Karnataka High Court
Sri.M.Murali Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2021
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.6774/2021 (BDA)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No.6199/2021 (BDA)
WRIT PETITION No.6953/2021 (BDA)
WRIT PETITION No.6955/2021 (BDA)
IN WRIT PETITION No.6774/2021
BETWEEN
1. SRI.M.MURALI KUMAR
S/O C MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
2. SMT.SREEBRUNDA
W/O SRI M.MURALI KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
BOTH THE PETITIONERS ARE
R/O NO.924, 9TH CROSS,
27TH MAIN, SECTOR-1, H.S.R.LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 102.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI D.P.MAHESH, ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING))
2
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M S BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU-560052.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
KANDAYA BHAVANA
K G ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWER
BENGALURU - 560 001.
5. THE TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
KANDAYA BHAVANA
K G ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.M.C.NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R1, R3 TO R5;
SRI K.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (VIDEO CONFERENCING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT
THE ACTION OF R-1 TO 5 IN FORCIBLE DISPOSSESSION OF THE
PETITIONER FROM THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND FORMATION
OF PROPOSED PARK OVER THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY
AND WITHOUT AUTHORITY AND THE SAME IS IN VIOLATION OF
3
PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ARTICLE 14 AND 300-A OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.6199/2021
BETWEEN
MRS.ROOPA M.,
W/O LAKSHMIKANTHA B.K.,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT #356/B, 8TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN,
B.C.C. LAYOUT, ATTIGUPPE,
VIJAYANAGARA - 560 040.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT.M.C.NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R1, R3 TO R5;
SRI K.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (VIDEO CONFERENCING))
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU - 560 052.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
KANDAYA BHAVANA
K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWER,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4
5. THE TAHASILDAR
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
KANDAYA BHAVANA
K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.M.C.NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R1, R3 TO R5;
SRI K.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (VIDEO CONFERENCING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARING
THAT THE ACTION OF R-1 TO 5 IN FORCIBLE DISPOSSESSION AND
PROPOSED FORMATION OF IN THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY,
ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT AUTHORITY AND THE SAME
IS IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND
ART.14 AND 300-A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
IN WRIT PETITION No.6953/2021
BETWEEN
SMT.LAKSHMAMMA
W/O A.B.SREEKANTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
RESIDING AT C/O NO.11,
11TH BLCOK, BANASHANKARI 6TH STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 060.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI D.P.MAHESH, ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING))
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
5
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU 560 052.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
KANDAYA BHAVANA,
K.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITIN OFFICER
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VISHWESHWRAIAH TOWER,
BENGLAURU - 560 001.
5. THE TAHASILDAR
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
KANDAYA BHAVANA,
K.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.M.C.NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R1, R3- R5;
SRI K.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (VIDEO CONFERENCING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT
THE ACTION OF R-1 TO 5 IN FORCIBLE DISPOSSESSION OF THE
PETITIONER FORM THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND FORMATION
OF PROPOSED PARK OVER THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY
AND WITHOUT AUTHORITY AND THE SAME IS IN VIOLATION OF
PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ART. 14 AND 300-A OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.6955/2021
BETWEEN
THE JANATHA SEVA CO-OPERATIVE
BANK LIMITED
OFFICE AT NO.14, RAJATHA BHAVAN, 1ST MAIN,
6
HAMPINAGARA, VIJAYANAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 104.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
SMT. BHAGYA S.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI D.P.MAHESH, ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING))
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU - 560 052.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
KANDAYA BHAVAN,
K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001.
4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWER,
BANGALURU - 560 001.
5. THE TAHASILDAR
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
KANDAYA BHAVANA,
K.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.M.C.NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R1, R3- R5;
SRI K.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (VIDEO CONFERENCING))
7
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT
THE ACTION OF R-1 TO 5 IN FORCIBLE DISPOSSESSION OF THE
PETITIONER FROM THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND FORMATION
OF PROPOSED PARK OVER THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY
AND WITHOUT AUTHORITY AND THE SAME IS IN VIOLATION OF
PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ART. 14 AND 300-A OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.,
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These petitions, though listed for orders, with the consent
of the learned counsel for the parties, are taken up for final
disposal.
2. These writ petitions are filed by the petitioners seeking
a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not
to dispossess them from their properties for formation of
proposed park, which is contrary to its own approved residential
layout plan. As the action of the respondents is without
authority and violation of Articles 14 and 300A of the
Constitution of India the petitioners seek to conduct a survey of
the disputed property as per the official memorandum approving
the layout plan and such relinquishment deed.
3. Heard Sri D.P.Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners, Smt.M.C.Nagashree, learned Additional
Government Advocate for first, third to fifth respondents and Sri
K. Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent, in all the petitions.
4. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the
petitions as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:
The petitioners claim to be the owners in possession of
their respective sites. The sites are formed in survey No.30 of
Kottigepalya, Vinayaka Layout, Nagarbhavi Village, Bengaluru
North Taluk. Few of the petitioners have purchased from their
earlier owners and few are the allottees of the Society. The
petitioners have also placed on record certain sale deeds and
Khata certificates issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara
Palike, to establish their ownership on their respective sites, in
these petitions. Therefore, the petitioners claim to have fenced
their properties and have protected their ownership by doing so.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
submit that the Society has submitted certain representations to
the respondents - Bengaluru Development Authority (hereinafter
referred to as 'the BDA' for short) and the said representations
are placed before the Apex Court in the contempt case arising
out of the action of non-implementation of its order dated
26.08.2019, in Civil Appeal No.3600/2011, which is pending
consideration before the Apex Court. He would further submit
that the petitioners therein are given an opportunity to submit
their say before the Authorities and they would demonstrate that
the properties come within the ambit of the judgment passed by
the Apex Court and would rely on the judgment of a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in writ petition No.15585/2020 connected
with writ petition No.15601/2020 disposed on 01.02.2020,
wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench after considering the judgment
of the Apex Court has directed the petitioners therein to be
heard in the matter and then pass appropriate orders to be
passed in accordance with law.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that
they have complied with the judgment of the Apex Court in its
entirety with regard to the properties on the disputed area, but
would submit that if the petitioners are to be heard, they would
hear the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance
with law, as nothing is left for the Sate now, to protect the rights
of the petitioners as the State has implemented the judgment of
the Apex Court. Be that as it may.
7. The petitioners allege that the portion which the Apex
Court has directed to be taken up for maintaining it as a park is
totally different than that what the State has done in the case of
the areas owned by the petitioners. Therefore, the third
respondent - Deputy Commissioner is directed to pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law, after hearing the
petitioners and identifying the properties of the petitioners, if
any.
8. Without expecting further notice, the petitioners are
directed to appear before the third respondent - the Deputy
Commissioner, Bengaluru Development Authority on
05.07.2021 at 3.00 p.m.
9. It is made clear that this Court has not pronounced
upon the merit of the matter or the right of the petitioners over
and above the order passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal
No.3600/2011.
10. The third respondent - the Deputy Commissioner shall
comply with this order and pass appropriate orders within four
weeks from 05.07.2021.
11. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions
stand disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
nvj
CT:MJ
