Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sumangala Hegde vs State Of Karnataka on 5 December, 2023
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43978
WP No. 26952 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 26952 OF 2023 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SUMANGALA HEGDE,
W/O SRI NAGESH HEGDE,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/A SITE NO. 109,
KODIGEHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
KATHA/TAX ASSESSMENT,
NO.107/4120/109, KODIGEHALLI,
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 560 091.
2. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA,
W/O SRI GANGANNA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/A SITE NO.5,
KODIGEHALLI GRAMA PACHAYATH
KATHA/TAX OLD ASSESSMENT,
NO.53, NEW 53/14 KATHA NO. 134,
KODIGEHALLI, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560 091.
Digitally signed by 3. SMT. G.SUDHARANI,
GEETHAKUMARI
PARLATTAYA S D/O SRI GOVINDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
Location: High R/AT SITE NO.122/A,
Court of Karnataka
KODIGEHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
KATHA/TAX ASSESSMENT,
NO.107/4120/122A, KODIGEHALLI,
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560 091.
4. SMT. DHANALAKSHMI,
W/O SRI GOVINDARAJU G.,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/A SITE NO. 115, KODIGEHALLI
GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KATHA/TAX ASSESSMENT,
NO. 14244/115, KODIGEHALLI,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43978
WP No. 26952 of 2023
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560 091.
5. SRI RAVI KUMAR,
S/O SRI KRISHNARADDI KONNUR,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/A SITE NO. 119,
KODIGEHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
KATHA/TAX ASSESSMENT NO. 107/4120/119,
KODIGEHALLI, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 560 091.
6. SRI VASURADDI KONNUR,
S/O LATE MANJUNATHARADDI KONNUR,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/A SITE NO. 117, KODIGEHALLI
GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KATHA/TAX ASSESSMENT
NO. 107/4120/117, KODIGEHALLI,
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 560 091.
7. SMT. PUTTALAKSHMAMMA,
W/O LATE SRI BHADRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/A SITE NO.120, KODIGEHALLI
GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KATHA/TAX ASSESSMENT
NO. 4120/107, KODIGEHALLI,
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 560 091.
8. SRI B.V. MANJUNATHA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
9. SRI CHANDRASHEKHAR,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
NO.8 AND 9 ARE S/O SRI B. VASUDEVA,
R/A SITE NO.125, KODIGEHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
KATHA/TAX ASSESSMENT NO.4120/107/125,
KODIGEHALLI, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 560 091.
10. SRI BASAPPA GALAGALI,
S/O SOMAPPA HA GALAGALI,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/A SITE NO. 118, KODIGEHALLI
GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KATHA/TAX ASSESSMENT
NO. 107/4120/118, KODIGEHALLI,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:43978
WP No. 26952 of 2023
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 560 091.
11. SRI GURUSWAMY,
S/O SRI VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/A SITE NO.105, (NORTHERN SIDE)
KODIGEHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
KATHA/TAX ASSESSMENT NO.107/4120/105,
KODIGEHALLI, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 560 091.
12. SMT MANJULA
W/O VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/A SITE NO.105 (SOUTHERN PORTION)
KODIGEHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
KATHA/TAX ASSESSMENT NO.107/4120,
KODIGEHALLI, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 560 091.
13. SRI PUTTASWAMY,
S/O LATE NINGE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/A SITE NO.111, KODIGEHALLI
GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
KATHA/TAX ASSESSMENT
NO. 107/4120, KODIGEHALLI,
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 560 091.
14. SRI RAJU T.N.,
S/O SRI G.THIPPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/A SITE NO.102 AND 113,
KODIGEHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
KATHA/TAX ASSESSMENT NO.107/4120,
KODIGEHALLI, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 560091.
15. SRI RAVI G.,S/O SRI GOVINDAPPA T.,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/A SITE NO. 114, KODIGEHALLI
GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
KATHA/TAX ASSESSMENT NO.107,
KODIGEHALLI, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 560 091.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:43978
WP No. 26952 of 2023
16. SMT. THEJASWINI G.,
D/O GAVINARASAIAH G.,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/A SITE NO.104, (NORTHERN PORTION)
KODIGEHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
KATHA/TAX ASSESSMENT NO.107/4120/104,
KODIGEHALLI, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 560091.
