Karnataka High Court
Smt. Kempamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:24704-DB
WA No. 334 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 334 OF 2022 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. KEMPAMMA,
W/O. LATE KEMPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS.
2. SRI K. C. MUNIRAJU,
S/O. LATE P. KEMPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
3. SRI K SHIVAKUMAR,
SINCE DEAD REP. BY HIS LRS
FROM APPELLANT NO. 3 TO 5.
(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER
ORDER DATED 04.11.2022)
Digitally
signed by 3(a) K. HEMALATHA,
NANDINI R W/O LATE K SHIVAKUMAR,
Location: High AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
Court of
Karnataka
3(b) NEERAJ S KUMAR,
S/O LATE K SHIVAKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.
3(c) DEEKSHITH S KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS,
S/O LATE K. SHIVAKUMAR.
APPELLANT NO. 3(c) IS MINOR AND
HE IS REP. BY HER MOTHER,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:24704-DB
WA No. 334 of 2022
APPELLANT NO.3(a) AS NATURAL GUARDIAN.
4. SRI K MURTHY,
S/O LATE P. KEMPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
5. SMT. NAGAMMA,
W/O LATE CHIKKAKEMPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.
6. SRI PRAKASH,
S/O LATE CHIKKAKEMPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
7. SRI K SHANKAR,
S/O LATE CHIKKAKEMPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
8. SRI JAYARAM,
S/O LATE CHIKKAKEMPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
9. SRI C K MANJUNATH,
S/O LATE CHIKKAKEMPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT AMRUTHAHALLI,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 560 038.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SAMPATH A, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:24704-DB
WA No. 334 of 2022
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE-560 020.
3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BANGALORE-560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI BHOJEGOUDA T KOLLER, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI K KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & 3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO 1.) SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 27/09/2021 PASSED BY THE HON BLE SINGLE JUDGE
IN WP NO.41428/2014 DISPOSED OF WITH MAIN WP
NO.51929/20142. 2) CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE WRIT
PETITION AS PRAYED FOR BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
NOTIFICATION DATED 18/06/2014 AT ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-D TO THE WP
NO.41428/2014 ALONG WITH OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL
RELIEFS.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, V KAMESWAR RAO J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the appellants with the
following prayers:
"1. Call for entire records in WP No. 41428/2014 and set
aside the order dated 27.09.2021 passed by the Hon'ble
Single Judge in WP No. 41428/2014 disposed of with main
WP No. 51929/2014.
NC: 2024:KHC:24704-DB
2. Consequently, Allow the writ petition as prayed for by
quashing the impugned notification dated 18.06.2014 at
issued by the respondent no.1 vide Annexure-D to the WP
No. 41428/2014 along with other consequential reliefs.
3. Pass such other Order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in
the facts and circumstances of the case, so as to meet the
ends of justice and equity."
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn
our attention to page No.180 of the paper book to contend
the Learned Single Judge has also directed as under:
"(a) Examine all such representations received by BDA
pursuant to Division Bench order and BONDU RAMASWAMY's
judgment placed before the committee and submit a report to
the BDA as to whether such claim/s would fall within the
exceptions carved out under the judgments for deleting the
lands or not. The BDA shall thereafter take steps to delete or
include such lands from acquisition."
3. He submits that pursuant thereto, the
appellants have made representation(s) to the Committee
which has not been decided till date.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondents has drawn our attention to the order dated
12.04.2022 to contend that in a similar writ appeal being
NC: 2024:KHC:24704-DB
1273/2021 this Court has disposed off the appeal by
stating in paragraph No.5 as under:
"5. In view of the aforesaid submission and in the facts of
the case, it is directed that the committee constituted by the
learned Single Judge shall consider the grievance of the
appellants by a speaking order. Needless to state that the
appellants shall be granted liberty to submit a representation
before the committee. The Committee shall complete the
exercise within a period of two months from today."
5. He do concede that the appellants have made
representation(s). He says that a similar order can be
passed in this appeal as well.
6. Noting the said submission, it is directed that
the Committee constituted in the impugned order, by the
learned Single Judge shall consider/decide the
representation(s) of the appellants by a speaking order.
The Committee shall complete the exercise within a period
of three months from today. It is made clear that this
Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the
case. The appeal is disposed off.
NC: 2024:KHC:24704-DB
In view of disposal of main appeal, pending
applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and
the same are also disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
NR/-
