Full Judgment Text
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ND
DATED THIS THE 22 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. P.S.DINESH KUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO.1783 OF 2014 (LA-BDA)
C/W
WRIT APPEALS NO.1795 OF 2014, 1799 OF 2014,
1802 OF 2014, 1803 OF 2014, 1806 OF 2014, 1966 OF 2014,
1970 OF 2014, 1972 OF 2014, 1973 OF 2014, 1982 OF 2014,
1986 OF 2014, 1988 OF 2014, 1989 OF 2014, 2000 OF 2014,
2006 OF 2014, 2009 OF 2014, 2010 OF 2014, 2030 OF 2014,
2032 OF 2014, 2033 OF 2014, 2034 OF 2014, 2035 OF 2014,
2036 OF 2014, 2037 OF 2014, 2045 OF 2014, 2047 OF 2014,
2048 OF 2014, 2052 OF 2014, 2063 OF 2014, 2064 OF 2014,
2065 OF 2014, 2067 OF 2014, 2068 OF 2014, 2069 OF 2014 ,
2239 OF 2014, 2243 OF 2014, 2244 OF 2014, 2246 OF 2014,
2248 OF 2014, 2249 OF 2014, 2250 OF 2014, 2251 OF 2014,
2255 OF 2014, 2256 OF 2014, 2259 OF 2014, 2261 OF 2014,
2262 OF 2014, 2263 OF 2014, 2265 OF 2014, 2266 OF 2014,
2267 OF 2014, 2268 OF 2014, 2269 OF 2014, 2446 OF 2014,
2449 OF 2014, 2454 OF 2014, 2470 OF 2014, 2698 OF 2014,
2717 OF 2014, 2718 OF 2014, 2719 OF 2014, 2725 OF 2014,
2726 OF 2014, 2783 OF 2014, 2784 OF 2014, 2785 OF 2014,
2787 OF 2014, 2808 OF 2014, 2810 OF 2014, 2811 OF 2014,
2812 OF 2014, 2814 OF 2014, 2815 OF 2014, 2821 OF 2014,
2825 OF 2014, 2827 OF 2014, 2828 OF 2014, 2829 OF 2014,
2830 OF 2014, 2831 OF 2014, 2832 OF 2014, 2876 OF 2014,
2877 OF 2014, 2879 OF 2014, 2880 OF 2014, 2881 OF 2014,
2948 OF 2014, 2949 OF 2014, 2950 OF 2014, 2951 OF 2014,
2953 OF 2014, 2954 OF 2014, 2955 OF 2014, 2956 OF 2014,
2957 OF 2014, 2958 OF 2014, 3044 OF 2014, 3045 OF 2014,
3046 OF 2014, 3047 OF 2014, 3049 OF 2014, 3050 OF 2014,
3051 OF 2014, 3077 OF 2014, 3078 OF 2014, 3080 OF 2014,
3082 OF 2014, 3083 OF 2014, 3084 OF 2014, 3085 OF 2014,
3086 OF 2014, 3087 OF 2014, 3088 OF 2014, 3089 OF 2014,
3091 OF 2014,3159 OF 2014, 3160 OF 2014, 3162 OF 2014,
3163 OF 2014, 876 OF 2015, 877 OF 2015, 879 OF 2015,
880 OF 2015, 1010 OF 2015, 1164 OF 2015, 1166 OF 2015,
1168 OF 2015, 1172 OF 2015, 1173 OF 2015, 1771 OF 2015,
939 OF 2016, 1015 OF 2016, 1016 OF 2016, 1343 OF 2016,
1344 OF 2016, 1644 OF 2016, 1818 OF 2016, 2104 OF 2016,
2105 OF 2016, 417 OF 2017, 1798 OF 2014, 2245 OF 2014,
2254 OF 2014, 2458 OF 2014, 2708 OF 2014, 2709 OF 2014,
2781 OF 2014, 2782 OF 2014, 2786 OF 2014, 2817 OF 2014,
2818 OF 2014, 2819 OF 2014, 3048 OF 2014, 3079 OF 2014,
3081 OF 2014, 3090 OF 2014, 3125 OF 2014, 3165 OF 2014,
3166 OF 2014, 1181 OF 2015, 1004 OF 2016, 1005 OF 2016,
1020 OF 2016, 1339 OF 2016, 418 OF 2017 And 694 OF 2022 (LA-BDA)
2
IN W.A. NO.1783 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. R. SHANKARAN
S/O SRI. RANGASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
TH
RESIDING AT NO.54, 7 MAIN
NANDINI LAYOUT
SARASWATHIPURAM
BANGALORE-560 098.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MULTISTOREYED BUILDINGS
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
R1-SERVED
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 32186/2010
DATED 11/07/2014.
3
IN W.A. NO.1795 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. N. RAVISHANKAR
S/O LATE R.G. NANJUNDAPPA @
R.G. NANJUNDARADHYA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESIDENT OF KOMMAGHATTA
SULIKERE POST
BANGALORE-560 050.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
MULTISTOREYED BUILDINGS
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. C.M. NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE AND
SHRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 31120/2010
DATED 11/07/2014.
4
IN W.A. NO. 1799 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. S. RAMAIAH
S/O LATE SIDDARAMAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY LRs
1(A) SMT. MUNIYAMMA
W/O LATE SRI. S. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
1(B) SRI. THIMMEGOWDA R.
S/O LATE S. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
1(C) SRI. GANGADHAR R.
S/O LATE S. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
1(D) SRI. MANJUNATH R.
S/O LATE S. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
1(E) SRI. HANUMARAJ R.
S/O LATE S. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
5
1(F) SRI. PRAKASH R.
S/O LATE S. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
1(G) SRI. NAGARAJ R. NAGARABHAVI
S/O LATE S. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NO.15, ISSAAC ROAD
NAGARABHAVI
BANGALORE-560 072.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MULTISTOREYED BUILDINGS
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. B.S. GAUTHAM, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A TO G);
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 35628/2010
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.1802 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
6
AND:
1. SMT. ANURADHA
W/O DR. M.R. SREEVATHSA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
RESIDING AT ‘KRISHNA’ 54 & 55
K.G. NAGAR MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE-560 019.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
MULTISTOREYED BUILDINGS
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. M.S. ASHWIN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 13000/2010
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.1803 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
7
AND:
1. SRI. A KANNAIAH
S/O LATE AADIYAPPA SETTY
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
RESIDENT OF BHEEMANAKUPPE VILLAGE
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 098.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MULTISTOREYED BUILDINGS
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. S. VIJAYKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 35625-
627/2010 DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.1806 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
8
AND:
1. SRI. K.B. YELLAPPA
S/O LATE DODDABYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
2. SRI. K.B. MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE DODDABYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT FARM HOUSE
CONSTRUCTED IN SY. NO. 3/2
KENCHAPURA VILLAGE
SULIKERE POST, KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 0
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
MULTISTOREYED BUILDINGS
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. L.M. RAMAIAH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL, IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 9842-44/2010
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO. 1966 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
9
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. ACHAMMA AMMINI JOSEPH
W/O LATE MR. K.A. JOSEPH
AGED ABOUT 95 YEARS
TH ST
NO.87, 7 CROSS, 1 MAIN
VERSOVA LAYOUT, KAGGADASAPURA ROAD
SIR. C.V. RAMAN NAGAR POST
BANGLORE-560 093.
REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER
MR. JOSEPH ALEXANDER
S/O LATE MR. K.A. JOSEPH
TH ST
NO.87, 7 CROSS, 1 MAIN
VERSOVA LAYOUT
KAGGADASAPURA ROAD
SIR. C.V. RAMAN NAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 093.
SINCE DEAD BY LRs
1(A) MR. JOSEPH ALEXANDER
S/O LATE MR. K.A. JOSEPH
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
TH ST
NO.87, 7 CROSS, 1 MAIN
VARSOVA LAYOUT
KAGGADASAPURA ROAD
SIR. C.V. RAMAN NAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 093.
1(B) MR. JOSEPH K.S.
S/O LATE MR. K.A. JOSEPH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
NO.14, TARAPORE AVENUE CHETPET
CHENNAI-600 031.
TAMIL NADU
1(C) MR. BINOY JOSEPH
S/O LATE K.A. JOSEPH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
10
R/AT NO.3/26, MCNICHOLS ROAD
ND
2 MAIN ROAD, CHEPET
CHENNAI-600 031.
TAMIL NADU
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. C.M. NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE
FOR R1(A TO C);
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL, IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 12969-
972/2010 DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.1970 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. PUTTAPPA
S/O LATE MAHIMANNA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
11
RESIDING AT RAMASANDRA
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 0.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDINGS
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. C.M. NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE AND
SHRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 14913 &
14914/2013 DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO. 1972 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. G. LAKSHMINARAYANA
S/O LATE G. GOVINDAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs
12
1(A) SMT. SHASHIKALA
W/O LATE G. LAKSHMINARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
1(B) SRI. KUSHAL KUMAR L.
S/O LATE G. LAKSHMINARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
1(C) INDIRA L
D/O LATE G. LAKSHMINARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
1(A) TO 1(C) ALL ARE RESIDING AT
TH
NO.225, 6 CROSS, RAJAGOPALANAGARA
MAIN ROAD, NEAR LAKSHMI DEVI FLOUR MILL
PEENYA II STAGE
BENGALURU-560 058.
2. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
3. MANGALA GOWRI
W/O N. SHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
4. DEVAKI
W/O CHANDRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
TH
NO.225, 6 CROSS, RAJAGOPALANAGAR
MAIN ROAD, NEAR LAKSHMI DEVI
ND
FLOUR MILL, PEENYA 2 STAGE
BENGALURU-560 058.
5. RANGAPPA
S/O PRASURAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
SINCE DED BY HIS LRs
5(1) HANUMAKKA
W/O LATE K.P. RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
13
5(2) K.R. RAMESH
S/O LATE K.P. RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
5(3) KRISHNA
S/O LATE K.P. RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
5(4) RANGANATH
S/O LATE K.P. RANGAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs
5(4)(A) SMT. PUSHPA
W/O LATE RANGANATH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
5(4)(B) SRI. CHETAN
S/O LATE RANGANATH
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS
5(4)(C) TEJASWINI
D/O LATE RANGANATH
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS
5(4)(D) SMT. MAHALAKSHMI
D/O LATE K.P. RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
RD TH
NO. 121, 3 FLOOR, 4 MAIN
VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 049.
6. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S. BUILDINGS
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. K. BHANUPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A-C);
SHRI. B. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R3,
R4A TO R4D AND R5;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R6;
14
VIDE ORDER DATED 29/11/2021 NOTICE TO R5(1),
R5(4)(B), R5(4)(C) HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS WRIT APPEAL, IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 29520/2012
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.1973 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. K.S. MANJULA
D/O K.H. SRINIVASA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RESIDING AT SY. NO. 31/2
HOSABYROHALLI
KOMMAGATTA PANCHAYATHI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560 060.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. GANAPATHI BHAT VAJRALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
15
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 33131 &
35309/2011 DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.1982 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M. NANJAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR
N. SHIVASHANKAR
S/O LATE M. NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 702
MPM LAYOUT, 80 FEET ROAD
OPPOSITE TO AMBEDKAR INSTITUTE
OF TECHNOLOGY, MALLATHAHALLI
BANGALORE-560 056.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. C.M. NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE AND
16
SHRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 11025/2010
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.1986 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. DABBAGULLAPPA
S/O LATE RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
RESIDING AT RAMASANDRA VILLAGE
SULIKERE POST, KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 060.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
17
SHRI. M.C. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 40644-
645/2011 DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.1988 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. H.R. CHARITABLE TRUST
A REGISTERED CHARITABLE
TRUST, HAVING ITS REGD.
OFFICE AT NO. 8, APPAJAPPA
AGRAHARA, CHAMARAJPET
BANGALORE-560 018.
REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE
SRI. R. SRINIVAS
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
18
(BY SHRI. SHANMUKHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 8901/2010
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.1989 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MARAPPA
S/O KADIRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs
1(A). SMT. ARUVAMMA
W/O LATE MARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
1(B). SRI. KADARIPATHI
S/O LATE MARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
1(C). SRI. SHIVSHANKARA
19
S/O LATE MARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
1(D). SMT. MUNILAKSHMI
D/O LATE MARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
1(E). SRI. NAGARAJU
S/O LATE MARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
1(F). SRI. LAKSHMANA
S/O LATE MARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
1(G). SMT. NETHRAVATHI
D/O LATE MARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
1(A) TO 1(G) ARE RESIDING AT
NO. 76/1, ISEC ROAD
NAGARABHAVI VILLAGE
BANGALORE-560 072.
1(H). SRI. SOMASHEKAR
S/O LATE MARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
RESIDING AT: HOSA BYROHALLI
NEAR VEERANJANEYA TEMPLE
SULIKERE POST, KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE-560 060.
1(I). SRI. ASHWATH
S/O LATE MARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESIDING AT: NO. 169
GAYATHRI LAYOUT (RAMASANDRA DHAKALE)
TH
5 CROSS, SULIKERE POST
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE-560 060.
1(J). SMT. SARASWATHAMMA
W/O SRI. N. RAVI
D/O LATE MARAPPA
20
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDING AT: NO. 208
ND
2 FLOOR, SHIVU WOODS APARTMENT
NAGARABHAVI VILLAGE
BANGALORE-560 072.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. J.M. RAJANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A-J);
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL, IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 12781/2011
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2000 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. N. UMASHANKAR
S/O NARASIMHAIAH
21
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
RESIDENT OF NO. 108
THAGGIGUPPE VILLAGE
MAGADI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
2. SRI. MARIYAPPA
S/O LATE BETTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RESIDING AT BETTANAPALYA VILLAGE
BHEEMANAKUPPE
DHAKALE, KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560 060.
3. SRI. BETTAPPA
S/O LATE BETTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
RESIDING AT BETTANAPALYA
VILLAGE, BHEEMANAKUPPE
DHAKALE, KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560 060.
4. SRI. JAVARAPPA
S/O LATE BETTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDING AT BETTANAPALYA
VILLAGE, BHEEMANAKUPPE
DHAKALE, KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560 060.
5. SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O LATE HUCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDING AT BETTANAPALYA
VILLAGE, BHEEMANAKUPPE
DHAKALE, KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560 060.
6. SRI. K. SHIVALINGAM
S/O SRI. KUPPASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT NO.1121, SAI BABA NILAYA
TH ND
9 CROSS, 2 BLOCK
ST
BSK 1 STAGE
BANGALORE-560 050.
22
7. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. R. HEMANTHARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. D.L. JAGADEESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R5;
R6 SERVED;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R7)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 6313-
6318/2010 DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A NO.2006 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. VENKATAMUNIYAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
2. SRI. VENKATA ARASAPPA
23
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
3. SRI. MARIYAPPA @ VENKATA ARASAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R1 TO R3 ARE RESIDING AT
NO.14, SEEGEHALLI VILLAGE
YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560 022.
4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
GOVT. OF KARNATAKA
M.S. BUILDINGS
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R4)
R1 TO R3 - SERVED
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 46127-
129/2013 DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2009 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
24
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. B.R. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH
S/O LATE RUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RESIDENT OF BANGALE VILLAGE
SULIKERE POST, KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-560 060.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. M.C. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 42536/2011
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2010 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
25
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. K.N. BASAVARADYA
S/O NANJUNDARADHYA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RESIDENT OF NO. 1189/C
TH TH
4 MAIN, 14 CROSS
M.C. LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 040.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. M.C. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 44048/2011
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2030 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1 . BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 020.
2 . THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE-560 020.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI G S KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
26
SRI G LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 .
1(a)
1(b)
1(c)
1(c)(i)
1(d)
1(e)
1(f)
SMT MUNIYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
D/O.LATE ARALAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED BY LRs
SRI MUDDANNA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNIYAMMA AND DODDANARASAPPA
SRI MUNINARASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
KAMBADANARASAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR
SRI SANTOSH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
S/O LATE KAMBADANARASAPPA
SMT MUNILAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
D/O LATE MUNIYAMMA AND DODDANARASAPPA
SRI NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNIYAMMA AND DODDANARASAPPA
SRI MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNIYAMMA AND DODDANARASAPPA
ALL ARE R/AT KKRISHNASAGAR VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE-560 060
2 . SMT. HANUMA NARASAMMA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
W/O LATE GANGAPPA
3 . SMT. HANUMAKKA
27
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
D/O LATE NARASAIAH,
SINCE DEACEASED BY LRs
SRI HANUMANARASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S/O LATE HAUNUMAKKA AND NARASAIAH
SRI THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
S/O LATE HAUNUMAKKA AND NARASAIAH
SRI LAKSHMANA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
S/O LATE HAUNUMAKKA AND NARASAIAH
SMT ANNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
D/O LATE HAUNUMAKKA AND NARASAIAH
SRI K N CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O LATE HAUNUMAKKA AND NARASAIAH
ALL ARE R/AT K KRISHNASAGAR VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE-560 060
4 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
MULTISTORIED BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRABHULING K NAVADGI, AG A/W
SRI JEEVAN J NEERALGI, AGA FOR R4
SRI C M NAGABHUSHANA & P V CHANDRASHEKAR,
ADVOCATES FOR R1 TO R3
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 29668/2010 DATED
11/07/2014 AND ETC.
