Karnataka High Court
Smt. H. S. Shanthamma vs Bengaluru Development Authority on 16 February, 2023
Bench: Alok Aradhe, Vijaykumar A Patil
-1-
WA No. 3470 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.3470 OF 2015 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. H. S. SHANTHAMMA ,
W/O LATE K.R. REVANASIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/A NO. 16/10, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
GOVINDARAJANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 040
2. SMT. K. R. RENUKAMBA,
W/O DR. A.S. CHANNABASAVANNA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/A NO.7/A, 2ND STAGE
Digitally signed KHB COLONY, BASAVESHWARANAGAR
by MADHURI S BENGALURU - 560 079
Location: High
Court of ...APPELLANTS
Karnataka
(BY SRI. M.R.RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. H.N.BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 020
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
-2-
WA No. 3470 of 2015
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 020
4. SRI HANUMANTHE GOWDA
S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/A NO.164/1
SRI LAKSHMI NURSERY FARM
ULLAL BASTI ROAD, (SONNENAHALLI)
100 FEET ROAD, SIR M. V. EXTENSION,
BENGALURU - 560 056
5. SMT. YASHODA
W/O N. MAHADEV
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/A NO, 1735, 7TH CROSS ROAD,
6TH 'A' MAIN ROAD,
R.P.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU -560 040
6. DR. INDUMATHI
W/O A. KUMARASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/A NO.1468, 5TH CROSS ROAD,
2ND STAGE, 1ST PHASE
CHANDRA LAYOUT
BENGALURU - 560 040
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.V.CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R3;
SRI. B.RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP FOR R2;
SRI. NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. KALYAN R, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
SRI. C.R.GOPALASWAMY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. BHARGAV G, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
-3-
WA No. 3470 of 2015
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 19TH
AUGUST 2015 IN W.P.NOS.30320-30321/2015 AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE
APPELLANT AND GRANT RELIEF AS SOUGHT FOR IN THE WRIT
PETITION; b) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTIONS AS
THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS
AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALLOW THE WRIT
APPEALS WITH COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri. M.R. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel for
Sri.H.N.Basavaraju, learned counsel for the appellants.
Sri.M.V.Charati, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.1 & 3.
Sri. B.rajendra Prasad, HCGP for respondent No.2.
Sri. Nagaiah, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
Sri. Kalyan R, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
Sri.C.R.Gopalaswamy, Senior Counsel for
Sri.Bhargav G, learned counsel for respondent No.6
WA No. 3470 of 2015
This intra Court appeal emanates from the order
dated 19.08.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge by
which the writ petition preferred by the appellants has
been dismissed.
2. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal
briefly stated are that the appellants claim to be the
owners of the same sites which were acquired for
formation of 'Sir M. Vishveshwaraiah Layout'. The action of
formation of the aforesaid layout was assailed before this
Court in JUNJAMMA AND ORS. VS. THE BANGALORE
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1 wherein the learned Single
Judge of this Court upheld the validity of the acquisition.
However, certain directions were issued to the Authority to
consider the claim of the land owners who had sought the
relief of dropping of the land acquisition proceedings.
3. It appears that the appellants had submitted a
representation. However, the aforesaid representation was
not considered. Thereupon, the appellants filed the writ
ILR 2005 KAR 605
WA No. 3470 of 2015
petition, namely, W.P.Nos.39639-39640/2012 before this
Court which was disposed by the learned Single Judge vide
order dated 20.02.2013 in view of the submission made
on behalf of the Bangalore Development Authority that the
representation submitted by the appellants shall be
considered.
4. However, the representation submitted by the
appellants was rejected vide order dated 12.03.2015. The
appellants assailed the aforesaid endorsement in a writ
petition, namely, W.P.Nos.30320-30321/2015. Learned
Single Judge vide order dated 19.08.2015 has dismissed
the writ petition inter alia on the ground that the
appellants have not produced any material to show that
they are the notified Khatedar. In the aforesaid factual
background, this appeal has been filed.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants
submitted that in the earlier round of litigation, the
Authority itself had volunteered to consider the
representation submitted by the appellants. It is further
WA No. 3470 of 2015
submitted the appellants are ready and willing to produce
to show that they are the notified khatedar.
6. In view of the aforesaid submission, learned
counsel for the Authority submits that in case the
appellants substantiate their claim that they are the
owners of the land by filing the documents, their
representation shall be considered in accordance with law.
At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent-Authority
submitted that the layout has already been developed and
third party interest has been created.
7. Be that as it may, in the facts of the case, we
are inclined to permit the appellants to substantiate the
claim of the appellants by filing the documents before the
Authority within a period of three weeks from today in
support of their claim that they are the owners of the land.
In case a fresh representation along with the aforesaid
documents is filed before the Authority within three weeks
from today, the Authority shall consider the same and
decide by a speaking order after affording an opportunity
WA No. 3470 of 2015
of hearing to the appellants as well as to the contesting
respondents without being influenced by the order dated
12.03.2015.
To the aforesaid extent, the order passed by the
learned Single Judge is modified.
In the result, appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
MDS