17. SRI VENKATESH S.,
S/O SRI K.SHANMUGHAM,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/A SITE NO. 112,
KODIGEHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
KATHA/TAX ASSESSMENT NO.107,
KODIGEHALLI, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 560091.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE 560001,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE DEVELOMENT AUTHORITY,
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 020.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HANUMANTHRAYA LAGALI, AGA FOR R1;
SRI K.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:43978
WP No. 26952 of 2023
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO i) DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS TO ACT ON THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 08/11/2023 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED ON THE
R2 ON 15/11/2022 VIDE ANNEXURES A5, B5, C5, D2, E3, F3, G2,
H2, J3, K4, L6, M5, N1, P4, Q5 AND R4. ii) DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION IN THE LIGHT
OF THE DECISION / JUDGMENT OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP NO.
7522/2020 C/W 11586/2021, 17785/2021, 17810/2021, PRODUCED
IN ANNEXURE-S iii) DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO EXCLUDE THE
PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS FROM THE ACQUISITION
PROCEEDINGS AS THE AREA HAS BEEN COMPLETELY DEVELOPED
AND THE PETITIONERS ARE THE ABSOLUTE OWNERS OF THE
PROPERTY. iv) ORDER PROHIBITING THE R2 FROM DEMOLISHING
THE BUILDING / RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES OF THE PETITIONERS
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed for following reliefs:
(i) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other order or
direction directing the respondents to act on the
representation made by the petitioner dated
08.11.2023 which was duly served on respondent
no.2 on 15.11.2022 vide Annexures - A5, B5, C5,
D2, E3, F3, G2, H2, J3, K4, L6, M5, N1, P4, Q5 and
R4;
ii) Pass an order in favour of the petitioners
directing the respondents to consider the
representation in the light of the
decision/judgment of this Hon'ble Court in writ
petition no.7522/2020 c/w 11586/2021,
177/2021, 17810/2021 produced in Annexure "S".
iii) Direct the respondents to exclude the property
of the petitioners from the acquisition proceedings
as the area has been completely developed and
the petitioners are the absolute owners of the
property'
NC: 2023:KHC:43978
iv) Issue a writ or order prohibiting the
Respondent No.2 from demolishing the
building/residential structures of the petitioners
without due process of law; etc.
2. Sri M.S. Devaraju, learned counsel for petitioners
submitted that petitioners were owners of different extent of
land in Kodigehalli Grama Panchayat, khata/tax assessment
no.107/4120/109 of Kodigehalli, Yeshwanthapura Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk, wherein they had put up construction
and residing. Since they were facing threat of demolition by
BDA and on ground that they had sought for exclusion of their
land from Preliminary and Final Notification and for
regularization of construction by collecting development
charges, petitioners filed this writ petition.
3. It was submitted that under similar circumstances
this Court in its order dated 04.03.2022 at Annexure-S passed
in W.P.no.7522/2020 and connected matters directed
petitioners to submit representation to the SLAO - BDA within
four weeks and with direction to SLAO to consider same in
accordance with law.
NC: 2023:KHC:43978
4. It was submitted that since petitioners were
claiming similar benefit, learned counsel sought for allowing
writ petition and passing similar direction.
5. On other hand, Sri Hanumantharaya Lagali, learned
AGA for respondent no.1 and Sri K, Krishna, learned counsel
for respondents no.2 and 3 sought to oppose writ petition. It
was submitted that petitioners were claiming to be holders of
revenue sites purchased after issuance of final notification. It
was submitted that direction sought by BDA from Government
for consideration of application by holders of revenue sites who
had put up construction, for dropping of their lands from
acquisition had been turned down. Therefore direction sought
for cannot be granted and sought for dismissal of writ petition.
It was also submitted that in view of earlier writ petition at
Annexure - S present writ petition was barred by principles of
res judicata.
6. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition
record.
7. From above there is no dispute about petitioners'
land being acquired for Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout by
respondent -BDA. On perusal of order at Annexure - S it is
NC: 2023:KHC:43978
seen that petitioners no.1, 3, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 17 were
parties to said Writ petition and already obtained relief sought
in this writ petition. Therefore, present writ petition would be
second writ petition for same relief, is not tenable. As such writ
petition is dismissed insofar as petitioners no.1, 3, 11, 12, 14,
15 and 17.
8. Insofar as others there is no dispute that
petitioners are not challenging acquisition proceedings and
having filed representation for exclusion from acquisition were
seeking for consideration of their representation.
9. Since, representations appear to be pending, writ
petition is disposed of directing respondent -BDA, to consider
petitioners' representation in accordance with law. To facilitate
proper consideration, liberty is reserved to petitioners to
submit their representations along with supporting documents
to respondents.
Consideration of same by respondent -SLAO shall be
within 8 weeks from date of receipt of representations of
petitioners.
NC: 2023:KHC:43978
Insofar as petitioners no. 1, 3, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 17, it
is clarified that dismissal of present petition would not come in
compliance with direction issued earlier.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PSG