3(a)
3(b)
3(c)
3(d)
3(e)
28
IN W.A. NO.2032 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. UMADEVI
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
2. SRI. G. SIDDALINGASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
3. SRI. K.G. GURUSANTHA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
KANNALLI, KODIGEHALLI POST
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-572 127.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. L.M. RAMAIAH GOWDA, ADVOCATE
FOR R1 TO R3;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R4)
29
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 40958/2012
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2033 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. PARAMASHIVAIAH
S/O LATE VEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
RESIDING AT SY. NO.154
KOMMAGHATTA VILLAGE
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MULTISTORIED BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. H.C. DUSHYANTH ARADHYA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
30
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 3134/2012
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO. 2034 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. MOHAN KUMAR
S/O CHIKKATHIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT BETTANAPALYA
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
2. SRI. T. NAGARAJU
S/O LATE THAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT BETTANAPALYA VILLAGE
BHIMANAKUPPE DAKALE
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
3. SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O K.P. NARAYANA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
ND
R/AT NO.75/1, 2 CROSS
31
ND
KANAKANA PALYA 2 BLOCK
JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 011.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. C.M. NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE AND
SHRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R4)
R1 AND R3 - SERVED
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 251-255/2013
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2035 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. S. RAMACHANDRA
S/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
32
R/AT OLD NO.322/15, NEW NO.20
TH
6 CROSS, G.P. RAJARATHNAM ROAD
HANUMANTHA NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 019.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. A.V. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 25616/2010
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2036 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1 . BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 020.
2 . THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE-560020.
.…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SRI MUDDANNA
AGED 63 YEARS,
S/O LATE VEERAKEMPAIAH,
33
RESIDING AT BHIMANAKUPPE VILLAGE,
RAMOHALLI, KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP.BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
MULTISTORIED BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001.
3 . S. CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH
RESIDING AT NO.20, 4TH CROSS,
A.G.S. LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560061.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2;
SMT. K K THAYAMMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. A V SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 33267/2011 DATED
11/07/2014 AND ETC.
IN W.A. NO.2037 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE)
34
AND:
1. SRI. LAKSHMANA
S/O CHIKKACHANNIGAPPA
AGED 50 YEARS
R/AT NO.112, CHIKKAKODIGEHALLI
KODIGEHALLI POST
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TQ
BANGALORE-560 091
1(A). SMT. LOLAKSHI
W/O LATE LAKSHMANA @ LAKSHMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
NO.112, CHIKKAKODIGEHALLI VILLAGE
KODIGEHALLI POST
YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 112
1(B). SRI. C.L. NAVEEN KUMAR
S/O LATE LAKSHMANA @ LAKSHMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
NO.112, CHIKKAKODIGEHALLI VILLAGE
KODIGEHALLI POST
YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 112
1(C). SMT. L. CHAITHRA
D/O LATE LAKSHMANA @ LAKSHMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
NO.112, CHIKKAKODIGEHALLI VILLAGE
KODIGEHALLI POST
YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 112
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
35
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2;
SHRI. K.MUNIYAPPA FOR
SHRI. LOHITASWA BANAKAR, ADVOCATES FOR R1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.37886/2012
DATED 11/07/2014 AND ETC.
IN W.A. NO.2045 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. SRINIVAS @ SEENAPPA
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs
1(A) SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O LATE SRINIVASA @ SEENAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
1(B) SRI. NAGESH S.
S/O LATE SRINIVASA @ SEENAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
1(C) SRI. VENKATESH S.
36
S/O LATE SRINIVASA @ SEENAPPA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R1(A-C) ARE RESIDING AT
NO.131, RAMASANDRA VILLAGE
SULIKERE POST, KENGERI HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU-560 060.
2. SRI. MOHAN
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT RAMASANDRA VILLAGE
SULIKERE POST, KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 060.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. M.C. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE
FOR R1(A-C) AND R2;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 11306-
307/2010 DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2047 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
37
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. S.K.N. SWAMY
S/O SRI. S.V.K. SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
ST
R/AT NO. 298, 1 FLOOR
TH TH
15 CROSS, 5 PHASE
J.P. NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 078.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. B.N. TULSI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 12225/2010
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2048 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
38
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. BASAVARAJU
S/O LATE RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT RAMASANDRA VILLAGE
SULIKERE POST, KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 060.
2. SRI. DABBAGULLAPPA
S/O LATE RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT RAMASANDRA VILLAGE
SULIKERE POST, KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 060.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. H.N. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 51015/2013
DATED 11/07/2014.
39
IN W.A. NO.2052 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. T. BHAGYAMMA
W/O SRI. S. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
OWNER OF SITE NO.30A, 3, 8
RESIDENT OF 94/3, 94/5
SEEGEHALLI VILLAGE
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE.
2. THE SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. M. SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
R1 AND R3 - SERVED
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 28146/2010
DATED 11/07/2014.
40
IN W.A. NO.2063 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMAR PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. M.H. MAMATHA
W/O LATE M.N. HARINATH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 1433
PIPELINE, VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 040.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. R. RANGASWAMY, ADVOCATE AND
SHRI. C. CHANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 20398-
20414/2010 DATED 11/07/2014.
41
IN W.A. NO.2064 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1 . BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2 . THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BANGALORE-560020.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI G S KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI G LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SRI B. M. KRISHNA MURTHY
S/O M. MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
2 . HEMALATHA
D/O SRI B. M. KRISHNA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
3 . LAVANYA
D/O SRI B. M. KRISHNA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
4 . MASTER KIRAN GOWDA
S/O SRI B. M. KRISHNA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT BABASAHEBARA PALYA,
BASAVESHWARA NAGAR,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE.
5 . M/S N D PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,
42
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY
INCORPORATED
UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1 OF 1956
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.398,
2ND FLOOR, 7TH CROSS,
MICO LAYOUT, BTM 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE-560076
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR MR. M.K.K. DURRANI
6 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDI
BANGALORE-560001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRABHULING K NAVADGI, AG A/W
SRI JEEVAN J NEERALGI, AGA FOR R6
SRI TOMY SEBASTIAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.26373/2010
DATED 11/7/2014 AND ETC.
IN W.A. NO.2065 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE)
43
AND:
1. SMT. SHIVARUDRAMMA
W/O LATE REVANABASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
2. SRI. S.R. RENUKA PRASAD
S/O LATE REVANABASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
3. SRI. S.R. MOHAN KUMAR
S/O LATE REVANABASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
4. SRI. S.R. NIRANJAN KUMAR
S/O LATE REVANABASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NO. 44, SULIKERE VILLAGE & POST
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560 060.
5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. D.L. JAGADEESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 13416/2010
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2067 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
44
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. B.R. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH
S/O LATE RUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
RESIDING AT BANGALE VILLAGE
SULIKERE POST, KENGRI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. M.C. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 23247/2010
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2068 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
45
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. KRISHNAPPA
S/O BYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
RESIDING AT KANNALLI
KODIGEHALLI POST
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-560 058.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. L.M. RAMAIAH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 43714/2012
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2069 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1 . BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
46
KUMARA PARK WEST
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE 560020
2 . THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE 560020
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI G S KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI G LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SMT P N NIRANJANI
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
W/O H M S KUMAR
R/A KOMMAGHATTA VILLAGE
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 060.
2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE 560 001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRABHULING K NAVADGI, AG A/W
SRI JEEVAN J NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2
SRI K SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI M SREENIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.19807-
19808/2010 DATED 11/07/2014 AND ETC.
IN W.A. NO.2239 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
47
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. DHARMA NARAYANA
S/O SRI. VENKATARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
TH
RESIDING AT NO.1/4, 4 MAIN
HVR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 057.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MULTISTOREYED BUILDINGS
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. H.T. VASANTH KUMAR, ADVOCATE AND
SHRI. Y.D. SHIVASHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.32187/2010 AND
34096-098/2010 DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2243 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
48
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER
2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. GOWTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SMT. SHAMANTHAKAMANI
W/O A. SANJANNA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT YELLAE KODIGEHALLI
GOLLARAHATTI CROSS
MAGADI MAIN ROAD
VISHWANEEDAM POST
BANGALORE-560 091. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1)
R2 - SERVED
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.40115/2010
DATED 11/07/2014.
49
IN W.A. NO.2244 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
K.P. WEST, BANGALORE
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
K.P. WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. GOWTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI. NANJUNDA ARADHYA
S/O LATE NANJAPPA ARADHYA
SINCE DEAD BY LRs
2(A) SRI. K.N. BASAVARADYA
S/O LATE K.N. NANJUNDARADYA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO. 1189/C, 4 MAIN
TH
14 CROSS, M.C. LAYOUT
VIJAYNAGAR, BANGALORE-560 040.
2(B) SMT. SHANTHAKUMARI
W/O LATE K.N. MURUGENDRARADYA
AGE UNKNOWN
2(C) SMT. LAVANYA
D/O LATE K.N. MURUGENDRARADYA
AGE UNKNOWN
50
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
ST TH
NO.56, 1 MAIN, 4 CROSS
HOSAHALLI, VIJAYNAGAR
BENGALURU-560 085.
2(D) SRI. N. MRUTYUNJAYA
S/O LATE K.N. NANJUNDARADYA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
TH TH
R/AT NO. 98, 4 MAIN, 5 ‘A’ CROSS
VIDYAGIRI LAYOUT
NAGARBHAVI CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 072.
2(E) SMT. K.N. GIRIJAMBA
W/O T.G. PARAMASHIVA
D/O LATE K.N. NANJUNDARADYA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT RAJABEEDHI, TAVAREKERE
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU-562 130.
2(F) SRI. K.N. SHIVAPRAKASH
S/O LATE K.N. NANJUNDARADYA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO. 595, 12 CROSS
CHANDRA LAYOUT
VTC BENGALURU P.O. NAGARBHAVI
BENGALURU-560 072.
2(G) SRI. K.N. CHIDANANDA
S/O LATE K.N. NANJUNDARADYA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT NO. 65, KOMAGATTA
SULIKERE, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU-560 060.
2(H) SRI. K.N. GIRISH
S/O LATE K.N. NANJUNDARADYA
AGED 60 YEARS
R/AT NO.65, KOMAGATTA ROAD
KOMAGATTA, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU-560 060. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
51
SHRI. H.N. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE
FOR R2(A) TO R2(H);
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 19118/2010
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2246 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
K.P. WEST, BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
K.P. WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. GOWTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. LAKSHMAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRs
2(A) HANUMAIAH H.C.K
H/O. LATE LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
2(B) RAJESH H.C.K
S/O LATE LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
52
2(C) KOMALA KUMARI H.C.K
D/O LATE LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
2(D) PUSHPA KUMAR
D/O LATE LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
2(E) KUSUMA KUMARI
D/O LATE LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NO. 53/9, NEAR MARUTI SCHOOL
SKANDANAGAR, KODAGEHALLI OF
MAGADI ROAD
BANGALORE-560 112.
3. DR. AMBEDKAR SC/ST EDUCATIONAL
AND SOCIAL WELFARE TRUST (REGD)
NO. 53, KODAGEHALLI
BANGALORE-560 091.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SHRI. N. MANOHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2(A) TO R2(E))
R3 - SERVED
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 17461/2010
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2248 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
K.P. WEST
BANGALORE
53
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
K.P. WEST,
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI. P. GOPINATH
S/O SRI. S. PALANI
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT SEEGEHALLI VILLAGE
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1)
R2 - SERVED
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 45934/2011
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2249 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
K.P.WEST, BANGALORE
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
54
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
K.P.WEST, BANGALORE-560 020.
APPELLANTS NO.1 AND 2 ARE
BEING THE DIFFERENT
SECTION OF THE SAME AUTHORITY
BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY ALAO .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. GOWTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S.BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI. G. RAMAKRISHNAPPA
S/O JUNJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT HUNASEMARADAPALYA
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 050. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SHRI. T. NARAYANA SWAMY AND
SHRI. H.M. GOPAL, ADVOCATES FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 1753/2013
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2250 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
55
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI. V. KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O V. KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NO.53/5, SKANDANAGAR
KODIGEHALLI POST
BANGALORE-560 091. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SHRI. L. UMASHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 34191/2011
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A.NO.2251 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
56
K.P. WEST, BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
K.P. WEST,
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA VEEDI
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI. M. LAKSHMINARAYANA
S/O SRI. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT NO. 140, AVALAHALLI
MYSORE ROAD
BANGALORE.
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1 AND R3;
SHRI. GANAPATHI BHAT VAJRALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 22777/2010
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2255 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
57
K.P. WEST, BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
K.P. WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI. G. GALAPPA
S/O LATE GALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RESIDENT OF NO. 53/5
SKANDANAGAR, KODIGEHALLI POST
BANGALORE-91.
3. SMT. ANJINAMMA
W/O LATE LAKKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
RESIDENT OF NO. 53/5
SKANDANAGAR, KODIGEHALLI POST
BANGALORE-91.
4. SRI. VENKATASWAMAIAH
W/O LATE RAMADASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
RESIDENT OF NO. 53/3
SKANDANAGAR, KODIGEHALLI POST
BANGALORE-91.
5. SRI. VENKATACHALAIAH
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RESIDENT OF NO. 53/2
58
SKANDANAGAR, KODIGEHALLI POST
BANGALORE-91. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SHRI. L. UMASHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 35445-
35448/2011 DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2256 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
K.P.WEST EXTENSION
BANGALORE-560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
K.P.WEST EXTENSION
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S.BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. T.A.MUNISWAMY NAIDU
S/O LATE T.ANJANEYULU
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
TH
NO.112, 7 MAIN ROAD
TH
5 CROSS, SRINIVASANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 050. …RESPONDENTS
59
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SHRI. C.M. NAGABHUSHAN, ADVOCATE AND
SHRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 32869/2013
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2259 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
K.P.WEST, BANGALORE
2. THE ADDL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
K.P.WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
VIKAS SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE
2. SMT. SOUBHAGYAMMA
W/O V.K. RAMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT NO. 38, MIG
80 FEET ROAD
KENGERI SATTELLITE TOWN
BANGALORE-560 060.
60
3. K.G. NANDINI ENTERPRISES
NANDAAGOKULA LAYOUT
REPRESENTED BY ITS
JOINT DEVELOPERS
NAGARAJU, SY NO.161
RAMASANDRA VILLAGE
NEAR SIR M.V. LAYOUT
KENGERI HOBLI
SULIKERE POST
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 060 …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SHRI. G. NARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DTD 22.08.2017 SERVICE OF
NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.44554/2012
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2261 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
K.P. WEST, BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
K.P. WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
HOUSING & URBAN
61
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
M.S.BUILDING
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR BEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SMT. GANGAMALLAMMA
W/O MUTHURAYAPPA @ ARASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
3. SRI. S.M. ARASE GOWDA
S/O MUTHURAYAPPA @ ARASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
4. SRI. S.M. MUNIYAPPA
S/O MUTHURAYAPPA @ ARASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
5. SMT. S.M. UMA DEVI
D/O MUTHURAYAPPA @ ARASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
6. SRI. S.M. ANNAYANNA
S/O MUTHURAYAPPA @ ARASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 6 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.14
SEEGEHALLI VILLAGE
MAGADI ROAD
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
PIN-560 060 …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SHRI. G.S. VENKATA SUBBARAO, ADVOCATE FOR
R2 TO R6)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.33657/2010 &
40928/2010 DATED 11/07/2014.
62
IN W.A. NO.2262 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
K.P. WEST
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
K.P. WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. GOWTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. DE PAUL SERVICE SOCIETY
HOSAPALYA, BYROHALLI ROAD
KUMBALAGODU POST
BANGALORE-560 074.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT
FATHER FRANSIS
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SHRI. LOHITASWA BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 33243-
33246/2011 DATED 11/07/2014.
63
IN W.A. NO.2263 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
K.P. WEST, BANGALORE
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
K.P. WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE
2. SRI. Y.N. CHENNAPPA
S/O LATE NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT ‘SAMUDAYA RESIDENCY’
BLOCK-B, KODIGEHALLI
VISHWANEEDAM POST
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI
MAGADI MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE-560 091.
3. SMT. RUKMINI BAI
W/O V. RAMA RAO
AGED ABOUT YEARS
R/AT SY. NO. 94/3
KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK. …RESPONDENTS
64
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SHRI. B.V. VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2
R3 – SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 251-255/2013
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2265 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1 . THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
K.P.WEST, BANGALORE-560 020.
2 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
K.P.WEST,
BANGALORE-560 020
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI G S KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI MURUGESH V CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001
2 . SRI.H.C.PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O LATE CHIKKANNA
R/AT NO.730 C, 9TH CROSS,
5TH MAIN, M.C.LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560040
65
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRABHULING K NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SRI JEEVAN J NEERALAGI, AGA FOR R1
SRI S V GIRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 7297/2010 DATED
11/07/2014 AND ETC.
IN W.A. NO.2266 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
K.P. WEST, BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
K.P. WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S.BUILDING, B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SMT. C. SUNITHA REDDY
D/O SRI NARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
TH
RESIDENT OF NO. 59, 9 CROSS
MUNISWAR NAGAR, ULLAL MAIN ROAD
JNANABHARATHI POST
BANGALORE-560 056.
66
3. SRI. M. VENKATESHWARA REDDY
W/O M. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT NO. 1095, MRK REDDY GARDENS
PAVITHRA SCHOOL ROAD
MANGANAHALLI
BANGALORE-60.
4. SRI. SUDHAKAR REDDY
S/O C. VENKATESHWARA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO. 59, 9 CROSS
MUNISWAR NAGAR, ULLAL MAIN ROAD
JNANABHARATHI POST
BANGALORE-560 056. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SHRI. V.N. MADHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 35001-03/2012
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2267 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE)
67
AND:
1. SRI. BETTAIAH
S/O MUNI HUCHHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 93 YEARS
RESIDING AT HUNASEMARANAPALYA VILLAGE
RAMOHALLI POST
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560 060.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2
R1 – SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 41227/2011
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2268 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1 . BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 020.
2 . ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BANGALORE-560020.
..APPELLANTS
(BY SRI G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE)
68
AND:
1 . SRI P V JOHNY
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
S/O VARGHESE MATHAI,
2 . SMT. SARAMMA JOHNY
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
W/O SRI P.V. JOHNY,
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.74/E,
17TH "A" CROSS, 4TH BLOCK,
BASAVESHWARA NAAR,
BANGALORE-560079.
REPRESENTED BY THEIR
GPA HOLDER
SRI SAJJAN JOHNY
S/O P.V. JOHNY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
3 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001.
….RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRABULING K NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SRI JEEVAN J NEERALGI, AGA FOR R3
R1 & R2 SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.32653-
32656/2010 DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2269 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020
69
2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT NIRMALA
W/O SRI S. THIMMARAJU
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 143/96
BANASHANKARI
RD
BANAGIRI NAGAR 3 STAGE
BANGALORE-560 085.
2. SRI. B.C. CHIKKANNA
S/O LATE CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
RESIDING AT BYADARAHALLI VILLAGE
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALOE-560 091.
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
HOUSING & URBAN
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. T. JEEVANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. S.V. GIRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. B.S. JEEVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 11837 AND
11838/2010 DATED 11/07/2014.
70
IN W.A. NO.2446 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST EXTENSION
BANGALORE-560 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST EXTENSION
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. BASAVARAJU
S/O SRI REVANNA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT ‘BANGALE’
SULIKERE VILLAGE AND POST
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 060.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S. BUILDINGS
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. C.M. NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE AND
SHRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
71
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 15705/2013
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2449 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER
2. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. MAREGOWDA
S/O SRI VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/O KENCHANAPURA VILLAGE
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
BANGALORE-560 074.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. L.M. RAMAIAH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
72
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 36986/2011
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2454 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST EXTENSION
BANGALORE-560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST EXTENSION
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. B.S. SACHIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. N.K. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O SRI. S. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/O BHEEMANAKUPPE VILLAGE
HUNISE MARADA DAKHALE
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 060.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S. BUILDINGS
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. C.M. NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
73
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 42138/2012
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2470 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
K.P. WEST EXTENSION
BANGALORE-560 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
K.P. WEST EXTENSION
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. K.P. MANJUNATH
S/O LATE PUTTA NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
2. SRI. K.P. VIRUPAKSHARADHYA
S/O LATE PUTTA NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2 ARE
RESIDING IN HOUSE CONSTRUCTED
IN THE LAND BEARING BY NO.111/5
KOMMAGHATTA VILLAGE
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 060
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S. BUILDING
74
BANGALORE-560 001 …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R3)
SHRI. C.M. NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.11966-967/2010
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2698 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. S. SUDHAKAR
S/O SRI K.L. SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. F 101/17
MARAMMA TEMPLE STREET
RD RD
3 MAIN, 3 CROSS, K.G.NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 019.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
75
(BY SMT. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 173/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2717 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. MANJULA
W/O B.M. RENUKESHWARA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.931/1097
ST ND
1 MAIN ROAD, 2 PHASE
GIRINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 085.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
76
(BY SHRI. NARASIMHARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 176/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2718 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. S. SARVAMANGALA
W/O N. RANGARAJ URS
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.425
ND
2 CROSS, NAGAPPA STREET
P.G.HALLI
BANGALORE-560 003.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAMATHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
77
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 177/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2719 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. H.C. SAROJAMMA
W/O LATE H.S. SHIVALINGAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY LRs
1(A) P.S. SATHEESH BABU
S/O LATE H.S. SHIVALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
TH
NO.424, 9 A CROSS
TH
4 MAIN ROAD
ANNAPURNESHWARI NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 091.
1(B) P.S. SHIVA KUMAR
S/O LATE H.S. SHIVALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
TH
NO.424, 9 A CROSS
78
TH
4 MAIN ROAD
ANNAPURNESHWARI NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 091.
1(C) SMT. P.S. GEETHA
D/O LATE H.S. SHIVALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
NO.24, SADHASHIVA TEMPLE ROAD
RAMASWAMY PALYA
BENGALURU-560 033.
1(D) SMT. P.S. KANAKA MANJULA
D/O LATE H.S. SHIVALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
ST
NO. 83, 1 MAIN ROAD
MARAPPA LAYOUT
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 098.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. K.S. KALLESHAPPA, ADVOCATE
FOR R1(A) TO R1(D);
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 179/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2725 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
79
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. D.S. BALACHANDRA
S/O SRI. DALI SATHYANARAYANA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RD
RESIDING AT NO.4, 3 MAIN
EKADANTA BADAVANE
K. KRISHNASAGARA VILLAGE
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE-560 060.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAMATHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 181/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2726 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
80
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. SHARANAPPA GURIKAR
S/O SRI. AYYAPPA GURIKAR
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. V 2/2
RING ROAD
ND
VIJAYANAGAR 2 STAGE
MYSORE-570 017.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAMATHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 182/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2783 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
81
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI
W/O SRI. VIRATARAYA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.72
TH
5 CROSS, RAMAKRISHNA LAYOUT
MALAGALA MAIN ROAD
VISHWANEEDAM
BANGALORE-560 091.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAMATHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 3084/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2784 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
82
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. MANJULA H
W/O SRI DAYASHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.29
43A LAST STOP
KATRIGUPPE MAIN ROAD
SANESHWARASWAMY TEMPLE
RD
3 STAGE, BSK
BANGALORE-560 085.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
R1 - SERVED
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 3085/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2785 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
83
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. A.N. SREEKANTA
S/O LATE A.C. NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
RESIDING AT
Z.A.R.C.V.C. FARM
MANDYA-571 405.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 3086/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2787 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
84
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. MONTHINE PINTO
W/O SRI G. PINTO
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 20
TH
7 CROSS, BHAVANINAGAR
CHRIST SCHOOL ROAD
BANGALORE-560 029.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 3089/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2808 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
85
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SMT. SARASU VENUGOPALA
W/O G.R. VENUGOPALA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RD
R/AT NO. 156, 3 MAIN ROAD
KUVEMPU ROAD, GKVK LAYOUT-UAS
BANGALORE-560 064. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1)
R2 - SERVED
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 3114/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2810 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
86
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI. V.N. MURALIKRISHNA
S/O LATE V.S. NANJUNDA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
ST
R/AT NO. 20, 1 FLOOR
TH
4 MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET
BANGALORE-18. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SMT. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 3133/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2811 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
87
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SMT. MANJULA RAVINDRA PUROHIT
W/O RAVINDRA V. PUROHIT
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO. 279, 10 CROSS
NEAR MYTHRI STORES, N.R. COLONY
BANGALORE-560 019. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SMT. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 3115/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2812 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
88
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHAN SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SMT. NANCHARAMMA
W/O A. KRISHNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO.19, 13 C-CROSS
KEMPEGOWDANAGAR, BYADARAHALLI
MAGADI MAIN ROAD
VISHWANEEDAM
BANGALORE-560 091. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SMT. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 28892/2012
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2814 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
89
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SMT. PREMA N. GOWDA
W/O C. NARAYANA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
TH TH
R/AT 694/17, 5 MAIN, 11 CROSS
M.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 040.
3. SMT. SUNANDA
D/O A. CHANNE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
TH
R/AT 966, 10 B MAIN ROAD
TH
4 E BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 010.
4. SMT. SUMITHRA VISHANKANTA
W/O LATE VISHAKANTA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
TH TH
R/AT 694, 5 MAIN, 11 CROSS
M.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 040. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1)
R2 TO R4 SERVED.
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NOs.33599-
601/2014 & 34378/2014 DATED 28/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2815 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
90
K.P. WEST, BANGALORE.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
K.P. WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. CHIKKANNA
S/O MAHIMANNA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT RAMASANDRA VILLAGE
SULIKERE POST, KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-31.
3. MANJUNATHA
S/O LATE RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT RAMASANDRA VILLAGE
SULIKERE POST, KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-31. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SHRI. M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRHI. H.N. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2
V/O DTD. 19.03.2018 SERVICE OF
NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 57463-
464/2013 DATED 25/07/2014.
91
IN W.A. NO.2821 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI. HULLURAIAH
S/O HANUMANTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT NO.9, SY. NO. 46/1
KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE
YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 091. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SHRI. C.M. NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
92
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 12326/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2825 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
K.P. WEST, BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
K.P. WEST,
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI. A.N. VISHWANATH
S/O SRI. A.G. NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT NO. 24, EKADANTA BADAVANE
K. KRISHNA SAGARA VILLAGE
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE-560 060.
3. SMT. M. GANGA JAYAKUMAR
W/O SRI. M.M. JAYAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NO.8, KAVERI NILAYA
CHINNAPPANAHALLI, MARATHHALLI
BANGALORE-560 037.
93
4. SMT. SHOBHAVATHI T.R.
W/O G.M. NARASIMHA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
ST
R/AT NO.11, 1 BLOCK
PWD QUARTERS, WILSON GARDEN
BANGALORE-560 027.
5. SMT. MONTHINE PINTO
W/O MR. G. PINTO
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO.20, 7 CROSS
BHAVANINAGAR, CHRIST SCHOOL ROAD
BANGALORE-560 029.
6. SRI. G.M. RAMANATH
S/O SRI. G.R. MADAPPA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO.6/27, 14 CROSS
TH
6 BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 010.
7. SRI. S. BALAJI
S/O S. VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
RD
R/AT NO. 90, 3 CROSS
MOUNT JOY LAYOUT
HANUMANTHNAGAR
BANGALORE-560 019.
8. SMT. B.R. SHASHIKALA
W/O SRI. NARYANA RAO
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT NO.2/5, SARASWATHIPURA
NANDINI LAYOUT
BANGALORE-560 096.
9. SRI. SHIVA PRASAD GUPTA
S/O SRI. KANTHARAJA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RD
R/AT NO.104, 3 ‘A’ CROSS
B.C.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 040.
10. SMT. GAYATHRI
94
W/O MANJUNATHA RAO
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO. V-60, 6 CROSS
PIPELINE, MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003.
11. SMT. PUSHPA SHIVALINGAPPA
W/O DR. B.M. SHIVALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT NO. 159. T/2
“SAMPOORNA APARTMENTS”
TH TH TH
8 MAIN, BETWEEN 7 AND 8 CROSS
MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003.
12. SMT. SARASU VENUGOPAL
W/O G.R. VENUGOPAL
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT NO.5, BEHIND SRI. RAMA VIDYALAYA
NAVYANAGARA JAKKUR
BANGALORE-560 064.
13. SMT. PADMAVATHAMMA
W/O SRI. K. NARAYANA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO.26, 10 CROSS
RD
3 FLOOR, CITY CHAIRS UPSYTAIRS
PIPELINE, VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 040.
14. SMT. MANJULA RAVINDRA PUROHIT
W/O RAVINDRA V. PUROHIT
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO. 279, 10 CROSS
NEAR MYTHRI STORES, N.R.COLONY
BANGALORE-560 019.
15. SRI. B.L. NAGENDRA
S/O LATE B.T. LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT NO. U-57, SRI VEKATESH NILAYA
ST
1 CROSS, PADARAYANAPURA
BANGALORE-560 026.
16. SMT. NANCHARAMMA
95
W/O SRI. A. KRISHNAIAH
AGED ABOUT YEARS
TH
R/AT NO. 19, 13 ‘C’ CROSS
KEMPEGOWDANAGAR, BYADARAHALLI
MAGADI MAIN ROAD, VISHWANEEDAM
BANGALORE-560 040.
17. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI
W/O K. SUBRAMANYA GUPTA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RD
R/AT NO.104, 3 ‘A’ CROSS
S.V.G. NAGAR, HUCHAPPA LAYOUT
MOODALAPALYA
BANGALORE-560 072.
18. SMT. S.R. DATTATREYA
S/O RANGAPPA T.R.
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
RD
R/AT NO.35, 3 ‘A’ CROSS
S.V.G NAGAR, HUCHAPPA LAYOUT
MOODALAPALYA
BANGALORE-560 072.
19. SMT. K.SHAMALA
W/O P.NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NO.608/1, 80 FEET ROAD
TH ND
7 BLOCK, 2 PHASE, BSK III STAGE
BANGALORE-560 085.
20. SRI. KIRAN S. PAMADI
S/O P.R. SAMPANGIRAMA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT NO. 4/3, DIWAN S. MADHAV RAO ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE-560 004.
21. SMT. B.J. LAKSHMI NARAYANA
S/O LATE B.M. JAYARAMA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT M.G. ROAD, KOLAR. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1)
R2 NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD 13/01/2020
96
R3 TO R21 NOTICE IS DISPENSED WITH V/O
DTD 12/01/2017
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 16364/2010
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2827 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE AND
SHRI. K. VASANTH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. B.L. NAGENDRA
S/O LATE B.T. LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. U-57
SRI. VENKATESH NILAYA
ST
1 CROSS, PADARAYANAPURA
BANGALORE-560 026.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
97
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 3116/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2828 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020.
.…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE AND
SHRI. K. VASANTH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. K. SHAMALA
W/O P. NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 608/1
TH
80 FEET ROAD, 7 BLOCK
ND
2 PHASE, BSK III STAGE
BANGALORE-560 085.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
98
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2
R1 – SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 3117/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2829 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE
SHRI. K. VASANTH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. S.R. DATTATREYA
S/O LATE RANGAPPA T.R.
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 35
RD
3 ‘A’ CROSS, SVG NAGAR
HUCHAPPA LAYOUT
MUDALAPALYA
BANGALORE-560 072.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
99
(BY SMT. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 3123/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2830 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SARASWATHI D
W/O SRI. D. BALACHANDAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.28
BILIGIRI KUTEERA
BANK OF BARODA COLONY
TH
7 PHASE J.P. NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 078.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
100
(BY SMT. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 3129/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2831 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE AND
SHRI. K. VASANTH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. CHALISANI NARAYANA RAO
S/O SRI. VENKATESHARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. FLAT NO.304
‘B’ WING, QUEENS CORNER
APARTMENT, NO.3
QUEENS ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
101
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. M.N. PAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 20330/2014
DATED 01/08/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2832 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST EXTN.
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST EXTN.
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. CHIKKATHIMMAIAH
S/O LATE DODDA MOODALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
2. SMT. NANJAMMA
W/O LATE KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
3. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
4. SRI. CHIKKAKEMPAIAH
102
S/O LATE DODDA MOODALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ARE RESIDENTS OF
BETTANAPALYA, BHEEMANAKUPPE DHAKALE
KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-570 074.
5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
M.S.BUILDINGS
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. C.M. NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE
SHRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R5)
R2, R3 AND R4 ARE SERVED
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 31401-
402/2014 DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2876 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
K.P. WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. GOWTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADVOCATE)
103
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SMT. UMADEVI
W/O LATE D. SHIVALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO. 894, 8 A MAIN ROAD
RD RD
3 STAGE, 3 BLOCK
BASAVESHWARANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 079. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SHRI. M.C. PRABHUJI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.3096/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2877 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
104
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT GONGGADIPURA VILLAGE
KODIGEHALLI, YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 091.
3. SRI. RAMACHANDRA
S/O LATE DODDAHANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT GONGGADIPURA VILLAGE
KODIGEHALLI, YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 091. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SHRI. L.M. RAMAIAH GOWDA, ADVOCATE
FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 41802/2013
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2879 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020.
105
2. THE SENIOR LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. GOWTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. SMT. MAMATHA
W/O RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
RD
NO. 448, 3 CROSS
TH
4 MAIN, BHRUSMSPUTHRA NADI
SRINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 086. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SHRI. H.T. VASANTH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 38953/2013
DATED 02/08/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2880 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
106
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. GOWTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
1.
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001
2. SRI. C.N. RAJANNA
S/O NARASEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/A NO.10/5, ARUNA KIRANA NILAYA
TH
4 C MAIN, ANJANEYANAGARA
BANGALORE-560 085
(SINCE DEAD BY LRS)
2(A). JAYANTHI
W/O LATE C.N. RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
2(B). ARUN GOWDA C.R
S/O LATE C.N. RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
2(C). KIRAN GOWDA C.R
S/O LATE C.N. RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
TH
NO.20/4, 5 ‘C’ MAIN
ARUNAKIRANA NILAYA
BSK III STAGE
BANGALORE-85
3. SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O SRI. GUNDAPPA
107
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
ND
R/AT NO.29, 2 CROSS
T.R.SHAMANNA NAGAR
SRINAGR
BANGALORE-560 050
4. SMT. K.R. YASHODHA
W/O G. SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
TH
R/O NO.34, 7 CROSS
TH
12 MAIN, RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK
SRINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 050
5. SMT. SHANTHA
W/O MAHESHWARAPPA S.H
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT SAMASTHITHI GURU LAYOUT
BEHIND GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC
TUMKUR-572 103
6. SRI. A.S. RUDRAMURTHY
S/O SIDDARAMAIAH A.S
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT ANGHA OLD KEB ROAD
NEAR RAVIDRA COLLEGE OF FINE ARTS
TUMKUR-572 102
7. SMT. NAYANATARA N. PATIL
W/O VISHWARS HITTALAMANI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RD
R/AT NO.M/15, 3 MAIN
JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION
BANGALORE-560 046
8. SRI. T.R. LOKESH
S/O D.S. RUDRAMUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT KAVERI, MAHALAKSHMINAGAR
TUMKUR-572 103
9. SRI. M.S. SREEDHAR
S/O M.R. SUBBARATHNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
TH
R/A NO.149, 8 CROSS
108
ST
1 MAIN, KALYANA NAGAR
MUDALAPALYA
BANGALORE-560 072
10. SMT. RADHA
W/O RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO.1, 5 CROSS
KILLARI ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
11. SMT. B. SUSHEELA
W/O S. UMESH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT SRI GANESH HOTEL
YEDIYUR, YEDIYUR HOBLI
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT
12. SMT. INDIRA
W/O SURESH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
TH
R/A NO.525, 7 CROSS
TH
7 MAIN, HANUMANTHANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 019
13. SRI. B.J. KUMAR
S/O JAVAREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
TH
R/A NO.1181, 4 CROSS
TH
11 MAIN, RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK
SRINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 050
14. SMT. T.S.V. LAKSHMI
W/O K.R. UDAY KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/A RAILWAY STATION ROAD
GANDHINAGAR
TUMKUR-572 101
15. SRI. C. ANAND
S/O P. CHANNAGALARAVA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT NO.25/1, BESIDE SRINIVAS
109
KALYANA MANTAPA
ANJENEYA NAGAR, ITTAMADU
RD RD
3 BLOCK, BANASHANKARI 3 STAGE
BANGALORE-560 085
16. SRI. JAVARAYAPPA
S/O LATE KAPANIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
ND
R/A NO.9/B, 2 MAIN
DWARAKANAGAR
HOSAKEREHALLI
RD
BANASHANKARI 3 STAGE
BANGALORE-85 …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SHRI. R. KUMAR ADVOCATE FOR R2(A-C),
R3 TO R16 AND R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.58707-721/2013
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2881 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
110
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI. S.K.N. SWAMY
S/O SRI. S.V.K. SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
ST
R/AT NO.298, 1 FLOOR
TH TH
15 CROSS, 5 PHASE, J.P. NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 078.
3. SRI. JANARDHANA K.
S/O SRI. K. LAKSHMINARAYANA SETTY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT NO.10, SAROVAR APARTMENT
SHRI RAJARAJESHWARI TEMPLE STREET
NEAR SOUTHEND CIRCLE
BANGALORE-560 004.
