Karnataka High Court
Sri B K Shankar vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44350-DB
WA No. 305 of 2022
C/W WA No. 319 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 305 OF 2022 (LA-BDA)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 319 OF 2022 (LA-BDA)
IN WA No. 305/2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. B.K. SHANKAR
DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES
APPELLANT NO.1 TO 3
1. ANUPAMMA
W/O LATE B.K. SHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
2. TYAGARAJU
S/O LATE B.K. SHANKAR
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
by
CHANNEGOWDA
PREMA
Location: High 3. NATARAJ
Court of
Karnataka
S/O LATE B.K. SHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT AMRUTHAHALLI VILLAGE
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BENGALURU-560 064
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN N.K., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44350-DB
WA No. 305 of 2022
C/W WA No. 319 of 2022
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMAR PARK WEST
BENGALURU-560 020
3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
K P WEST
BENGALURU-560 020
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO (i) CALL FOR ENTIRE
RECORDS IN WP No.33133/2015 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 27.09.2021 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE IN
WP No.33133/2015 DISPOSED OF WITH MAIN WP
No.51929/2014 AND ETC.
IN WA NO. 319/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. NANJAPPA
S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
2. SRI. JAYANNA
S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
BOTH ARE
R/AT. DASARAHALLI VILLAGE
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:44350-DB
WA No. 305 of 2022
C/W WA No. 319 of 2022
K.R. PURAM HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BENGLAURU-560 019
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN N.K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHOROITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU-560 020
3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BENGALURU-560 020
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO (i) CALL FOR ENTIRE
RECORDS IN WP No.49567/2014 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 27.09.2021 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE
IN WP No.49567/2014 DISPOSED OF WITH MAIN WP
No.51929/2014 AND ETC.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:44350-DB
WA No. 305 of 2022
C/W WA No. 319 of 2022
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants, learned counsel appearing for the BDA as well
as the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing
for the official respondents.
2. The appellants have preferred these appeals
being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge
dated 27.09.2021 in batch of writ petitions. The grounds in
the appeals are to the effect that the preliminary
notification dated 03.02.2003, the final notification dated
23.02.2004 as well as the second final notification dated
18.06.2014 are illegal and are liable to be set aside.
NC: 2024:KHC:44350-DB
3. We notice that the order of the learned Single
Judge had been upheld by the Apex Court and had also
survived an unsuccessful challenge before Apex Court.
However, the learned counsel for the appellants submits
that the learned Single Judge had formed a committee for
consideration of the claims of the land owners as well as
that of allottees of sites in the layout. It is contended that
once the committee considers the question whether the
guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in BONDU
RAMASWAMY AND OTHERS Vs. BANGALORE
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS reported in
(2010) 7 SCC 129 case have been properly complied
with and comes to a conclusion on the cases placed before
them, there can be no further examination of the findings
of the committee, either by the BDA or by the
Government.
4. Learned counsel places reliance on the
observations of a Division Bench of this Court in WA
No.2624/2005 i.e., THE COMMISSIONER, BDA AND
NC: 2024:KHC:44350-DB
OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS
SECRETARY AND OTHERS to contend that once the
question of deletion of lands from acquisition has been
considered by the BDA and a conclusion was reached and
a report filed, the scheme already sanctioned by the
Government would have to stand amended as indicated in
the report and the Government can only pass appropriate
orders to that effect. It is submitted that it is only because
the exercise undertaken by the BDA was not proper that
the learned Single Judge has stated that a committee be
appointed to look into the matter. It is therefore
contended that once the committee takes a decision on
individual cases, it would be the binding on the BDA as
well as the Government.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
BDA submits that the question whether the petitioner, who
claims to be a land owner would be entitled to have his
land deleted from the acquisition has to be considered by
the committee in terms of the order under appeal which
NC: 2024:KHC:44350-DB
has been affirmed by the Division Bench as well as by the
Apex Court. It is submitted that at this stage, the question
whether the report is to be per se accepted by the BDA
and the Government would be hypothetical since the
appellants have not even approached the committee and
no final decision has been taken by the committee. It is
further contended that the appeals being directed against
order of the learned Single Judge per se, the appeals
cannot survive in the light of the fact that the order has
been upheld by a Division Bench as well as the Apex
Court.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
he has pleaded in the appeals that the appellants have
already approached the committee. In any view of the
matter, the question whether the report of the committee
is to be accepted in toto or not, according to us does not
arise for consideration in these appeals. The appeals are
directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge
by which the committee was formed and required to be
NC: 2024:KHC:44350-DB
looked into the specific aspects as to whether the
guidelines fixed by the Apex Court in BONDU
RAMASWAMY's case (supra) have been followed or not.
It would be for the appellants to approach the committee
and seek a consideration of his claim on producing
relevant material before the committee. It is only in case
the committee either decides against the appellants or
where the appellants claims are upheld by the committee
and the BDA seeks to differ from the findings of the
committee that he would have any cause of action in the
matter.
7. In the above view of the matter, we are of the
opinion that there is no merit in the current appeals
preferred against the judgment of the learned Single
Judge which is upheld upto the Apex Court. The writ
appeal therefore fails, the same are accordingly
dismissed. Leaving open the contentions of the
appellants with regard to their claims for deletion to be
agitated before the committee.
NC: 2024:KHC:44350-DB
All pending IA's are disposed of.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
RAK
