Sri N Ravindra vs State Of Karnataka on 19 August, 2014

Karnataka High Court

Sri N Ravindra vs State Of Karnataka on 19 August, 2014
Author: A.S.Bopanna
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA

WRIT PETITION NOS.11999-12010/2014 (LA-BDA)

BETWEEN :

1. Sri. N RAVINDRA
S/O R.NAGESH RAO
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
NO.38, VIRUPAKSHAPURA
DASARAHALLI VILLAGE
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE-24.

2. Sri. K.SUBBARAJU
S/O LATE VENKATARAJU
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT NO.1-A
CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI MAIN ROAD
MAHADESHAVARA LAYOUT
R.T.NAGAR POST
BANGALORE-32.

3. Sri. M. NARAYANARAJU
S/O K.VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1-A
CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI MAIN ROAD
MAHADESHAVARA LAYOUT
R.T.NAGAR POST
BANGALORE-32.

4. Sri. VENKATAMOHANRAJU
S/O K.VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1-A
CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI MAIN ROAD
MAHADESHAVARA LAYOUT
R.T.NAGAR POST

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/152259379/ 1

 Sri N Ravindra vs State Of Karnataka on 19 August, 2014

BANGALORE-32.
2

5. Sri. MURALI
S/O M.PARASARTHY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT NO.2183, 1ST B CROSS
KANAKA NAGAR
R.T.NAGAR POST
BANGALORE-32.

6. Smt. M.V.VENKATALAKSHMI
W/O. C.NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT NO.1510
HARISHANKARMUTT ROAD
MANORAYANAPALYA
R.T.NAGAR POST
BANGALORE-32.

7. Sri. VENUGOPAL.R
S/O D.RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT DODDAMARAHALLI
CHICKKBALLAPUR TALUK
CHICKKBALLAPUR DISTRICT.

8. Sri. MANOJI RAO

S/O VENKOB RAO
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT NO.240, AMRUTHAHALLI
SAHANAGAR COLONY AND POST
BANGALORE-92.

9. Sri. GURUSOMESH.B
S/O BASAVARAJA.S
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT SCHOOL ROAD
KEMPAPURA VILLAGE
CHIKKABANAVARA POST
HESARAGHATTA.

10. Smt. T.J.SUJATHA

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
W/O BASAVARAJU
R/AT NO.MF-32/5, PWD QUARTERS
BDA FLATS, NANDI LAYOUT
BANGALORE-96.

11. Sri. O.N.ARER

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/152259379/ 2

 Sri N Ravindra vs State Of Karnataka on 19 August, 2014

S/O NINGAPPA
3

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

R/AT NO.D-A 21, PWD QUARTERS
K.B.SANDRA
BANGALORE-32.

12. Sri. K.NARAYANA

S/O NARAPPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT NO.3, MAHADESHWARA LAYOUT
CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI
R.T.NAGAR POST
BANGALORE-32. ... PETITIONERS

(By Sri. SOMASEKHARA K H, ADV.)

AND :

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPT. OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
BANGALORE-1.

2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-20
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

3. THE SPECIAL LAND

ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
BANGALORE-20. ... RESPONDENTS

(By Sri. G LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADV., FOR R-2 & 3

Sri. S V GIRIKUMAR, AGA, FOR R-1)

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES

226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER
TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS FOR
THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATIONS
DTD.3.3.2014 OF THE LAND OWNERS VIDE ANNEXS A AND C
RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/152259379/ 3

 Sri N Ravindra vs State Of Karnataka on 19 August, 2014

FOLLOWING :
4

ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court seeking that the representations dated 03.03.2014 submitted
by the petitioners at Annexures-A and C be considered by the respondents.

2. The petitioners herein contend that they are the owners of the different sites which have been
carved out in Sy.No.47/1 measuring 28 guntas, Sy.No.47/7 guntas situate at Dasarahalli, K.R.
Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. Though the petitioners claim to have purchased the sites on
different dates during the year 2000 i.e., prior to issue of preliminary notification by the
respondents for acquisition of the properties for formation of the Arkavathi Layout, the name of the
vendor of the petitioners has been notified. In that view, subsequent to the acquisition, the original
land owners themselves who were the notified Khatedars have made representations to the
respondents as at Annexure-C. The petitioners thereafter made the representation at Annexure-A.
Since the same have not been considered, the petitioners are before this Court.

3. The details of the different litigations relating to the Arkavathi layout need not be adverted to
since the Hon'ble Supreme Court ultimately in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy and Others -vs-
Bangalore Development Authority and Others reported in (2010) 7 SCC 129 has laid down the
manner in which the consideration of the request of the land owners for deletion of their property
from the process of acquisition is to be made. If that be the position, while considering the request of
the land owners, several factual aspects would have to be taken into consideration by respondents
No. 2 and 3 and thereafter it would have to be considered as to whether the land in question falls
within the categories as indicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy
referred to supra. Such consideration could be possible only if the representation and the supporting
documents are considered by respondents No. 2 and 3 and an appropriate decision is taken.

4. In the instant case, the representations as relied on by the petitioners at Annexures-A and C have
not yet been disposed of by the respondents. Even otherwise, the consideration would have to be
made by respondents No. 2 and 3 in terms of the judgment as noticed above. Hence, the
representations made by the petitioners would have to be considered by respondents No. 2 and 3 in
accordance with law. Hence, a direction is issued to the respondents to do so.

5. To enable such consideration, the petitioners shall now file one more copy of the representation
along with the supporting documents and a copy of this order with respondent No.3 within four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent No.3 shall consider the same in
accordance with law and take a decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible but not later than
two months from the date on which the copy is submitted.

6. Needless to mention that if the consideration by respondent No.3 is in favour of the petitioners,
the recommendation/proposal thereto shall be placed by respondent No.3 before respondent No.2

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/152259379/ 4

 Sri N Ravindra vs State Of Karnataka on 19 August, 2014

for necessary consideration in that regard. Such consideration shall also be made in an expeditious
manner. Until the matter is considered by respondents No. 2 and 3 in accordance with law, the
status-quo relating to the properties in question shall be maintained.

The petitions stand disposed of in the above terms.

Sd/-

JUDGE hrp/bms

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/152259379/ 5