4. SRI. G. THIPPE SWAMY
S/O GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
R/AT NO. 2731, MANJUNATH NILAYA
ND
2 CROSS, GOKULA BADAVANE
MANDIR ROAD, KYATHASANDRA ROAD
TUMKUR-04.
5. SRI. M. SADHASHIVAIAH
S/O C. MALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
ST TH
R/AT NO. 100, 1 FLOOR, 11 MAIN ROAD
NEAR SRINAGAR BUS STAND
BANGALORE-50.
6. SRI. P.M. GURUPRASAD HEBBAR
S/O P.M.K. HEBBAR
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO. 100/42, 18 CROSS
TH
15 MAIN, R.K. LAYOUT
PADMANABHA NAGAR
111
BANGALORE-61.
7. B. RAVI
S/O BALAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
ND
R/AT NO. 37, 22 CROSS
ITMADU MAIN ROAD
RD
BANASHANKARI 3 STAGE
BANGALORE-85.
8. SMT. SHARADA
S/O J. SIDDALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO.34, 7 CROSS
TH
12 MAIN, RAGAVENDRA BLOCK
SRINAGAR
BANGALORE-50.
9. SMT. K.S. GNANESHWARI
W/O B.J. KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO. 1181, 4 CROSS
TH
11 MAIN ROAD, RAGAVENDRA BLOCK
SRINAGAR
BANGALORE-50.
10. SMT. KARIYAMMA
W/O B.T. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT NO.825, HRUSHABAVATHI NAGAR
ND
2 STAGE, KAMALANAGAR
BANGALORE-79.
11. SMT. B.N. NAGARATHNAMMA
W/O M.L. PARAMESHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT NO. 3, BANDI NILAYA
RD
3 CROSS, HAVALAHALLI
MYSORE ROAD
BANGALORE-26.
12. SMT. B.N. RAJALAKSHMI
W/O B.K. NAGESH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
ND
R/AT NO.647, 80 FEET, 2 PHASE
112
GIRINAGAR
BANGALORE-85.
13. SRI. K. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O M.N. KRISHNNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO. 14/23, 5 CROSS
TH ND
16 MAIN, 2 STAGE, SRINIVASA NAGARA
MYSORE BANK COLONY
BANGALORE-50.
14. SMT. BINDUMATHI. P.
D/O PUTTALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO. 7, 19 MAIN ROAD
MUNESHWARA BLOCK
MYSORE ROAD
BANGALORE-26.
15. KUM. GANANESHWARI. P.
D/O PUTTALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO. 7, 19 MAIN ROAD
MUNESHWARA BLOCK
MYSORE ROAD
BANGALORE-26.
16. SRI. K.P. MAHALINGE GOWDA
S/O PUTTALAKEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS AND
SMT. SUDHA V
W/O K.P. MAHALINGE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT K.K. HOSURU VILLAGE
BECHANAHALLI POST
HALEKOTE HOBLI
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SHRI. B.N. TULSI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3;
SHRI. R. KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R16)
113
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 726-740/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A NO.2948 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
K.P. WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SMT. K.M. NAGANANDINI
W/O M.J. PRAVEEN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RD
R/AT NO.51, 3 CROSS
TH ND
5 BLOCK, 2 STAGE
NAGARBHAVI
BANGALORE-560 056. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SMT. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
114
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 3130/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2949 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
K.R.WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI. KIRAN S. PAMADI
W/O P.R. SAMPANGIRAMA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT NO. 4/3, DIWAN S. MADHAV RAO ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE-560 004. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SHRI. S. GANGADHAR AITHAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
115
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 3124/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2950 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. GOWTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI. M. HEMA PRASAD
S/O D.M. KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
ST
R/AT NO. 39/89, 1 E CROSS
ND
REMCO LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR 2 STAGE
BANGALORE-560 040. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1)
R2 - SERVED
116
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 3119/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2951 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. GOWTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. SRI. M. AZAR BASHA
S/O SRI. M.M. IBRAHIM
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT NO.40, MACKAN ROAD
BHARATHINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1
R2 – SERVED)
117
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 3118/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2953 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
K.P. WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
W/O K. SUBRAMANYA GUPTA
RD
R/AT NO. 104, 3 A CROSS
R.P.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 040. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SMT. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
118
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 3125/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2954 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
K.P. WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI. K.S. RAMAKRISHNA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O LATE SHESHADRI GUPTA
RD
R/AT NO. 343, 3 CROSS
ND
2 MAIN, BEML LAYOUT
BANGALORE-560 061. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SHRI. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
119
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 3092/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2955 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SMT. B.J. LAKSHMI NARAYAN
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
W/O LATE B.M. JAYARAMA SHETTY
R/AT M.G. ROAD
KOLAR-563 101. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1)
R2 SERVED
120
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 3112/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2956 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
K.P. WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. GOWTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI. SHIVA PRASAD GUPTA
S/O SRI M.N. KANTHARAJA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RD
R/AT NO. 104, 3 ‘A’ CROSS
B.C.C LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 040. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SMT. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
121
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 3088/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.2957 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI. T.N. RAMESH
S/O LATE T.V. NARAYANA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
NO. 44/1, MKK ROAD
NAGAPPA BLOCK
BANGALORE-560 021.
3. SMT. M.N. SHOBHA
W/O LATE M.V. NARAYANA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
TH
NO. 2394, 10 MAIN
122
‘E’ BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 010.
4. SMT. M. ANITHA
W/O M.G. MURALIDHARA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
TH
NO. 51, 8 MAIN ROAD
SBM COLONY, BRINDAVA NAGAR
MATHIKERE
BANGALORE-560 054.
5. SMT. SUNITHA HARISH
W/O HARISH C.J.
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
TH
NO. 660/9-1, 11 CROSS
TH
7 BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 082.
6. SRI. B.S. VANITHA
W/O P.S. DAKSHINAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RD
NO. 88, IV BLOCK, 3 STAGE
IV MAIN, BASAVESHWARANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 078.
7. SRI. V. SRIDHARA
S/O LATE B.G. VASUDEVA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
TH ST
NO. 1012, 15 CROSS, 1 STAGE
KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT
BANGALORE-560 078. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SHRI. T. MOHANDAS SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R6;
SRI. A.M. RAMAMURTHY REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R6
V/O DTD: 03/09/2018 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R7 IS
DEEMED TO BE COMPLETE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 251-255/2013
DATED 11/07/2014.
123
IN W.A. NO.2958 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SMT. GAYATHRI
W/O A. PUTTASWAMY SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
ND
R/AT EWS 768, 2 STAGE
KUVEMPUNAGAR
BANGALORE-560 023. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SHRI. M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. M.C. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 3120/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
124
IN W.A. NO.3044 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI. THIMMAPPA
S/O KENDHANNA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT BATTANAPALYA
BEEMANAKUPPE JODI GRAMA
RAMOHALLI POST, KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH
TALUK-560 068. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SHRI. R.P. SOMASHEKHARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 19193/2013
DATED 12/08/2014.
125
IN W.A. NO.3045 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
M.S.BUILDINGS
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SMT. R.R. RAJESHWARI
W/O LATE G.S. TARARAMASETTY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
3. SRI. G.T. NARAYAN
S/O G.S. TARKARAMASETTY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
4. SMT. G.T. KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O LATE G.S. TARAKARAMASETTY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO 4
NO.16, R.K. STREET
SESHADRIPURAM
BANGALORE-560 020. …RESPONDENTS
126
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SHRI. G.S. VENKATA SUBBARAO, ADVOCATE
FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 46130-33/2013
DATED 04/08/2014.
IN W.A. NO.3046 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDINGS
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI. M. HONNAMALLAIAH
S/O LATE B.M. MALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT NO.201/3, “BHRAMARA NILAYA”
TH TH
4 MAIN ROAD, 4 CROSS
CHAMARAJAPET
BANGALORE-560 018.
127
3. SMT. B.M. CHANDRAKALA
D/O SRI N. MARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NO.2, “THRINETRA NILAYA”
ST ND
1 MAIN ROAD, 2 STAGE
RPC LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 040.
4. SRI. B. YATIRAJU
S/O A.T. BHASKARACHARY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT COTTON PET
NEAR HEAD POST OFFICE
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI
TUMKUR-572 124. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SHRI. B.S. HADIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 9081-83/2013
DATED 30/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.3047 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
128
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI. T. GOVINDARAJU
S/O LATE THAGADE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
RD
R/AT NO. 353, 3 CROSS
TH
12 MAIN ROAD, SHIVANAGAR
RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 010. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SMT. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 3126/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.3049 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
129
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SMT. M. GANGA JAYAKUMAR
W/O SRI. M.M. JAYAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NO.8, KAVERI NILAYA
CHINNAPPANAHALLI, MARATHHALLI
BANGALORE-560 037. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1)
R2 – SERVED
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 3127/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.3050 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
130
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
REVENUE DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI. R.R. RAMESH BABU
S/O R.H. RADHAKRISHNA GUPTA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT VIJAYALAKSHMI ROAD
DAVANGERE. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SMT. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 3131/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.3051 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
131
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI. N. PADMAVATHAMMA
S/O SRI. K. NARAYANA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO.26, 10 CROSS
RD
3 FLOOR, CITY CHAIRS UPSTAIRS
PIPELINE, VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 040. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SMT. MAMMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 3128/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.3077 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. J.C. KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
132
AND:
1. SRI. P.S. RAGHAVENDRA
S/O SRI P. SATHYANARAYANA GUPTA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT NO.137, GROUND FLOOR
TH
13 ‘A’ MAIN, RAGHAVENDRA
MUTT ROAD, MATHIKERE
BANGALORE-560 054.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. H.N. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 186/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.3078 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
133
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. S.R. RUKMINI
W/O SRI. S. JAYARAM
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO. 202, 6 MAIN
ND
2 ‘B’ CROSS, SRINIVASANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 091.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 189/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.3080 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST EXTENSION
BANGALORE-560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
134
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. C.B. PARVATHY
W/O SRI. P.B. CHINNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
ND ST
R/AT NO.32, 2 MAIN, 1 CROSS
AREKERE MICO LAYOUT
ND
2 STAGE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 076.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 180/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.3082 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
135
SHRI. B.S. SACHIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. M.S. GAYATHRI
W/O SRI. M.B. SUBASH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO. 117, 7 MAIN
RD
3 STAGE, BEML LAYOUT
RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 098.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 184/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.3083 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST EXTENSION
BANGALORE-560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
136
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. B.S. SACHIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. GAYATHRI
W/O SRI MANJUNATHA RAO
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO. V-60, 6 CROSS
PIPE LINE, MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 3090/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.3084 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020 .…APPELLANTS
137
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. B.S. SACHIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. M.M. JAYAKUMAR
S/O M.P. MUDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT NO. 8, ‘KAVERI NILAYA’
CHINNAPPANAHALLI
MARATHHALLI
BANGALORE-560 037.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
R1 - SERVED
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 191/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.3085 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
138
SHRI. B.S. SACHIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. NIRANJAN S. PAMADI
S/O SRI. P.R. SAMPANGIRAMA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT NO.4/3, D.S. MADHAVA RAO ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE-560 004.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 183/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.3086 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
139
AND:
1. SRI. V. NAGARAJU
S/O LATE VENKOBA SA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NO.150, 60 FEET ROAD
PATTEGARAPALYA
BASAVESHWARANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 079
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
SMT. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.16/2014 DATED
25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.3087 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
140
AND:
1. SRI. S. KRISHNA SHETTY
S/O LATE SHAMANNA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
ST
R/AT NO.12, 1 MAIN ROAD
ND
2 CROSS, OPP. NANDA GOKULA SCHOOL
KAVERIPURA, KAMAKSHIPALYA
BANGALORE-560 079
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
SMT. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.187/2014 DATED
25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.3088 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
141
AND:
1. SRI. V.N. SRINIVAS
S/O LATE NANJUNDA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
R/AT NO.20, ‘SHIVA SADANA’
TH
4 MAIN ROAD
CHAMARAJPET
BANGALORE-560 018
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
R1-SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.192/2014 DATED
25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.3089 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
142
AND:
1. SMT. SATHI CHITRA
W/O M. ANAND
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
ST
R/AT NO.2, 1 CROSS
ASHOKAPURAM
YESHWANTHPUR
BANGALORE-560 022
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
SMT. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.188/2014 DATED
25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.3091 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
143
AND:
1. SRI. KANTHANNA
S/O THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT C.P.W. QUARTERS
TH
182, 13 BLOCK
H.S.R. LAYOUT
BANGALORE-560 102.
2. SRI. K. JAGADEESH
S/O KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
TH
R/AT M-109, 5 CROSS
TH
7 MAIN, LAKSHMINARAYANAPURA
BANGALORE-560 021.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. H.N. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 770-771/2014
DATED 25/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.3159 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST EXTENSION
BANGALORE-560 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
.…APPELLANT
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
144
SHRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DR. VAMANA ACHARYA
S/O NARASIMHA ACHARYA AAYI
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
OCC: INDUSTRIALIST
R/O BASAVESHWARANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 038.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
TO THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. VIKRAM PHADKE, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. SONA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 3107/2012
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.3160 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
145
SHRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. M. MANJUNATHA
S/O M. MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
R/AT BHEEMANA KUPPE VILLAGE
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 060.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDINGS
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. B.S. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 30102/2012
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.3162 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
(LAND ACQUISITION)
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE)
146
AND:
1. SRI. B. ESHWARA
S/O SRI BYRAPPA @ DODDABYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/O SULIKERE, KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH
BANGALORE-560 060.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. C.M. NAGABHUSHAN, ADVOCATE AND
SHRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 46491/2011
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.3163 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI RANGASWAMAIAH
147
S/O SRI NADUTHIRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
RESIDING AT GIDADHAPALYA @
SOOLIKATTEPALYA VILLAGE
THAVAREKERE HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
PIN: 560 029.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. L.M. RAMAIAH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 28892/2012
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.876 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. JAICHAND
148
S/O DEEPCHAND
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.6
ST
1 CROSS, VASANTH NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 052.
2. SMT. J. RAJKUMARI
W/O D. JAICHAND
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.6
ST
1 CROSS, VASANTH NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 052. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. S.V. GANESH, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 19475/2010
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.877 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1 . BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
K.P WEST, BANGALORE
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER.
2 . THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
K.P WEST, BANGALORE 560 020
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER.
.…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI G S KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C ULLAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
149
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR BEEDHI,
BANGALORE 560001
2 . SRI. SOMASHEKAR
S/O SRI HUCHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KOMMAGHATTA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE
3 . SRI H. RAVINDRA
S/O SRI HUCHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KOMMAGHATTA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE
4 . SRI H.S. DEEPAK
S/O SRI. SOMASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KOMMAGHATTA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE
5 . SMT. LEELAMMA
W/O SRI. SOMASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KOMMAGHATTA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRABHULING K NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SRI JEEVAN J NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1
SRI SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY K, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI M SREENIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
150
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 12927-35/2010
DATED 11/07/2014 AND ETC.
IN W.A. NO.879 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S.BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI. NAGAMANGALAIAH
S/O LATE KENDANNA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT BETTANAPALYA
BHEEMANAKUPPE, KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 060. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SHRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE AND
SHRI. K.S. UDAY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
151
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 1379/2015
DATED 27/01/2015.
IN W.A. NO.880 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
K.P.WEST
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
K.P.WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. GOWTHANDEV C. ULLAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. K.K. EDUCATION TRUST (REGD)
NO.52/8, KODIGEHALLI
MAGADI MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE-560 091.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
SRI. V. KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA
BANGALORE CITY. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SHRI. L. UMASHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
152
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 33858/2011
AND 34282/2011 DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.1010 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. K.M. BASAVARADHYA
S/O LATE MALLIKARJUNAIAH
@ MALLIKARJUNA ARADHYA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs
2(A) SMT.C.M.NAGARATHANA
W/O LATE K.M.BASAVARADHYA
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS
2(B) K.B. RAJASHEKAR
153
S/O LATE K.M. BASAVARADHYA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
2(C) K.B. GIRISH
S/O LATE K.M. BASAVARADHYA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
2(D) K.B. GURUPRASAD
S/O LATE K.M. BASAVARADHYA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
2(E) K.B. GEETHA
D/O LATE K.M. BASAVARADHYA
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
KOMMAGHATTA VILLAGE
SULIKERE POST, KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE-560 060. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1;
SHRI. C.M. NAGABHUSHAN, ADVOCATE
FOR R2(A) TO R2(E))
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 9101-
9102/2010 DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.1164 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
K.P. WEST, BANGALORE-560 020.
2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
K.P. WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
154
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. N. GANGANARASIMHAIAH
S/O SRI NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
2. SRI. DEVARAJU
S/O SRI N. GANGANARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
3. SRI. SHIVASHANKAR
S/O SRI N. GANGANARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
4. SRI GANGANARASIMHAMURTHY
S/O SRI N. GANGANARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
SEEGEHALLI VILLAGE
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
PIN: 560 067.
