Bengaluru Development Authority vs A Gurumurthy Reddy
2023 Latest Caselaw 1200 Kant

                                                 -1-
                                                         WA No.357 of 2021




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                          DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023
                                             PRESENT
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                                 AND
                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
                              WRIT APPEAL NO.357 OF 2021 (LA-BDA)
                   BETWEEN:
                   1.   BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
                        T. CHOWDIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST
                        BENGALURU-560020
                        BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
Digitally signed
by RUPA V          2.   THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
Location: High          BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Court of                T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST
Karnataka
                        BENGALURU-560020.

                                                              ...APPELLANTS
                   (BY SRI. SACHIN B.S. ADV.,)
                   AND:
                   1.   A. GURUMURTHY REDDY
                        S/O LATE A. ANNAIAH REDDY
                        AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
                        R/AT NO.509, ANNAIAH REDDY LAYOUT
                        SY NO.346, BANASAWADI VILLAGE
                        BENGALURU-560043.

                   2.   A. RAMA REDDY
                        S/O LATE A. NNAIAH REDDY
                        AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
                        R/AT NO.483/1, ANNAIAH REDDY LAYOUT
                        SY NO.346, BANASAWADI VILLAGE
                        BENGALURU-560043.

                   3.   A. PRABHU
                        S/O LATE A. ANNAIAH REDDY
                        AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
                           -2-
                                      WA No.357 of 2021




     R/AT NO.554/4, ANNAIAH REDDY LAYOUT
     SY NO.346, BANASAWADI VILLAGE
     BENGALURU-560043.

4.   A. PRAKASH
     S/O LATE A. ANNAIAH REDDY
     AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
     R/AT NO.654/1, ANNAIAH REDDY LAYOUT
     SY NO.346, BANASAWADI VILLAGE
     BENGALURU-560043.

5.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     BY ITS SECRETARY
     DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
     M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADV., FOR R1
    SRI. B. RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP FOR R5
         R2, R3, R4 SERVED)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE
LEARNED    SINGLE   JUDGE     DATED    06/10/2017  IN
W.P.5312/2016.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                        ORDER

This intra Court appeal has been filed against an

order dated 06.10.2017 passed by the learned Single

Judge in W.P.No.5312/2016 by which the writ petition

preferred by the respondent Nos.1 to 4 has been allowed

and the acquisition proceedings in respect of land

WA No.357 of 2021

bearing Sy.No.346 measuring 3 acres 33 guntas

excluding 1 acre 2 guntas of the land, which was

utilized for the purpose of formation of layout is

declared as lapsed. The learned Single Judge has

directed the Bangalore Development Authority to

determine the market value in respect of 1 acre 2

guntas of land and to make payment of compensation

within six weeks.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the

parties at length.

3. Admittedly, the learned Single Judge has passed

an order by placing reliance on an order passed in

similar writ petitions namely W.P.Nos.9734-9737/2015

and has held that the aforesaid order squarely applies

to the facts of the case on hand as well. It is also not in

dispute that the aforesaid order passed by the learned

Single Judge has been upheld by a Division Bench of

WA No.357 of 2021

this Court vide judgment dated 06.07.2022 passed in

W.A.No.223/2022.

4. In view of aforesaid and with a view to maintain

parity, we do not find any ground to entertain the

appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby

dismissed.

Consequently, the pending interlocutory

application, if any, is also dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RV