Sri Srinivasa Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI SRINIVASA S/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC:LUGGAGE AUTO RICKSHAW, DRIVER, R/O NO. 1032, 7TH CROSS, OPPOSITE TO HONNALAMMA TEMPLE, VIJAYANANDA NAGAR SLUM, NANDINI LAYOUT POST, BENGALURU-560 096.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI.C.R.GOPALASWAMY, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BHARGAV G., ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶15

THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:4105-DB WA No. 329 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

KUMARAKRUPA WEST, BENGALURU-560027.

¶19

THE KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOOPMENT BOARD REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, NO. 55, ABHAYA COMPLEX, RISALDAR STREET, SESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 020

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1; SRI.K.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI.B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO i) CALL FOR THE RECORDS ii) QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT, DATED 02.01.2024 IN WP No. 11011/2022 (BDA) iii) CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE W.P No. 11011/2022 (BDA), FILED BY THE APPELLANT iv) GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFs, ORDER, AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶27

The appellant appears to be an unauthorized

¶28

occupant of the land in Gowtham Nagar Slum, J.B.Kaval,

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:4105-DB WA No. 329 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Bengaluru. Under the Policy, the Bengaluru Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘BDA’ for short) had regularised the site in the possession of the petitioner in the year 1992. After 21 years from the date of the said regularization, the petitioner gave a representation to the BDA in the year 2013 that the site No.297 was regularized in his favour, but someone else had encroached upon the site and had put up an unauthorized construction on the site regularized in his favour. Therefore, he made a request for an alternative site to be allotted to him.

¶32

The learned Single Judge having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner’s unauthorized occupation of the land was regularized, held that he was not entitled for allotment of any alternate site in his favour.

¶33

If the petitioner has failed to perfect his right in respect of the site, which was regularized in his favour, the BDA cannot be held responsible, and the petitioner would not get any right to seek an alternate allotment of

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:4105-DB WA No. 329 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

the site. If the petitioner has any right against the unauthorized occupant who has allegedly put up some construction on site No.297 situated at Gowtham Nagar Slum, J.B.Kaval, Bengaluru, he should take appropriate proceedings under the law against such encroacher. However, the BDA cannot be directed to allot an alternative site and therefore we find no merit in this appeal and accordingly dismissed.

¶38

All pending I.A.s also stand dismissed.

¶39

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶40

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶41

JJ

¶42

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Sri Srinivasa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Srinivasa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Thimmamma Vs State of Karnataka

Ipac Paper Boards (India) Private Limited Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Sri. a. M. Srinivasa Prasad Vs Shanthinikethan Residents Association

The Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs R Ramachandrappa

M Jayaram Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Venkatesh Vs Smt Annapurna