4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
M.S. BUILDINGS
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. VENKATA SUBBARAO, ADVOCATE
FOR R1 TO R4;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 39390/2012
AND 40994/2012 DATED 11/07/2014.
155
IN W.A. NO.1166 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BANGALORE-560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR. M. SRINIVASA MURTHY
S/O SRI MUNIGANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
BHEEMANA KUPPE VILLAGE
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 060.
2. MRS. M. SWETHA
D/O SRI MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
BHEEMANA KUPPE VILLAGE
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 060.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDINGS
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. B.S. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2;
156
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 38252-
253/2012 DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.1168 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST EXTENSION
BANGALORE-560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. B. VACHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. JASHODA BAI
W/O SRI. KRISHNARAM CHOWDARY
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.118
SUKKUR CIRCLE
KENGERI TOWN
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
PIN-560 060
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REVENUE SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001
157
3. THE SECRETARY
URBAN AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
BANGALORE-560 001
5. THE TAHASHILDAR
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 001 …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R-R5;
SHRI. N.R. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 20417/2010
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.1172 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
158
W/O B.M. VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO. 554, 6 MAIN ROAD
TH
4 BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 010
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. G. BALAKRISHNNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 43470/2012
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.1173 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. HANUMANTHA RAO
S/O SRI. MANKOJI RAO
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
FARM HOUSE, RAMASANDRA
159
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE-560 060.
2. SRI. NANJUNDAPPA J.H.
S/O J.P. HALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
TH
RESIDENT OF 1271, 4 MAIN
TH
7 CROSS, CHANDRA LAYOUT
BANGALORE-560 040.
3. SRI. DOBBAGULAPPA
S/O SRI RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDENT RAMASANDRA VILLAGE
BANGALORE SOUTH
BANGALORE DISTRICT
PIN:560 060.
4. SRI. MANJUNATH
S/O SRI RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
RESIDENT RAMASANDRA VILLAGE
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH ZONE
BANGALORE DISTRICT
PIN:560 060.
5. SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O SRI VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.16
50 FEET ROAD
MUNESHWARA BLOCK
BANGALORE-560 026.
6. SRI VENKATESH
S/O SRI SHIVARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.16
50 FEET ROAD
MUNESHWARA BLOCK
BANGALORE-560 026.
7. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
160
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. K.L. ASHOK, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SHRI. M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. H.N. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4;
SHRI. LOHITASWA BANAKAR, ADVOCATE
FOR R5 AND R6
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R7)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 251-255/2013
DATED 11/07/2014.
IN W.A. NO.1771 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. B.S. SACHIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. VENKATARASAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs
1(A) SMT. KAMALAMMA
W/O LATE VENKATARASAPPA. V.
161
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT NO. 7, MANGANAHALLI VILLAGE
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI
BENGALURU-560 060.
1(B) SMT. JINNUBAI NAGARAJU
W/O M. NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT NO. 1, MANGANAHALLI VILLAGE
BENGALURU-560 060.
1(C) SMT. NAGAMANI M.V.
W/O RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO. 77, 4 BLOCK
SIR M.V. LAYOUT
ULLALU BASTI, ULLALU UPANAGARA
BENGALURU-560 056.
1(D) SRI. MANJUNATHA M.V.
S/O LATE VENKATARASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT MANGANAHALLI VILLAGE
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE-560 060.
1(E) SRI. KUMAR V.
S/O LATE VENKATARASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT NO.70, MANGANAHALLI VILLAGE
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE-560 060.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MULTISTORIED BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. K. ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A) TO R1(E);
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
162
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 6705/2014
DATED 20/03/2015.
IN W.A. NO.939 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
(REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER)
KUMARA PARK (WEST)
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK (WEST)
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. B.S. SACHIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. N. SREENIVASA RAO
S/O LATE SRI. S. NARAYANA RAO
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
NO. 65/2, KAKATHEYANAGAR
AREHALLI, ITTAMADU
BANASHANKARI III STAGE
BENGALURU-560 061.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S. BUILDING
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001.
(REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY) …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. T.A. KARUMBAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
163
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 51495/2014
DATED 19/02/2016.
IN W.A. NO.1015 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. M.H. MAMATHA
W/O LATE M.N. HARINATH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO.531, 7 CROSS ROAD
SADASHIVANAGARA
BANGALORE-560 080.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
V/O DATED 13.06.2013 NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 25087/2015
DATED 18/03/2016.
164
IN W.A. NO.1016 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, [BELLARY ROAD]
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. PURUSHOTHAMA
S/O D. VENKATA RAM
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.6
C/O SHILPA PRINTERS
ST
1 MAIN, VINAYAKANAGARA
HALE GUDDADHALLI, MYSORE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 026.
2. SRI. S. VENKATESH
S/O LATE G.N. SRIKANTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.1555
TH
17 ‘B’ MAIN ROAD
TH ST
5 BLOCK, 1 STAGE
HBR LAYOUT
BANGALORE-560 043.
3. SRI. S.G. NAGARAJ
S/O LATE GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 446
TH TH
8 CROSS, 29 MAIN
165
BTM EWS LAYOUT
BANGALORE-560 076.
4. DR. H. SANTHOSH S. SHETTY
W/O DR. A. SANTHOSH SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
RESIDING AT “KRISHNA”
MAHALAKSHMI NAGARA
NEAR VENKATESHWARA TEMPLE
TUMKUR-572 103.
5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. N. SRIRAMA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R5
R1 – SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 12699-
12702/2016 DATED 14/03/2016.
IN W.A. NO.1343 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE)
166
AND:
1. SRI. SHANTHARAJU
S/O LATE SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT KANNELLI VILLAGE
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH DISTRICT
BANGALORE-560 091.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. M. SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 20168/2015
DATED 01/04/2016.
IN W.A. NO.1344 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
167
AND:
1. SRI. MARAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
2. SMT. BYRAMMA
W/O MARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
3. SRI. M. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O MARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
4. SMT. MANGALAGOWRAMMA
D/O MARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
5. SRI. M. HANUMANTHA RAJU
S/O MARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
6. SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY
S/O LATE CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
7. SMT. VARALAKSHMI
W/O NARASIMHA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
8. SRI. N. GANGARAJU
S/O NARASIMHA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
9. SMT. N. ANNAPOORNA
D/O NARASIMHA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
10. SMT. N. BHAGYALAKSHMI
D/O NARASIMHA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
GONGADIPURA VILLAGE
168
KODIGEHALLI DHAKALE
VISHWANEEDUM POST
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
ALL THE ABOVE ARE
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
SRI. M.G. RAGHU SHANKAR
S/O N. KRISHNA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO. 288, 6 CROSS
BEL EXTENSION, BHARATHNAGAR
BYADARAHALLI, VISHWANEEDUM POST
BANGALORE-560 091.
11. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. B.A. BELLIAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R10;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R11)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 15508-
517/2015 DATED 01/04/2016.
IN W.A. NO.1644 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
169
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O SRI. VENKATESHAPPA
MAJOR
RESIDING AT BETTANA PALYA
BEEMANAKUPPE DAKALE
KENGERI – 2 HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
BANGALORE-560 060.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MULTISTORIED BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2
R1 – SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 55794/2014
DATED 04/04/2016.
IN W.A. NO.1818 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU-560 020
REP BY SLAO.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
170
KUMARA PARK (WEST)
BANGALORE-560 020.
REP BY SLAO.
.…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. AJAY KUMAR M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SRI K S CHANDRASEKARAIAH
S/O LATE K.R.SHIVARUDRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/O NO.80/34, 5TH CROSS
BAPUJI LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 040
1.1 . SMT. GEETHA CHANDRASHEKAR
W/O LATE K.S. CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
1.2 . SPOORTHI K.C
D/O LATE K.S. CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
1.3 . SWATHI K.C.
D/O LATE K.S. CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.80/34, 5TH CROSS
BAPUJI LAYOUT,
NEAR CHANDRA LAYOUT
VIAJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU – 560040
2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT,
M.S.BUILDING,
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2;
SHRI. G R MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A TO C))
171
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 20557/16 DATED
12/4/16 AND ETC.
IN W.A. NO.2104 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU-560 020
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. B.R. RAMYA
W/O SRI. V.B.R. RAJASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.3871
VISHWESHWARAIAH ROAD
GIRINAGAR, BSK III STAGE
BENGALURU-560 050.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. H.M. MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
172
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 46816/2014
DATED 02/03/2016.
IN W.A. NO.2105 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020. .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. B.R. RAMYA
W/O SRI. B.R. RAJASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 3871
VISHWESHWARAIAH ROAD
GIRINAGAR, BSK III STAGE
BENGALURU-560 050.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.H.M. MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
173
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 46817/2014
DATED 04/03/2016.
IN W.A. NO.417 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020.
[APPELLANTS NO.1 & 2 ARE BELONGS
TO SAME AUTHORITY HENCE
APPELLANT NO.2 IS
REPRESENTING THE
APPELLANT NO.1] .…APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. B.S. SACHIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. B.M. CHIKKANNA
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
2. SRI. B.M. ANJINAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
3. SRI. B.M. SRINIVAS
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
4. SRI. B.M. GALI ANJINAPPA
174
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
5. SRI. MUNIYAPPA
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT HOSABYROHALLI
SOOLIKERE POST
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 085
6. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001 …RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, AG ALONG WITH
SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R6;
R1 TO R5 - SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.32054-58/2015
DATED 26.02.2016.
IN W.A. NO.1798 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1 . BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 020.
REP. BY ITS ADDL. LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER,
2 . THE LAND ACQUISITION,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WERST,
175
BANGALORE-560 020.
REP. BY ITS ADDL. LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER,
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI G S KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI K KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SMT. NARASAMMA,
W/O SRI T.G. RANGASHAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
NO.716, 2ND D CROSS,
8TH MAIN ROAD,
3RD PHASE, 3RD STAGE,
BASAVESHWARANAGARA,
BANGALORE-560 079.
2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
MULTISTOREYED BUILDINGS,
BANGALORE-560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R2
SRI SANKETH M YENAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 33899/2011 DATED
11/7/14 AND ETC.
IN W.A. NO.2245 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1 . THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
K.P WEST, BANGALORE-560 020.
2 . THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION
176
OFFICER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
K.P WEST,
BANGALORE-560 020.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI G S KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI MURUGESH V CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE.
2 . SRI KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA,
RESIDENT OF NO.53/5,
SKANDANAGAR,
KODIGEHALLI POST,
BANGALORE-560 091.
3 . SMT. THULASAMMA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA,
RESIDENT OF NO.53/5,
SKANDANAGAR,
KODIGEHALLI POST,
BANGALORE-560 091.
4 . SMT. SHIVAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
W/O LATE BETTASWAMY,
R/AT NO.3, 8TH CROSS,
KOTTIGEPALYA,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 091.
5 . SMT. RATHNAMMA,
177
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
W/O LATE CHIKKAHANUMANTHAIAH,
R/AT KODIGEHALLI POST,
BANGALORE-560 091.
6 . SRI N KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O LATE NARASAIAH,
R/AT NO.35/5,
KENCHANAPURA ROAD,
RESIDENT OF KODIGEHALLI POST,
BANGALORE-560 091.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JEEVAN J NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1
SRI M SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R3, R5 & R6
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD
17.7.2023)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.34413-423/2011
DATED 11/7/14 AND ETC.
IN W.A. NO.2254 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1 . THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
K.P WEST, BANGALORE-560 020.
2 . THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
K.P WEST,
BANGALORE-560 020.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI G S KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI MURUGESH V CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
178
AND
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE.
2 . SRI KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA,
RESIDENT OF NO.53/5,
SKANDANAGAR,
KODIGEHALLI POST,
BANGALORE-560 091.
3 . SMT. THULASAMMA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA,
RESIDENT OF NO.53/5,
SKANDANAGAR,
KODIGEHALLI POST,
BANGALORE-560 091.
4 . SMT. SHIVAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
W/O LATE BETTASWAMY,
R/AT NO.3, 8TH CROSS,
KOTTIGEPALYA,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 091.
5 . SMT. RATHNAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
W/O LATE CHIKKAHANUMANTHAIAH,
R/AT KODIGEHALLI POST,
BANGALORE-560 091.
6 . SRI N KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O LATE NARASAIAH,
R/AT NO.35/5,
179
KENCHANAPURA ROAD,
RESIDENT OF KODIGEHALLI POST,
BANGALORE-560 091.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JEEVAN J NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1
SRI M SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R3, R5 & R6
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD
17.7.2023)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.34413-423/2011
DATED 11/7/14 AND ETC.
IN W.A. NO.2458 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1 . THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE-560 020.
2 . THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE-560 020.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI G S KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI K KRISHNA, :ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SMT NAGARATHNA G
W/O SRI. B.V. NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
NO.8, 7TH MAIN, SHIVANAGAR,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 010.
180
2 . SRI. SYED ASHRAF
S/O SRI. SYED UMAR SAHEB
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
FLAT NO. 410, VIJAYA MANSIONS
VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 040.
BY HIS GPA HOLDER
3 . SRI. V. THIMMAIAH
S/O SRI DODDA VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
SUNKADAKATTE
YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 010.
4 . SMT. DEEPA SALUNKI
W/O SRI R.S. SALUNKI
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
NO.8, D. RAJGOPAL ROAD,
AMARJYOTHI LAYOUT,
RMV II STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 094.
REP BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SRI. B.V. NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
NO.8, 7TH MAIN
SHIVANAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 010.
5 . SMT. SUMATHI SADASHIVA
W/O SRI SADASHIVA SALUNKI
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
NO.8, D. RAJGOPAL ROAD,
AMARJYOTHI LAYOUT,
RMV II STAGE, BANGALORE-560 094.
REP. BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SRI. B.V. NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
NO.8, 7TH MAIN
SHIVANAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 010.
181
6 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MULTISTORIED BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JEEVAN J NEERALAGI, AGA FOR R6
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2, R4, R5 HELD SUFFICIENT
V/O DTD 17.7.2023, R1 & R3 SERVED AND
UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 14140-
14147/2010 DATED 11/07/2010 AND ETC.
IN W.A. NO.2708 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1 . BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE 560020
2 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE 560 020
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI G S KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI K KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SR.UMESH
S/O SRI CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
182
RESIDING AT NO.93
2ND FLOOR, 3RD MAIN ROAD
3RD CROSS, VINAYAKA LAYOUT
3RD STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE 560040
2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE 560 001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JEEVAN J NEERALAGI, AGA FOR R2
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD
17.7.2023)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.174/14 DATED
25/7/14 AND ETC.
IN W.A. NO.2709 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1 . BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BANGALORE-560020
REP BY ITS ADDL. LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER
2 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560020
REP BY ITS ADDL. LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI G S KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI K KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
183
AND:
1 . SRI.P.S.KRISHNA MURTHY
S/O SRI P V SURYANARAYANA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.647,
8TH MAIN ROAD,
PRAKASHNAGAR,
BANGALORE-560021
2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JEEVAN J NEERALAGI, AGA FOR R2
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD
17.7.2023)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.175/2014 DATED
25/07/2014 AND ETC.
IN W.A. NO.2781 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1 . BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL.LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER.
2 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560020
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. LAND
184
ACQUISITION OFFICER
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI G S KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI K KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SMT SHOBHAVATHI T R
W/O SRI.G.M.NARASIMHA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.11,
1ST BLOCK, PWD QUARTERS,
WILSON GARDEN,
BANGALORE-560027.
2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JEEVAN J NEERALAGI, AGA FOR R2
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD
17.7.2023)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.3082/14 DATED
25/7/14 AND ETC.
IN W.A. NO.2782 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1 . BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BANGALORE-560020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL.LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER.
2 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
185
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE-560020
REPRESENTED BY TIS ADDL. LAND
ACQUSITION OFFICER
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI G S KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI K KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SMT B R SHASHIKALA
W/O SRI.NARAYANA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.2/5,
SARASWATHIPURA,
NANDINI LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560096.
2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JEEVAN J NEERALAGI, AGA FOR R2
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD
17.7.2023)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.3083/2014
DATED 25/07/2014 AND ETC.
IN W.A. NO.2786 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1 . BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 020.
186
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL.
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER.
2 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020
REPRESENTED BY TIS ADDL.
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI G S KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI K KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SRI G M RAMANATH
S/O SRI G.R. MADAPPA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NO. 6/27, 14TH CROSS
6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 010
2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN
DEVELOPMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JEEVAN J NEERALAGI, AGA FOR R2
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD
17.7.2023)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 3087/2014 DATED
25/07/2014 AND ETC.
187
IN W.A. NO.2817 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1 . BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
K P WEST, BANGALORE.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
K P WEST, BANGALORE-560020
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI G S KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI M V CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR A1 & A2)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
DEAPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M S BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001
2 . SMT. MUNIYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
W/O MUNINAGAPPA,
R/AT 134, 8TH MAIN ROAD,
PIPELINE WEST, KASTURIBHA NAGAR,
MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560026
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JEEVAN J NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD
17.7.2023)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.58892/2013
DATED 28/7/2014 AND ETC.
188
IN W.A. NO.2818 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1 . BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
K.P.WEST, BANGALORE.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
REPRESENTED BY SLAO.
2 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
K.P.WEST, BANGALORE-560 020.
REPRESENTED BY SLAO.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI G S KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI M V CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR A1 & A2)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S.BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2 . SMT.T.S.SHYLA
W/O L.LAKSHMI KANTHA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
NO.29, (BBMP NO.16) 5TH CROSS,
4TH BLOCK KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE-560 020.
3 . SMT.K.KAVITHA
W/O L HARI KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
NO.41, HARINIMITHA, IST BLOCK,
JNANABHARATHI LAYOUT,
R.V.POST, BEHIND SHRIKE APARTMENTS
BANGALORE-560 059.
