in pursuant to the vide Preliminary Notification bearing No.BDA/ALAO/A1.PR.117/87-88 dated 06.08.1988 issued by Respondent No.2 (Vide Annexure-B) and vide Final Notification bearing No.HUD/334/MNX 90 dated 03.11.1990 issued by Respondent No.1 (Annexure-C), is abandoned by the BDA in so far as to the lands of the petitioners.

¶36

c) Issue any other writ or order or directions, as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:47052 WP No. 52250 of 2019

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶41

learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶42

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners along with the several others, had earlier instituted W.P.No.23318/2016, wherein identical prayers for declaring the lapse of the same acquisition notification were sought.

¶43

A perusal of W.P.No.23318/2016, reveals that the present petitioners were arrayed as petitioners Nos.59, 60, 61 and 63 therein. The earlier writ petition specifically sought quashing of the very same preliminary and final notifications dated 06.08.1988 and 03.11.1990, in respect of adjoining and related lands, including the schedule property.

¶44

That writ petition came to be disposed of on 28.06.2021, wherein this Court relying on the judgment in Smt. Yellamma Vs. State of Karnataka and Others¹ (Smt. Yellamma) , reserved liberty to the petitioner to avail such remedies as available in law, including submission of

¶45

1 W.P.No.21300/2016 D.D 30.03.2021

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:47052 WP No. 52250 of 2019

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

the representation to the BDA. The BDA was directed to consider the representation and pass orders within three months.

¶49

In the present petition, the petitioners have again sought the very same reliefs, without demonstrating any subsequent change in circumstance or any justification as to why the present petition needs to be entertained despite specific liberty already reserved to approach the BDA and seek redressal through the mechanism indicated by this Court.

¶50

When the earlier writ petition has been disposed of with a clear direction and remedy, and when the petitioners have not shown of having pursued the said liberty or any refusal by the BDA, a subsequent writ petition seeking identical relief is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed .

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶53

AT

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

A Anand v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A Anand v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt S Bhagirathi Vs Bescom Electric Supply Company Ltd.

Syed Waseem a S Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Puttalakshmamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Ravishankar B R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mohan Babu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. S Lakshminarayana Vs the Commissiner