Karnataka High Court
P. Lakshminarayana Reddy vs The Commissioner on 23 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:48276
WP No. 14908 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.14908 OF 2017 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. P. LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY
S/O G.P. PAPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/O CHIKKA BANASWADI VILLAGE
K.R. PURAM HOBLI
BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 043.
2. P. PRABHAKARA REDDY
S/O G.P. PAPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/O NO.3, II MAIN
BEHIND STATE BANK OF PATIALA
OMBR LAYOUT, BANASWADI
KALAYANAGAR P.O.
BENGALURU -560 043.
Digitally signed by ...PETITIONERS
SHARMA ANAND
CHAYA (BY SRI. LEELADHAR H.P., ADVOCATE)
Location: High
Court of Karnataka
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARAPARK WEST
BENGALURU - 560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARAPARK WEST
BENGALURU - 560 020.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:48276
WP No. 14908 of 2017
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT NO.B.A.PRA /Vi.A,Bhu.Swa.Ad
/827/16-17 DATED 16TH MARCH, 2017 UNDER ANNEXURE-A
AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
ORDERS, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH)
1. In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing the
endorsement dated 16.03.2017 issued by the respondent -BDA
at Annexure-A and B, rejecting the claim made by the
petitioners.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that, the petitioners are
the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.128 of Banasawadi Village
and the subject land was in possession of the family of the
NC: 2024:KHC:48276
petitioners. It is further stated that, the respondent - BDA has
interfered with the land in question and as such, the petitioners
have filed O.S.No.4590/1990 and the said suit came to be
decreed in part, wherein, the respondent - BDA was directed
not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the suit schedule property. It is further stated in the writ
petition that, the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial
Court has reached finality and petitioners are in possession of
the schedule property. It is also stated in the writ petition that
the petitioners have made an application seeking NOC from the
respondent - BDA with regard to acquisition proceedings and
the said applications were rejected by an endorsement at
Annexure-A and B and feeling aggrieved by the same, the
present writ petition is filed.
3. I have heard Sri. H.P. Leeladhar, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners and Sri. B.S. Sachin, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents.
4. Sri. H.P. Leeladhar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners contended that, the petitioners are in possession of
the schedule property and the suit filed by the petitioners in
NC: 2024:KHC:48276
O.S.No.4593/1990 was decreed with regard to the possession
of the schedule property and therefore, he contended that,
neither the respondents have authority under law to interfere
with the schedule property and accordingly, he contended that,
the reasons assigned in the impugned endorsement requires to
be set aside.
5. Per contra, Sri. B.S. Sachin, learned counsel appearing
for the respondents submitted that, the subject land was
notified for acquisition as per Preliminary Notification dated
28.05.1984 and Final Notification dated 23.10.1986 and further
Award came to be passed on 24.06.1987 and possession of the
land in question has been taken on 03.03.1988 and therefore,
there is no merit in the Writ Petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, perusal of the writ papers would indicate that the entire
extent of 6 acres 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.128 is subject
matter of acquisition by the respondent - BDA, wherein,
Preliminary Notification was issued on 28.05.1984 and Final
Notification was issued on 23.10.1986. Award has been passed
on 24.06.1987 and compensation amount has been sent to the
NC: 2024:KHC:48276
Civil Court for adjudication under Section 30 and 31(2) of the
Land Acquisition Act. The respondent - authorities have also
passed Notification under Section 16(2) on 03.03.1988 and the
entire acquisition proceedings has reached logical end. In that
view of the matter, though the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners argued about the Judgment and Decree in
O.S.No.4593/1990, the said argument cannot be accepted in
view of the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER Vs. BRIJESH REDDY
AND ANOTHER reported in (2013) 3 SCC 66.
7. In that view of the matter, petitioners have not made out
a case for interference and the impugned endorsements are
just and proper and accordingly, the Writ Petition is rejected.
SD/-
(E.S. INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SAC