4 . SRI SHIVARATHNA KUMAR M.S.
189
W/O LATE SIDDARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
M.D.NO.60-61, NISCHALA NILAYA
IST FLOOR 6TH MAIN,
GNANAJYOTHINAGAR, MALLATHAHALLI
BANGALORE-56.
5 . SMT.G.PADMA
W/O T.M.NAGARAJA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
NO.150, 6TH MAIN ROAD,
AVALAHALLI BDA EXTN.,
BSK III STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 085.
6 . SRI NAGARAJ
S/O LATE KENCHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
NO.316/1, NTB ROAD,
KAMATH BUILDING,
JANNA PURA BHADRAVATHI-577 301
SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
7 . SMT.K.UMAMAHESHWARI
W/O K.KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
NO.1, NEW NO.3767,
DHEEMANDALA LAYOUT,
SRINIDHI LAYOUT 2ND PHASE,
M.S.PALYA ROAD,
VIDYARANYAPURA,
BANGALORE-560 097.
8 . SMT.G.S.SWARAJ LAKSHMI
W/O G.M.SRIRAM
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
NO.802, THEJAS NILAYA,
14TH MAIN ROAD, 13TH CROSS,
BANGALORE-72.
9 . SMT.S.BABITHA
D/O SATISH BABU,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
190
NO.205/P. 1ST CROSS,
SRIGURUNIVAS DEVASANDRA
K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE.
10 . MEGHANA S
D/O M.SURESH BABU,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
GURU NIVAS NO.206,
4TH CROSS, BASAVANAPURA MAIN ROAD,
K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE-560 036.
11 . SRI.D.N.NARASMIHAMURTHY,
S/O LATE D NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
NO.651, TCH COLLEGE ROAD,
1ST MAIN MARATHALLY,
BANGALORE-560 037.
12 . SMT.R.SUNITHA
W/O H.G.DEVARATHAN,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
NO.77, RAMANJANEYA LAYOUT,
NEAR "MURALI GAS", 3RD CROSS,
MARATHALLY, BANGALORE-560 037.
13 . SMT.JAYAMMA
W/O LATE RANGASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
C/O K R GANGAJANAKA,
NO.68, 80TH CROSS,
KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT,
BSK 1ST STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 078.
14 . SMT.ANKAMMA
W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
NO.8, 2ND FLOOR, 2ND B MAIN,
JUGANAHALLI, NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE-10.
15 . SRI KODANDARAM
191
S/O DASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
NO.342, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS,
VIJAYANANADA NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 096.
16 . P.M.KHALIDH
S/O P M IBRAHIM,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
NO.412, 14TH MAIN ROAD,
M.C.LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 040.
17 . SRI PURUSHOTHAM
S/O SUBRAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
NO.35, 4TH CROSS,
9TH MAIN ROAD,
AVALAHALLI NEW LAYOUT,
MYSORE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 026.
18 . DR.JYOTHI PATIBANDLA
W/O DR KAMARSHI PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT NO.86, BHEL COLONY,
NANDINI LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560 096.
19 . SMT.ANKAMMA
W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
NO.8, 2ND FLOOR,
2ND B MAIN, JUGANAHALLI,
NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE,
RAJAJINAGARA
BANGALORE-10.
20 . SRI.K.S.NARENDRA NATH
S/O LATE K.S.SUBHA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
FLAT NO.207, BLOCK A SAKET PRANAM KAPRA,
HYDERABAD-500062.
192
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JEEVAN J NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1
SRI K ANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3
SRI MOHANDAS SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R4, R7, R11 TO
R13, R18 & R20, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R14 & R19 HELD
SUFFICIENT V/O DTD 17.7.2023, R5, R6, R8, R9, R10, R15,
R16 AND R17 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.58873-
58891/2013 DATED 02/08/2014 AND ETC.
IN W.A. NO.2819 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1 . BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2 . THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 020.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI G S KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI M V CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2 . SRI. GAGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O SRI HUCHAGANGAIAH,
R/AT NO.3, SY.NO.46/1,
KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE,
193
YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560091.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JEEVAN J NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD
17.7.2023)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.12324/14 DATED
25/7/14 AND ETC.
IN W.A. No.3048 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1 . THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE-560 020.
2 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE-560 020.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI G S KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI M V CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2 . SMT. PUSHPA SHIVALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
W/O DR. B M SHIVALINGAPPA,
194
R/AT NO.159, T/2, “SAMPOORNA
APARTMENTS”, 8TH MAIN, BETWEEN 7TH
AND 8TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE-560 003.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD
15.9.2023)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.3134/2014
DATED 25/07/2014 AND ETC.
IN W.A. No.3079 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1 . BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE 560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 020
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI G S KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI K KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SRI. K.R. RAMACHANDRAIAH
S/O K.L. RAMAKRISHNAIAH SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 49, 3RD MAIN
EKADANTA BADAVANE
K. KRISHNA SAGARA,
KENGERI HOBLI,
195
BANGALORE-560 060.
2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE 560 001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JEEVAN J NEERALAGI, AGA FOR R2
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD
17.7.2023)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.3111/2014
DATED 25/07/2014 AND ETC.
IN W.A. No.3081 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1 . BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST EXTENSION,
BANGALORE 560020
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BANGALORE 560020
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI G S KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI M V CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SMT. S.N. MANJULA
W/O SRI. C. PARAMESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 836, 17TH "F" MAIN ROAD,
5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
196
BANGALORE-560 010.
2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE 560 001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JEEVAN J NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD
17.7.2023)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.185/2014 DATED
25/07/2014 AND ETC.
IN W.A. No.3090 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1 . BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST EXTENSION,
BANGALORE 560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 020
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI G S KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI M V CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SRI G M NARASIMHA MURTHY
S/O G R MADAPPA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT NO.11,1ST BLOCK
P.W.D QUARTERS
197
WILSON GARDEN
BANGALORE 560 030
2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN
DEVELOPMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE 560 001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JEEVAN J NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD
17.7.2023)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.178/2014 DATED
25/07/2014 AND ETC.
IN W.A. No.3125 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1 . THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE.
REP BY SALAO
2 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560020
REP BY SALAO
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI G S KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C ULLAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
198
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDINGS
BANGALORE 560 001
2 . SRI MAHESH NAGAPPA ATHANI
S/O NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT NO.24, APMC YARD FLAT
NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT 587 101
3 . SRI BYATAPPA
S/O CHANNINGE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
NO.417, 3RD STAGE
12TH MAIN ROAD
MANJUNATHANAGAR
BANGALORE 560010
4 . SRI HONGALA ANILA BASAVARAJ
S/O LATE BASAVARAJ
NO.43/192, JEEVAN RELIANCE HOME
6TH CROSS, KIRLOSKAR COLONY
BASAVESHWARANAGARA
BANGALORE 560 079
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1
SRI K SUMAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD
15.9.2023)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.31607/2013
DATED 6/8/2014 AND ETC.
IN W.A. No.3165 OF 2014
BETWEEN :
1 . BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
199
SANKEY ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
NOW REP. BY SPECIAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI G S KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI MURUGESH V CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDINGS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001
2 . SRI BYATAPPA
S/O CHANNINGE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
NO. 417, 3RD STAGE
12TH MAIN ROAD,
MANJUNATHNAGAR
BANGALORE-560 010
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JEEVAN J NEERALAGI, AGA FOR R1
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD
17.7.2023)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.31609/2013
DATED 6/8/2014 AND ETC.
IN W.A. No.3166 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1 . THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
200
SANKEY ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 009
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI G S KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI MURUGESH V CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001
2 . SRI HONGALA ANILA BASAVARAJ
S/O LATE BASAVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
NO. 43/192, JEEVAN RELIANCE HOME
6TH CROSS, KIRLOSKAR COLONY
BASAVESHWARANAGARA
BANGALORE-560 079
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JEEVAN J NEERALAGI, AGA FOR R1
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD
17.7.2023)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.31608/2013
DATED 6/8/2014 AND ETC.
IN W.A. No.1181 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1 . THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020
2 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
201
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI B S SACHIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SRI K H LAKSHMANA GOWDA
S/O SRI HUCHEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT NO. 67, MUNESWARA LAYOUT,
KODIGEHALLI
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE-560 091
2 . SRI N SRINIVAS
S/O P NARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT NO. 17, POORNIMA NILAYA
5TH CROSS, DEFENCE COLONY
H G ROAD, BANGALORE-73
3 . SRI CHAKRAPANI
S/O LATE VENKATACHALAPATHY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT NO. 304/B, 3RD MAIN
MANJUNATH NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 010
4 . SMT SHASHIKALA
D/O SRI VENKATEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT NO. 42/3, 1ST CROSS
RAGHAVANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 026
5 . SRI NANJEGOWDA
S/O SRI GENDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT BYLADAKERE VILLAGE
HEBBURU POST, THAGURU HOBLI
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 428
202
6 . SRI OMESHAIAH
S/O SRI CHIKKAKARI GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT NO. 137/B, BTS LAYOUT
ULLAL MAIN ROAD
BYADRAHALLY
BANGALORE-560 091
7 . SMT PREMA
W/O SRI A M MAHADEVAIH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT NO. 787, NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE,
KAMAKSHIPALYA
BANGALORE-560 079
8 . SMT HEMA
W/O LATE C KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/OF KALENAHALLY VILLAGE/POST
KOTHATHI HOBLI
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 434
9 . SRI. MAHADEVAIAH
S/O LATE CHIKKAKARIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/OF GOWDAGERE VILLAGE /POST,
MALUR HOBLI,
CHANNAPATNA TLAUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT PIN: 562 108.
10 . SRI. ASWATHANARAYANA
S/O SRI VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT NO. 10/1, 1ST MAIN
NEW GUDDADAHALLI,
MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 026.
11 . SMT TEJASWINI.R. GOWDA
W/O SRI. RUDREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT NO.212 6TH MAIN
G.K.W. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR
203
BANGALORE-560 040.
12 . SRI. P.H. LAKSHMINARASIMHA
S/O P.S. HANUMANTHARAO
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 195, RMV 2ND STAGE,
NAGASHETTYHALLI
BANGALORE-560 094.
13 . SRI. K.K. SADHANANDA
S/O SRI LATE PALLANTE KARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT NO.133, 5TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS,
NAGARABHAVI, MARUTHI NAGAR
BANGALORE 560 072.
14 . SMT. SAVITHRI
W/O K.K. SADHANANDA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT NO.133, 5TH MAIN,
7TH CROSS, NAGARABHAVI
MARUTHI NAGAR
BANGALORE 560 072.
15 . SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O SRI. GOVINDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
VINAYAKANAGAR,
KAMAKSHIPALYA
BANGALORE-560 079
16 . SRI. C. MUNIRAJ
S/O SRI. CHIKKARANGAPPA
MAJOR, R/AT SITE NO.1
ASSESSMENT NO.107
KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK -560 091
17 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
204
BANGALORE-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JEEVAN J NEERALGI, AGA FOR R7
SRI M N MUNI REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R10, R12 TO
R14 & R16
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R11 TO R15 IS HELD SUFFICIENT
V/O DTD 17.7.2023)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 22807-22102/2012
DATED 11/07/2014 AND ETC.
IN W.A. No.1004 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1 . BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER.
2 . THE ADDITIONAL SPECIAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE - 560 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI G S KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI K KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SMT M H MAMATHA
W/O LATE M N HARINATH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
205
R/AT NO. 531, 7TH CROSS ROAD,
SADASHIVANAGARA,
BANGALORE - 560 080.
2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R2
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD
15.9.2023)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 25139/2015 DATED
17/03/2016 AND ETC.
IN W.A. No.1005 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1 . BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER
2 . THE ADDITIONAL SPECIAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE-560 020
REP BY ITS ADDL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI G S KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI K KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
206
AND:
1 . SMT M H MAMATHA
W/O LATE M.N.HARINATH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO.531, 7TH CROSS ROAD,
SADASHIVANAGARA,
BANGALORE-560 080
2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R2
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD
15.9.2023)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 25086/2015 DATED
16/03/2016 AND ETC.
IN W.A. No.1020 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1 . BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
KUMARA PARK WEST
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER
2 . THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER
207
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI G S KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI K KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SMT M H MAMATHA
W/O LATE M.N.HARINATH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO.531, 7TH CROSS ROAD,
SADASHIVANAGARA
BANGALORE-560 080
2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R2
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD
15.9.2023)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 25138/2015 DATED
21/3/16 AND ETC.
IN W.A. No.1339 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1 . BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
T. CHOWDAIAH, ROAD,
BANGALORE-560020.
REP. BY ITS ADDL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
2 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE-560020.
208
REP. BY ITS ADDL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI G S KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI K KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 .
1(A)
1(B)
1(C)
SRI B R REVANNA
S/O LATE RUDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS,
R/O SULIKERE BUNGALOW,
RAMASANDRA DHAKLE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560060.
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs.
SMT GANGAMMA
W/O LATE B R REVANNA
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS
SRI BASAVARAJ
S/O LATE B R REVANNA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
SRI SHIVAKUMAR
S/O LATE B R REVANNA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
R/O SULIKERE BUNGALOW,
RAMASANDRA DHAKLE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560060.
2 . SRI. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O B.R. REVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O SULIKERE BUNGALOW,
RAMASANDRA DHAKLE, KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560060.
209
3 . SRI. SHIVASHANKARAIAH
S/O LATE SIDDALINGASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/O NO.95, SULIKERE,
BANGALORE-560060.
4 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560001.
5 . THE TAHSILDAR,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560002.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M R RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI C M NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A TO C) & R2
SRI H N BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3
SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R4 & R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 33899/2011 DATED
11/7/14 AND ETC.
IN W.A. No.418 OF 2017
BETWEEN
1 . BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 020.
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER.
2 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE-560 020.
210
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SACHIN B S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . SMT. SHARADHA
W/O GANGA MALLESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT BETTANAPALYA,
BHEEMANAKUPPE VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 072.
2 . SRI.KRISHNEGOWDA
S/O THAYAPPA @ LAKSHMINARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT BETTANAPALYA,
BHEEMANAKUPPE VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 072.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R HEMANTH RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 45965-966/2014
DATED 23/4/2016.
IN W.A. No.694 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1 . THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE 560020
2 . THE ADDITIONAL SPECIAL
211
ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE 560020
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI G S KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI G LAKSMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SRI NAGARAJU
S/O KENDANNA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT BEEMANAKUPPE VILLAGE
KENGERI -2,
HOBLI 560060
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
MULTISTORIED BUIDLING
BANGALORE 560001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKAS RAVIPURE, AGA FOR R2
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O
DATED 15.9.2023 )
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED
IN WP No-55793/2014 DATED 28.03.2016 AND THERE BY
DISMISS THE WP IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 15.12.2023, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE, DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
212
JUDGMENT
The present appeals are filed by the Bangalore
1
Development Authority challenging the order dated
11.7.2014 passed in WP.No.32186/2010 and other
connected matters, whereunder a learned Single Judge
of this Court quashed the notifications issued for
acquisition of the lands for formation of a residential
layout known as “The Nadaprabhu Kempegowda
Layout”.
2. The relevant facts necessary for
consideration of the present appeals are that the
acquisition proceedings by the BDA for acquiring the
lands under the provisions of the Bangalore
2
Development Authority Act, 1976 . Consequent to a
resolution dated 3.9.2007 of the BDA, on 18.9.2007 it
addressed a letter to the State Government with all the
relevant particulars seeking its approval for the scheme.
On 2.4.2008 the Government accorded approval and on
21.5.2008 a Preliminary Notification was issued under
1
‘BDA’ for short
2
‘The Act’ for short
213
Section 17 of the Act proposing to acquire an extent of
4814 acres and 15 guntas of land. Vide resolution
bearing No.340/09 dated 12.1.2010, the BDA furnished
the details as noticed in the said resolution and sought
approval for issuance of notification under Section 18 of
the Act in respect of 4043 acres and 27 guntas of land
and vide letter dated 27.1.2010 the BDA sent to the
Government its request enclosing a copy of the said
resolution dated 12.1.2010. The Government of
Karnataka in its proceedings dated 16.2.2010 accorded
approval and sanctioned the scheme under Section
18(3) of the Act for acquisition of 4043 acres and 27
guntas of land. Accordingly, on 18.2.2010 a Final
Notification was issued under Section 19 of the Act and
4043 acres and 27 guntas was declared as notified for
formation of the layout.
