Sri Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE FINAL NOTIFICATION ISSUED VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED 31.10.2002, NO.UDD 654 MNX 2002 FOR FORMATION OF LAYOUT CALLED "SIR M. VISHVESVARAIAH II LAYOUT" RESTRICTING TO PETITIONER'S SCHEDULE PROPERTY ALONGWITH PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION NO.BDA/COMMR/DC(LA)/ALAO/09/2002-03 DATED 15.03.2002 RESTRICTING TO PETITIONER'S SCHEDULE PROPERTY ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner being the erstwhile owner of the land bearing Sy.No.8/1 situated at Ullalu Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk has filed this petition challenging the preliminary notification bearing No.BDA/COMMR/DC(LA)/ALAO/09/2002-03 dated 15.04.2002 and the final notification bearing No.UDD 654 MNX 2002 dated 31.10.2002 issued by the respondent No.1 under Section 19(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 for the purposes of formation of 'Sir M. Vishveswaraiah Nagar II Layout'. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28101 WP No. 45359 of 2013

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

the acquisition proceedings in respect of old Sy.No.8 (new Sy.No.8/1) of Ullalu Village measuring 2 acres 23 guntas is vitiated and the scheme has lapsed in view of its nonimplementation within five years. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 12.02.2013.

¶29

The petitioner contends that the aforementioned land was notified for acquisition for formation of 'Sir M. Vishveswaraiah Nagar II Layout' in terms of the final notification dated 31.10.2002. It is contended that similar acquisitions were challenged before this Court, which were all disposed off, issuing directions to the landowners to file appropriate applications seeking redressal of their grievances and the respondent No.2 was directed to consider the grievances and pass appropriate orders and until such consideration, the possession of the property should not be disturbed. The petitioner therefore contends that similar benefit be extended to him by issuing appropriate direction to the respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 12.02.2013.

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:28101 WP No. 45359 of 2013

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the issue raised in this petition is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, what is famously known as Junjamma's case [Junjamma and others vs. The Bangalore Development Authority and others - ILR 2005 KAR 608] , in terms of which, the respondent No.2 was directed to consider the grievance of the landlosers and pass appropriate orders and an appeal filed thereagainst was dismissed as withdrawn reserving liberty to the appellant to seek review of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. He therefore, submits that following the judgment passed in Junjamma's case, referred supra, the petitioner had filed a representation dated 12.02.2013 and the said representation is not considered but in the meanwhile, the respondents are trying to take over possession of the land from the petitioner. He therefore, prays that suitable directions be issued to the respondent No.2 to consider the representation.

¶34

The petition is opposed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 stating inter alia that following the final notification referred to in the writ petition, an award was passed on 05.12.2002 and possession of the property was taken under a

¶35

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28101 WP No. 45359 of 2013

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

mahazar on 04.03.2003. It is also contended that the compensation is kept in a deposit with the respondent No.2 on 08.06.2004. It is therefore, contended that the acquisition is complete in all respects and no indulgence can be shown to the petitioner.

¶38

The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3

¶39

however submitted that if the petitioner submits a representation in line with the directions issued by this Court in Junjamma's case, referred supra, the request of the petitioner would be considered.

¶40

I have considered the submissions of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶41

The total extent of land in Sy.No.8/1 of Ullalu Village is 4 acres 33 guntas. As regards 2 acre 10 guntas which is notified for acquisition, the petitioner contends that the same is required for the purpose of a nursery which is excluded from acquisition. Besides this, it is also contended that several properties adjacent to the property of the petitioner which are notified for acquisition are already excluded from acquisition

¶42

6 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:28101 WP No. 45359 of 2013

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

and therefore, the property notified for acquisition is not suitable for formation of a layout, as it is an isolated piece of property.

¶46

If that be so, in view of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court upholding the notifications and granting certain benefits to the landlosers, the only relief that can be granted to the petitioner is to direct the respondent No.2 to consider the representation filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders.

¶47

Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed off,

¶48

directing the respondent No.2 to consider the representation filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in view of the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Junjamma's case, referred supra. Until such consideration, the respondents shall not dispossess the petitioner from the land measuring 2 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No.8/1 of Ullal Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. In order to expedite the consideration, the petitioner is granted an

¶49

7 -

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:28101 WP No. 45359 of 2013

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

opportunity to furnish a fresh representation along with all documents to the respondent No.3, within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and respondent No.3 shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within the time stipulated above.

¶53

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶54

PMR

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Sri Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Venkatesh 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 Jayamma Vs the State of Karnataka

R Kumaraswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Chikkatayamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Byregowda Alias Krishnegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Raja B M Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Ramamani v Vs Bangalore Development Authority