Sri C Byrappa Vs State of Karnataka

SRI ASHOK EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, MAJOR, WORKING AT NO.2, SUB DIVISION, NADAPRABHU KEMPEGOWDA BADAVANE VIBHAGA, BDA BANGALORE.

¶22

SRI ASHOK C BAGI ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, MAJOR,WORKING AT NO.2, SUB-DIVISION, NADAPRABHU KEMPEGOWDA BADAVANE VIBHAGA, BDA, BANGALORE.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. MURGESH V CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TOR R7)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-4 AND R-5 SPECIFICALLY NOT TO DESTROY ANY STANDING TREES IN THE LAND, MENTIONED IN THE SCHEDULE BELOW AND FURTHER NOT TO PROCEED WITH TAKING POSSESSION ILLEGALLY TILL THE MATTER IS FINALLY SETTLED AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:2033 WP No. 977 of 2025

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

Petitioner is before this Court seeking direction to the respondent-BDA not to destroy any standing trees in the land mentioned in the Schedule and not to proceed with taking possession illegally till the matter is finally settled.

¶31

Sri. Vinod Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court to operative portion at paragraph No.(iV) of the order dated 20.12.2024, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.61154/2014 C/w W.P.Nos.50948/2016, 14510/2018, 1201/2020, 8235/2021 and 26090/2022, submits that though petitioner herein challenged the acquisition, which has been dismissed, was given protection in terms of the paragraph No.(iV) of the said order. He submits that the respondent-BDA was directed to take possession of the land in question only after passing of the award. That since the awards has not been passed as directed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the said petition. Respondent-BDA is not entitled to take possession. He further submits that in violation and contrary to the said direction, the respondent-BDA has issued a notice dated 10.01.2025 at Annexure-J calling upon

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:2033 WP No. 977 of 2025

¶34

the petitioner to handover the possession of the subject land within seven days from the date of receipt of said notice. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for respondent-BDA submits that during the proceedings in aforesaid writ petitions in W.P.No.61154/2014 C/w W.P.Nos.50948/2016, 14510/2018, 1201/2020, 8235/2021 and 26090/2022, an affidavit was filed which is produced by the petitioner himself along with the present writ petition at Annexure-G, wherein the Commissioner of the respondent-BDA has given details of the lands that were acquired, utilised and the details of the lands in respect of which the awards have been passed. Referring to the contents of the said affidavit, learned counsel submits that out of total land notified for acquisition which is 321 acres and 10 guntas and only an extent of 301 acres and 23 guntas of land was available in the notified survey numbers. Out of the said 301 acres and 23 guntas of land, award in respect of 290 acres and 8 guntas has already been passed and that land of the petitioner is included in the said extent of 290 acres and 8 guntas of land. He further submits that, petitioner claims to be the owner of the land in respect of land bearing Sy.No.64/1,

¶36

5 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:2033 WP No. 977 of 2025

¶38

measuring 1 acres and 29 guntas and Sy.No.65/1 new number Sy.No.65/5, measuring 1 acres and 16 guntas. That the award in respect of land bearing Sy.No.64/1, measuring 1 acres and 29 guntas has been made on 12.09.2012 and award in respect of Sy.No.65/1 new number Sy.No.65/5, measuring 1 acres and 16 guntas has been made on 22.12.2022. That is even prior to the passing of the order, now being relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He further submits that the award notice was served on the petitioner by affixing the same on the land and since the award was passed as per the scheme providing/allotment of 50% of the developed sites, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the same. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition.

¶39

Heard and perused the records.

¶40

There is no dispute of the fact that the petitioner had challenged the acquisition proceedings, which has been declined by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court Vide Order dated 20.12.2024 passed in W.P.No.61154/2014 C/w W.P.Nos.50948/2016, 14510/2018, 1201/2020, 8235/2021 and 26090/2022 as noted above. However, the Co-ordinate Bench

¶41

6 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:2033 WP No. 977 of 2025

¶43

of this Court at paragraph No.(iV) of operative portion of the said order has directed as under:

¶44

'' iv). Respondent-BDA is directed to take possession of the land in question, if not taken till date, and to pass the award if not passed, within six months from the from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order in accordance with law and to complete the project in terms of the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above.''

¶45

The only grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent-BDA can not proceed to take possession of the land without completing of the said direction. In the light of the particulars/details furnished by the learned counsel for the respondent-BDA as noted at paragraph No.3 hereinabove, which is not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition does not survive for consideration. Liberty is reserved for the petitioner to seek such remedies as may be available in law, with regard to the award already passed in respect of his land. Accordingly, petition is

¶46

dismissed .

¶47

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

¶48

RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Sri C Byrappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri C Byrappa 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Vijayamma Vs the Speical Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority

Sri. N. Ramesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. a. Ramasubbaiah Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Sri T B Ramu, Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. S N Somashekara Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Mangilal @ Mongilal Vs the Commissioner