3. The lands sought to be acquired are from 12
villages and the details of which are as follows:
214
| Name of<br>the District | Name of<br>Taluk | Name of the<br>Hobli | Name of the Village | Total extent<br>Acre-<br>Guntas |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bangalore | Bangalore<br>North | Yeshwanthpur | 1) Sheegehalli | 99-38 |
| 2) Kannelli | 413-13 | |||
| 3) Kodigehalli | 453-25 | |||
| 4) Manganhalli | 37-24 | |||
| Bangalore<br>Urban | Bangalore<br>South | Kengeri | 5) Kommaghatti | 721-34 |
| 6) Bheemanakuppe | 833-25 | |||
| 7)Bheemanakuppe-<br>Ramasagara | 40-27 | |||
| 8) Sulikere | 318-14 | |||
| 9)Kenchanapura | 250-38 | |||
| 10)Ramasandra | 391-14 | |||
| 11) Kommaghatti-<br>Krishnasagara | 154-12 | |||
| 12)Challaghatta | 328-03 | |||
| GRAND TOTAL | 4043-27 |
4. It is forthcoming from the order dated
2.4.2008 that the government after verifying the
proposal of the BDA, while according approval to issue
preliminary notification under Section 17 of the Act has
ordered, inter alia , as follows:
215
i) to reserve 45% of the area for civic amenities
and to use remaining 55% of the land for
residential sites by giving 40% of the
developed sites at the ratio of 60:40 per acre
to the land owners i.e., 9583 sq.ft., area or to
pay compensation amount (land owners on
request were eligible to receive compensation
partly in money and partly in developed
sites);
ii) to reserve 20% of the sites and to allot sites
of 6x9 metres to schedule caste, schedule
tribe and backward classes category and to
take steps to construct free houses to the
economically weaker sections;
iii) apart from reserving suitable civic amenity
sites, to provide basic amenities to the layout
by BBMP, BWSSB, BESCOM and BMTC and
other institutions;
iv) to provide separate water pipe for the purified
water by BWSSB and for drinking water while
forming layout;
5. It is further forthcoming that in the
Government Order dated 16.2.2010 under Section
18(3) of the Act, that the same is passed subject to the
following conditions:
216
i) That the entire expenses of the project shall
be borne by the BDA out of its resources;
ii) That any loan that will be availed by the
BDA for the proposed project, the
government will not give any guarantee and
loan shall be cleared solely by the BDA;
iii) The government will not be part of any
affairs that may be entered by the
authority;
iv) In the event of change of land use, prior
permission of the government was to be
obtained;
6. Being aggrieved by the acquisition, various
writ petitions were filed before this Court. A learned
Single Judge of this Court heard all the writ petitions
together and while considering the same has divided the
writ petitioners broadly under various heads as is
forthcoming from para 3 of the order, which is extracted
herein below for ready reference:
“ 3. The petitions are brought by persons,
who may be broadly grouped under the following
heads, namely:
(a) Agriculturists who claim that they are
cultivating the land and residing therein and
wholly dependant on the land for their livelihood.
217
(b) Persons engaged in rearing milch cattle and
vending milk for their livelihood.
(c) Nurserymen, who have well developed
nurseries and are also said to be cultivating the
land for other purposes.
(d) House owners, who have built pucca houses
well before the initiation of the acquisition
proceedings.
(e) Persons who have established small scale
industries including brick factories.
(f) Others claiming that the land in question is
most inconveniently located for being integrated
in the formation of the layout. This is also a
common ground urged by several of the above
petitioners as well.”
7. After considering various contentions put
forth by the writ petitioners as well as BDA, the learned
Single Judge has framed 3 points for consideration as
regards the legal issues that arose for consideration as
is forthcoming from para 11 of the order which is
extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:
“11. The legal issues that arise for
consideration in the light of the contentions put
forth and which have been hardly met by the
BDA are :
a. Whether the procedure adopted by the BDA in
initiating the acquisition proceedings is in
accordance with law and within its jurisdiction.
218
b. Whether the repeal of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, has the effect of frustrating any
proceedings with reference to Section 36 of the
BDA Act.
c. Whether the acquisition proceedings can be
said to have lapsed by virtue of the 2013 Act
having come into force.”
8. While considering point No.(a) the learned
Single Judge after noticing the sequence of events
resulting in passing of the award as well as the relevant
statutory provisions, has recorded the following
findings:
“It is seen that the BDA need not obtain
any previous approval of the Government in
drawing up any development scheme. (Whether
the same is necessary by virtue of Section 3 (f)
(vi) or (vii) of the LA Act, is however, not
examined and the question is left open). There is
no explanation forthcoming as to the need for
having obtained such approval when the scheme
of the Act contemplates that after the publication
of the scheme and service of notice as provided
in Section 17 of the BDA Act and after
consideration of representations, if any, received,
the authority shall submit the scheme, making
such modifications as it may think fit, to the
Government for sanction, furnishing such details
as prescribed under Section 18 of the Act. It is
not contemplated that the Government may
consider and “approve” any Scheme even before
the BDA has gathered particulars of the lands to
be acquired pursuant to the notification under
Section 17 of the Act. Therefore the “approval”
said to have been conferred on a nascent
development scheme of the BDA by the State
Government dated 2.4.2008 is out of place and
219
premature. The presumption is that the State
Government and the BDA were proceeding on
the footing that the proposed acquisition of the
several lands notified under Section 17 of the Act
were available for acquisition, even without any
of the stake holders having had their say on the
viability of the said acquisition in respect of their
lands.
It is also to be noticed that the notification
under Section 17 of the Act is issued by the
Commissioner, BDA, in exercise of power
conferred thereunder. The BDA is not the
acquiring authority, the State Government is. It
is therefore impermissible for the BDA to
authorize the Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
BDA and his staff to exercise power conferred
under Section 4 (2) of the LA Act. This is evident
from the fact that the State Government
exercises its power under clause (c) of Section 3
and Section 7 of the LA Act read with Section 36
of the BDA Act to appoint the Additional Land
Acquisition Officer, BDA, to perform the duties
and functions of the Deputy Commissioner (Land
Acquisition) under the LA Act, only after
according sanction to the Scheme and while
issuing the notification under Section 19 of the
BDA Act. Any acts performed by the Addl. LAO,
BDA and his staff, prior to the issuance of the
notification under Section 19 of the Act, is wholly
without jurisdiction and illegal.”
The BDA was clearly off bounds in even
suggesting that compensation in kind, would be
offered and even to specify the percentage of the
acquired land that would be compensated by
returning developed land of any particular
extent. This initiative of the BDA is not
contemplated under Section 16 of the BDA Act,
which specifies the particulars to be provided for
in a development scheme. The BDA would hardly
be in a position to determine percentages of land
use without completing the process of addressing
representations pursuant to the notification
under Section 17 and the sanction by the State
220
government in respect of the extent of land
ultimately covered under the notification issued
under Section 19 of the Act. It may also be said
that even at that stage the quantum of
compensation is hardly capable of being
determined. It is the State Government which
would, in the eye of law, acquire the land and
determine the compensation to be paid. As is
evident, large swathes of land have been given
up from the acquisition proceedings and it is not
clarified whether the percentages declared as
above are any longer valid and tenable. It is also
not that all the land holders are “farmers”, nor is
it to be taken that all the 4,000 acres, and more
of the land, is of a uniform nature and of the
same value. It is therefore shocking that the
State Government had even approved such a
“Scheme”
(emphasis supplied)
9. While considering point No.(b), the learned
Single Judge has recorded a finding regarding
frustration of the acquisition proceedings under the Act
after coming into force of the Land Acquisition, 2013,
and has held as follows:
“It may hence be concluded that the
repeal of the LA Act and the coming into force of
the 2013 Act would not frustrate further
acquisition proceedings under the BDA Act. For
even without an amendment to Section 36 of
the BDA Act, the provisions of the 2013 Act, in
so far as they are applicable, would operate to
regulate the acquisition proceedings under the
BDA Act – according to settled principles as
enunciated in the authoritative decisions
referred to above. The second point framed for
consideration is accordingly answered.”
(emphasis supplied)
221
10. As regards point No.(c) framed for
consideration as to whether the acquisition proceedings
were lapsed, the learned Single Judge while holding that
the proceedings have not lapsed, has recorded the
following findings:
“In considering the question whether the
acquisition proceedings are deemed to have
lapsed in terms of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, is
concerned, it is to be observed that the further
proceedings were stayed by this court by an
interim order of stay of all further proceedings.
The effect of that order would have to be kept in
view. It is settled law that any restraint imposed
by the courts on any ongoing acquisition
proceedings would extend to all aspects of the
process. If therefore the acquisition proceedings
were kept in abeyance altogether by virtue of
the interim order, the application of the
provisions of the 2013 Act which have
seamlessly replaced the provisions of the LA Act,
in so far as they are applicable, to the BDA Act
would also be kept in abeyance. It cannot
therefore be said that by virtue of Section 24 of
the 2013 Act, the proceedings stood lapsed.”
(emphasis supplied)
11. Being aggrieved, the BDA has filed the
present appeals.
12. Heard the submissions of learned Senior
Counsel Sri Gurudas Kannur assisted by the panel
222
counsels for the BDA namely, Sri K.Krishna, Sri
Murugesh V Charati, Sri G.Lakshmeesh Rao, Sri
Gowthamdev C Ullal, Sri Sachin B.S. For the
respondents, who are the writ petitioners, the
submissions of learned Senior Counsels Sri Ashok
Harnahalli, Sri M.R.Rajagopal, Sri D.L.Jagadish, Sri
K.Suman, Sri K.Shashi Kiran Shetty, and learned
counsels Sri C.M.Nagabhushana, Sri L.M.Ramaiah
Gowda, Sri M.C.Basavaraju, Sri P.V.Chandrashekar, Sri
B.S.Nagaraj, Sri G.R.Mohan as well as other learned
counsels. Learned AGA represented the State
Government.
13. It is the contention of the learned Senior
Counsel for the BDA that the learned Single Judge has
erred in quashing the notifications merely on the ground
that approval of the State Government was at a nascent
stage as also that it was impermissible for the BDA to
authorize the Land Acquisition Officer to exercise power
3
under Section 4(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 .
3
Hereinafter referred to as the ‘LA Act’
223
That the BDA having complied with the provisions of the
Act, the acquisition of the BDA ought not to have been
quashed.
14. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners who
are the respondents in the present appeals contend that
the order of the learned Single Judge quashing the
acquisitions was just and proper. It is further submitted
that although various grounds were urged before the
learned Single Judge, the acquisition was quashed by
merely considering the first point for consideration and
even if this Court were to set aside the finding of the
learned Single Judge on the said point, various other
grounds which have been urged by the writ petitioners
are required to be considered, for which the matter is
required to be remanded to the learned Single Judge.
15. Responding to the contention of the writ
petitioners regarding remand, it is the contention of the
BDA that all the materials are available before this Court
for consideration of the aspects regarding the
acquisition made by the BDA and the validity of the
224
acquisition is required to be adjudicated in the present
appeals itself without remanding the matter to the
learned Single Judge.
16. Various statutory provisions and material on
record which have been referred to by the learned
counsel for the parties will be specifically referred to
during the course of this order.
17. Having regard to the contentions put forth
in the present appeals, the questions that arise for
consideration are that:
i) Whether the finding recorded by the
learned Single Judge in quashing the
acquisition is just and proper?
ii) Whether the matter is required to be
remanded to the learned Single Judge?
iii) Whether the acquisition made by the
BDA is in compliance with the provisions of
the Act?
225
iv) In what manner the contentions put forth
in certain writ petitions pertaining to the
facts of the said individual cases are required
to be dealt with?
18. Before considering the contentions put forth
by the learned counsel for the parties and the order of
the learned Single Judge, it is relevant to notice the
statutory scheme under the provisions of the Act.
19. Chapter III of the Act deals with
Development Schemes. It is relevant to notice Sections
15 to 18 of the Act, which read as under:
“ 15. Power of Authority to undertake
works and incur expenditure for
development, etc.- (1) The Authority may:
(a) draw up detailed schemes (hereinafter
referred to as “development scheme”) for
the development of the Bangalore
Metropolitan Area; and
(b) with the previous approval of the
Government, undertake from time to time
any works for the development of the
Bangalore Metropolitan Area and incur
expenditure therefor and also for the
framing and execution of development
schemes.
(2) The Authority may also from time to time
make and take up any new or additional
development schemes:
226
(i) on its own initiative, if satisfied of the
sufficiency of its resources, or
(ii) on the recommendation of the local
authority if the local authority places at
the disposal of the Authority the
necessary funds for framing and carrying
out any scheme; or
(iii) otherwise.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or in
any other law for the time being in force, the
Government may, whenever it deems necessary
require the Authority to take up any
development scheme or work and execute it
subject to such terms and conditions as may be
specified by the Government.
16. Particulars to be provided for in a
development scheme: Every development
scheme under section 15:
(1) shall, within the limits of the area comprised
in the scheme, provide for:
(a) the acquisition of any land which, in
the opinion of the Authority, will be
necessary for or affected by the execution
of the scheme;
(b) laying and re-laying out all or any
land including the construction and
reconstruction of buildings and formation
and alteration of streets;
(c) drainage, water supply and electricity;
(d) the reservation of not less than fifteen
percent of the total area of the layout for
public parks and playgrounds and an
additional area of not less than ten
percent of the total area of the layout for
civic amenities.
(2) may, within the limits aforesaid, provide for:
227
(a) raising any land which the Authority
may consider expedient to raise to
facilitate better drainage;
(b) forming open spaces for the better
ventilation of the area comprised in the
scheme or any adjoining area;
(c) the sanitary arrangements required;
(3) may, within and without the limits aforesaid
provide for the construction of houses.
17. Procedure on completion of scheme: (1)
When a development scheme has been
prepared, the Authority shall draw up a
notification stating the fact of a scheme having
been made and the limits of the area comprised
therein, and naming a place where particulars of
the scheme, a map of the area comprised
therein, a statement specifying the land which is
proposed to be acquired and of the land in
regard to which a betterment tax may be levied
may be seen at all reasonable hours.
(2) A copy of the said notification shall be sent
to the Corporation which shall, within thirty days
from the date of receipt thereof, forward to the
Authority for transmission to the Government as
hereinafter provided, any representation which
the Corporation may think fit to make with
regard to the scheme.
(3) The Authority shall also cause a copy of the
said notification to be published in the official
Gazette and affixed in some conspicuous part of
its own office, the Deputy Commissioner’s
Office, the office of the Corporation and in such
other places as the Authority may consider
necessary.
(4) If no representation is received from the
Corporation within the time specified in sub-
section (2), the concurrence of the Corporation
228
to the scheme shall be deemed to have been
given.
(5) During the thirty days next following the day
on which such notification is published in the
official Gazette the Authority shall serve a notice
on every person whose name appears in the
assessment list of the local authority or in the
land revenue register as being primarily liable to
pay the property tax or land revenue
assessment on any building or land which is
proposed to be acquired in executing the
scheme or in regard to which the Authority
proposes to recover betterment tax requiring
such person to show cause within thirty days
from the date of the receipt of the notice why
such acquisition of the building or land and the
recovery of betterment tax should not be made.
(6) The notice shall be signed by or by the order
of the Commissioner and shall be served:
(a) by personal delivery or if such person
is absent or cannot be found, on his
agent, or if no agent can be found, then
by leaving the same on the land or the
building; or
(b) by leaving the same at the usual or
last known place of abode or business of
such person; or
(c) by registered post addressed to the
usual or last known place of abode or
business of such person.
18. Sanction of scheme: (1) After publication
of the scheme and service of notices as provided
in section 17 and after consideration of
representations, if any, received in respect
thereof, the Authority shall submit the scheme,
making such modifications therein as it may
think fit, to the Government for sanction,
furnishing:
229
(a) a description with full particulars of
the scheme including the reasons for any
modifications inserted therein;
(b) complete plans and estimates of the
cost of executing the scheme;
(c) a statement specifying the land
proposed to be acquired;
(d) any representation received under
sub-section (2) of section 17;
(e) a schedule showing the rateable
value, as entered in the municipal
assessment book on the date of the
publication of a notification relating to the
land under the section 17 or the land
assessment of all land specified in the
statement under clause(c); and
(f) such other particulars, if any, as may
be prescribed.
(2) Where any development scheme provides
for the construction of houses, the Authority
shall also submit to the Government plans and
estimates for the construction of the houses.
(3) After considering the proposal submitted to
it the Government may, by order, give sanction
to the scheme.
19.1 It is forthcoming that Section 15(1) of the
Act entitles the Authority to draw up a scheme for
development of the Bangalore Metropolitan Area and
with the previous approval of the Government
undertake works and incur expenses for such schemes.
230
Section 15(2) of the Act also enables the Authority to
take up new or additional development schemes on its
own initiative if it is satisfied of its resources as well as
on the recommendation of a Local Authority if the funds
are made available by the said Local Authority for
framing and carrying out any scheme or otherwise.
Section 15(3) of the Act enables the Government to
require the authority to take up any development
scheme subject to the conditions that it may specify.
19.2 Section 16 of the Act sets out the details
and particulars that are required to be provided under
the scheme for development under Section 15 of the
Act.
19.3 Section 17 of the Act deals with issue of
Preliminary Notification.
19.4 Section 18 of the Act deals with steps to be
taken consequent to the issue of Preliminary Notification
under Section 17 of the Act.
231
19.5 Section 19 of the Act deals with issuance of
Final Notification.
19.6 Chapter IV of the Act deals with acquisition
of land, wherein Section 35 of the Act enables the
Authority, with the previous approval of the
Government to purchase lands and Section 36 stipulates
that the acquisition of land shall be regulated by the
provisions, as far as they are applicable of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894.
19.7 Chapter V of the Act deals with Property and
Finance.
20. The appellant – BDA has placed on record
that pursuant to the acquisition proceedings initiated in
respect of the layout in question, the award is passed
for 2700 acres of land which has been utilized in the
following manner:
“a) Possession of the 2694 acres 26 Guntas of
land is handed over to Engineering Section
for formation of layout.
b) 26,918 sites are formed to an extent of 2208
Acres 4 Guntas of land.
c) Roads Approximately formed:
232
9 Meter Road 106.47 Kms.
12 Meter Road 78. 51 Kms.
15 Meter Road 13.68 Kms.
18 Meter Road 13.54 Kms.
24 Meter Road 07.31 Kms.
30 Meter Road 04.00 Kms.
d) CA Sites formed:
104 CA Sites covering 149 Acres 35 Guntas
e) Park & Open Spaces:
125 parks covering 182 Acres 24 Guntas
f) Water supply & UGD:
213.14 Kms., of Utility Duct, Power, Water
and treated water supply.
7299 Holes are completed.
UGD Pipeline - 194.7 Kms.
Fresh Water Supply-191.02 Kms. Completed.
Recycled Water-157.18 Kms.
g) Expenses already incurred by the
Engineering Section.
For UGD: Rs. 1137.6 Crores.
Civil Work: Rs.768.27 Crores,
For PRR: Rs. 472.34 Crore.
h) Compensation for the Acquisition of Land:
687.10 Crores.”
21. It is the case of the appellant – BDA that the
extent of land under litigation is about 600 acres and
that connectivity of roads, underground drainage, water
233
supply, electricity connection and other works are
pending in view of the pendency of the above appeals
as the connection is planned in such a way that it
operates through the lands under litigation before this
Court.
Re.question (i):
22. It is forthcoming from the aforementioned
that the learned Single Judge has recorded a finding
with regard to the issues (b) and (c) in favour of the
BDA.
23. While considering question (a) it has held
that the approval conferred at the nascent development
of the scheme by the State Government vide order
dated 2.4.2008 is ‘ out of place and premature ’. In the
said context, it is relevant to note that in the case of
4
Junjamma & Ors., v. BDA & Ors., a learned Single
Judge of this Court considering the scope of power
under Section 15 of the Act has held as follows:
4
ILR 2005 KAR 608
234
“ 10 . Previous approval of the Government under
Section 15(2) is required for undertaking works for
development of the Bangalore Metropolitan area.
Similarly, such previous approval is required to
incur expenditure therefor. Similarly, such a
previous approval is required for preparing and
execution of development schemes and not for
drawing up a developmental scheme. Sub-section
(2) of Section 15 makes it very clear that if the
authority has sufficient resources or if a local
authority places at the disposal of the authority
the necessary funds for framing and carrying out
any scheme they can take up new or additional
development schemes. Therefore, it is clear only
for the expenditure to be incurred either for
undertaking, framing or execution of the
developmental scheme previous approval of the
Government is required. If the authority is able to
take up these developmental scheme on its own
and it does not depend upon the Government for
raising the necessary resources, then there is no
necessity to have the previous approval of the
Government.”
(emphasis supplied)
24. Having regard to Section 15 of the Act and
4
the judgment in the case of Junjamma & Ors., as
noticed above, as well as the fact that in the
Government Order dated 16.02.2010 a specific
condition is imposed that the entire expenses of the
project shall be borne by the BDA out of its resources,
that the Government will not give any guarantee, that
the loan shall be solely availed by the BDA and there
will be no financial responsibility of the Government
235
with respect to the layout being developed by the BDA,
approval need not have been taken by the BDA. Despite
the same, merely because the BDA has taken the
approval of the State Government, it cannot be said
that the same is ‘ out of place and premature ’. Hence,
the said finding recorded by the learned Single Judge is
erroneous and liable to be interfered with.
25. With regard to the finding of the learned
Single Judge while answering question No.(a) that it
was impermissible for the BDA to authorize the
Additional Land Acquisition Officer, BDA, to exercise the
power conferred under Section 4(2) of the Land
Acquisition Act, it is relevant to note that the
Notification under Section 17(1) of the Act has been
issued by the BDA after prior approval of the State
Government. Further, in the case of The
Commissioner BDA and Ors., v. State of Karnataka
5
& Ors. a Division Bench of this Court considering point
No.4 in the said case as to the power of BDA to appoint
a Land Acquisition Officer, has held as follows:
5
ILR 2006 KAR 318
236
“49. Point No. 4. Power of BDA to appoint
LAO.-- Sri Gangi Reddy, learned Counsel appearing
for some of the respondents contended that under
Section 4(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, an officer
specially authorized by Government only can
perform the functions mentioned under Section
4(2) of the LA Act. The Commissioner of the BDA
has no such power to authorize any officer to
perform such functions. We do not find any
substance in this contention. Firstly, Section 36 of
the BDA Act makes the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act so far as they are applicable, to the
acquisitions under the BDA Act. Section 52 of the
BDA Act empowers the authority to authorize any
person to enter into or upon any land or building
with or without the assistants or workmen for the
purpose of making any enquiry, inspection,
measurement or survey or taking levels of such
land or building; digging or boring into the sub-
soil; setting out boundaries and intended lines of
work; marking such levels, boundaries and lines
by placing marks and cutting trenches and doing
any other thing necessary for the efficient
administration of the BDA Act.
50. It is the Bangalore Development Authority
which has issued the Section 17(1) notification
under the BDA Act and has authorized the
Additional Land Acquisition Officer, BDA, its staff
and workmen to exercise the powers conferred
under Section 4(2) of the LA Act which is almost
identical with Section 52 of the BDA Act. The
Commissioner of the BDA who is the Chief
Executive and Administrative Officer of the
Authority has authenticated the same by his
signature. Instead of mentioning Section 52 of the
BDA Act, Section 4(2) of the L.A. Act has been
mentioned. It is settled law that mere mentioning
of a wrong provision of law would make no
difference. Power is vested in the authority and in
exercise of the said power appointments are
made. Therefore, there is no substance in the
aforesaid contention. “
(emphasis supplied)
237
4
26. In the case of Junjamma & Ors., while
considering the question as to whether appointment of
the Land Acquisition Officer under the Act is one without
jurisdiction, it has been held as follows:
17. Re.Point No. (4):- It was next contended
that in exercise of the powers under Section 36
of the Bangalore Development Authority Act the
Additional Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore
Development Authority, Bangalore, has been
authorised to exercise the power conferred
under Section 4(2) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894. As the Additional Land Acquisition Officer
is not an officer of the Government he cannot be
appointed. Secondly, it was contended Section
36 comes into picture only after the land vests
with the Government under Section 16 of the
Land Acquisition Act and therefore even before
such vesting the said Section is not attracted
and, therefore, the appointment made is one
without jurisdiction. Consequently, all the
proceedings conducted by such officer is without
the authority of law and liable to be quashed.
18. Sub-section (1) of Section 36 of the Act
provides that the acquisition of the land under
the Act otherwise than by agreement within or
without the Bangalore Metropolitan Area shall be
regulated by the provisions, so far as they
applicable to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It
only means in the Act when there is no provision
prescribed for acquisition of land, the provisions
of the Land Acquisition Act could be availed of
for the acquisition proceedings. In other words if
the Act provides for specifically to that extent
the Land Acquisition Act stands excluded and in
the absence of any provision, the provisions of
Land Acquisition Act are applicable to the
acquisition under the Act. In fact, Sub-section
(2) of Section 36 categorically states that for the
238
purpose of Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the Authority under
the Act shall be deemed to be the local authority
concerned. When a notification is issued under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act under
Section 4(2) any officer either generally or
specially authorized by such Government in that
behalf and his servants and workmen can take
up the preliminary work as mentioned in the
Sub-section (2) of Section 4. When the
Commissioner under the Act issued the
notification it is the Land Acquisition Officer of
the Authority and his staff and Workmen who
are authorized to exercise the power conferred
under Section 4(2) of the Act the said power is
exercised by the Commissioner under Section
4(2) of the Act because there is no
corresponding provision in the Act. Merely
because the Additional Land Acquisition Officer
of the Bangalore Development Authority is not
an Officer of the Government it cannot be said
that he cannot be appointed under the
provisions nor such an appointment would
vitiate the acquisition proceedings. Under the
Act though the preliminary notification is issued
by the BDA the final notification is issued by the
Government after sanction of the Scheme
submitted by the BDA and it is the Government
which publishes the declaration under Section
19(1) of the Act. It is in that context coupled
with the fact that Section 50 of the Land
Acquisition Act provides that the cost of
acquisition should be borne by local authority
after the acquisition is complete and on
payment of the cost of acquisition and on issue
of notification of Section 16 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 the land which has vested
with the Government would be transferred to
the Authority and it is thereafter that the land
vests with the Authority. Therefore the
contention that Section 36 comes into picture
only after the land vests with the Government
under Section 16 of the Act is contrary to the
express provision contained under Section 36.
In that view of the matter there is no substance
239
in the contention that because of the
appointment of Additional Land Acquisition
Officer attached to the BDA the acquisition
proceedings are vitiated. “
(emphasis supplied)
27. Having regard to the statutory provisions as
noticed and as well as the judgment of this Court in the
5
case of The Commissioner BDA and Ors., and
4
Junjamma & Ors as noticed above, the finding
recorded by the learned Single Judge on issue (a) with
regard to the appointment of Land Acquisition Officers
by the BDA for the acquisition proceedings is erroneous
and liable to be interfered with.
28. With regard to the observation made by the
learned Single Judge while discussing regarding point
(a) as to the percentage of the land that was to be used
for civic amenities as well as to be offered as
compensation to the farmers in respect of which the
learned Single Judge had opined that the BDA ‘ was
clearly off bounds ’ and further observed that ‘ it is
therefore shocking that the State Government had even
240
approved such a scheme ’, it is relevant to note that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bondu
Ramaswamy & Ors., v. Bangalore Development
6
Authority & Ors., while noticing various aspects
regarding the kinds of acquisition and hardship that are
caused to the landlosers observed as follows:
“48. …. “Public purposes” may be of different
degrees of importance/priority/urgency. An
acquisition for laying a road or a water supply
canal may be of higher priority category when
compared to acquisitions for formation of an
urban residential layout. Planned urban
development by forming residential layouts, is
carried out not only by statutory Development
Authorities, but also by private
developers/colonisers. The reason why the
legislature has created Development Authorities
for executing development schemes, is because
they can undertake large-scale developments
providing better quality facilities with no profit
motives. But in trying to achieve planned
development and thereby benefit the urban
middle class or urban poor by providing them
housing plots, the interests of
agriculturists/landowners who lose their
livelihood on account of such acquisition, should
not be ignored. Though the legislature intended
that the landloser should get reasonable
compensation at the time of dispossession or
immediately thereafter, it seldom happens in
practice.”
(emphasis supplied)
6
(2010) 7 SCC 129
241
29. After observing the kinds of acquisitions,
while setting out the different types of benefits that will
make acquisitions landloser friendly, the Hon'ble
6
Supreme Court further observed as follows:
“ 153. The solution is to make the
landlosers also the beneficiaries of acquisition so
that the landlosers do not feel alienated but
welcome the acquisition. It is necessary to
evolve tailor-made schemes to suit particular
acquisitions, so that they will be smooth,
speedy, litigation-free and beneficial to all
concerned. Proper planning, adequate
counselling, and timely mediation with different
groups of landlosers, should be resorted to. Let
us consider the different types of benefits that
will make acquisitions landloser-friendly.
153.1 ………
153.2 ………
153.3 Where the acquisition is of the third
kind, that is, for urban development (either by
formation of housing colonies by Development
Authorities or by making bulk allotment to
colonisers, developers or housing societies),
there is no scope for providing benefits like
employment or a share in the equity. But the
landlosers can be given a share in the
development itself, by making available a
reasonable portion of the developed land to the
landloser so that he can either use it personally
or dispose of a part and retain a part or put it to
other beneficial use. ………”
(emphasis supplied)
242
30. The BDA has placed on record that while
issuing the notification under Section 17 of the Act for
the formation of Dr.Shivarama Karanth Layout, a similar
scheme for reserving a percentage of the land to be
given to the land owners of their choice had been
incorporated. While considering a challenge made to
the acquisition of the BDA for the said layout, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore
7
Development Authority v. State of Karnataka has
observed as follows:
“20 . The scheme which was framed was
so much benevolent scheme that 40% of the
55% of the land reserved for the residential
purpose was to be given to the landowners at
their choice and they were also given the choice
to obtain the compensation, if they so desired,
under the provisions of the LA Act. Thus, it was
such a scheme that there was no scope for any
exclusion of the land in the ultimate final
notification.”
(emphasis supplied)
31. Further, in the case of Bangalore
8
Development Authority v. State of Karnataka it
was further observed as follows:
7
(2018) 9 SCC 122
8
order dated 3.12.2020 passed in Misc. Application No.1614-1616/2019
243
“ 12. The State Government is directed to
grant approval to the 60:40 scheme in respect
of the layout in question, if necessary, within
two weeks from today. The State Government
is also directed to depute additionally six Land
Acquisition Officers to the BDA within two
weeks from today.”
(emphasis supplied)
32. Hence, it is submitted by the BDA that
keeping in mind the observation made by the Hon'ble
6
Supreme Court in order to make the acquisitions more
friendly to the land losers, a percentage of the acquired
area was offered to be conveyed to the land losers while
formulating the scheme for acquisition and the
percentage stipulated in the present acquisition is not
an isolated instance and that in the acquisition made in
the formation of Dr.Shivarama Karanth Layout also a
similar mode of payment of compensation has been
adopted, which has been noted and upheld by the
7
Hon'ble Supreme Court .
33. Having regard to what is noticed above and
the submission made on behalf of the BDA, the
observations made by the learned Single Judge as
244
noticed at para 8 are also erroneous and liable to be set
aside.
34. Having regard to the foregoing discussion,
the finding of the learned Single Judge quashing the
acquisition is clearly erroneous and liable to be
interfered with. Hence, question No.(i) framed for
consideration is answered in the affirmative .
Re. Question No.(ii):
35. Learned Senior Counsel for the BDA in
support of the contention that the matters are required
to be adjudicated by this Court submits that all the
materials that are necessary for adjudicating regarding
the acquisition made by the BDA, already being the
subject matter of the present appeals, the validity of the
acquisition proceedings also is required to be
adjudicated in these appeals.
36. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for
the writ petitioners submits that various contentions
having been urged before the learned Single Judge and
245
the orders in the writ petitions having been made with
regard to only a few limited questions as framed by the
learned Single Judge, in order to consider the other
contentions, the matters will require to be remanded to
the learned Single Judge for adjudication even if the
order of learned Single Judge is set aside. Both learned
Counsels have relied on certain judgments which shall
be considered in the course of adjudication of the
present question.
37. Reliance is placed by the learned Senior
Counsel for the BDA on a judgment of Full Bench of this
Court in the case of Town House Building Co-
Operative Society Ltd., Vs. Special Deputy
9
Commissioner wherein, the Full Bench was
considering the question: ‘Whether a Division Bench
hearing the writ appeals against the order of Single
Judge has power to remand the cases to the learned
Single Judge or not ?’
9
AIR 1988 Kar 312
246
37.1. The Hon’ble Chief Justice heading the
Bench, has held as follows:
“ 6. Before finding out an answer to the
question, it may be observed at the outset that
a learned single Judge of the High Court cannot
be regarded as a Court subordinate to the High
Court, that an appeal has been provided under a
statute validly enacted by the Legislature, that
the appellate jurisdiction conferred by S.4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, does not bring
out any alteration in the constitution or
organisation of the High Court, and that
provision for an appeal merely regulates the
exercise of that power by the High Court. As we
find, S.4 of the Karnataka High Court Act does
not define the scope of the appellate power.
Again, there are no relevant rules in this
respect. Normally, when a power of appeal is
conferred, it implies conferment of all incidental
and ancillary powers necessary to effectuate the
grant of specific power. Further, such an express
power, if not specifically hedged by any
limitation, inheres within it, all qualities and
attributes implied in the nature of such a power.
….. ”
“ 14. …..
As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the
answers to the questions referred to us may be
stated as follows:—
(i) That there is an inherent power in the
Division Bench hearing writ appeal against an
order of a learned Single Judge, to remand the
case to be decided afresh by a learned single
Judge;
(ii) That a remand order may be passed in cases
where a Writ Petition has been dismissed for
non-prosecution or in limine or on the ground of
delay or maintainability or on some question of
247
law without going into merits, etc. However, it is
best in these matters to be neither dogmatic nor
exhaustive, yet the aforesaid categories are the
ones in which the Appellate Bench may exercise
its power of remand; and
(iii) That where a Writ Petition has been
disposed of on merits by an order made by a
learned single Judge, a Division Bench on Appeal
would have no jurisdiction to remand such a
case to a learned single Judge for fresh decision
on merits and the appeal has to be disposed of
on merits by the Division Bench itself”.
(emphasis supplied)
37.2. In the concurring opinion, it was held as
follows:
“27. On reconsideration of the matter in the
light of the judgement of the Supreme Court in
Umaji's Case (AIR 1986 SC 1272). I am of the
view that if a Writ Petition has been dismissed
for non-prosecution or in limine on grounds such
as delay, maintainability etc., and not on merits
by a learned single Judge and such an order is
taken in appeal and the Division Bench sets
aside such an order,the
Writ Petition gets restored. As a consequence in
view of Sec. 9 of the Act and the Rules, the Writ
Petition has to be posted for preliminary hearing
or final hearing, as the case may be before a
learned single Judge. It is in this manner and to
this extent, it appears to me it can be said that
the Division Bench has the inherent or incidental
power to bring about a remand of the Writ
Petition by a learned single Judge.
28. ….
29. ….
30. ….
248
31. Section 4 referred to above provides for an
appellate forum. In the absence of any
restriction, it should be understood that the
appellate power under the said provision has all
the qualities of any other appellate power. The
fact that it is an intra-Court appeal may be a
relevant factor in considering the
appropriateness of making a particular order in
the course of exercising the said appellate
power.
32. An appellate power necessarily includes a
power to remand the cause to be decided by the
original authority or Court. Such a power is
inherent in the appellate power. Since the
appellate power is conferred on a Bench of the
same High Court here, while exercising the said
appellate power necessarily the appellate Bench
will have to be guided by principles of propriety
while remitting a cause to the original side
Bench. It is in this background I consider that
the power to remit a cause to the original Bench
by the Division Bench will have to be sparingly
used when the situation absolutely warrants
such_a remand, as opined by my Lord the Chief
Justice.
(emphasis supplied)
38. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Roma Sonkar Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Public
10
Service Commission and others has held as
follows:
“ We have very serious reservations
whether the Division Bench in an intra-court
appeal could have remitted a writ petition in the
matter of moulding the relief. It is the exercise
10
(2018) 7 SCC 106
249
of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The learned
Single Judge as well as the Division Bench
exercised the same jurisdiction. Only to avoid
inconvenience to the litigants, another tier of
screening by the Division Bench is provided in
terms of the power of the High Court but that
does not mean that the Single Judge is
subordinate to the Division Bench. Being a writ
proceeding, the Division Bench was called upon,
in the intra court appeal, primarily and mostly to
consider the correctness or otherwise of the
view taken by the learned Single Judge. Hence,
in our view, the Division Bench needs to
consider the appeal(s) on merits by deciding on
the correctness of the judgment of the learned
Single Judge, instead or remitting the matter to
the learned Single Judge.
(emphasis supplied)
39. Having regard to the settled position of law
10
as held in the case of Roma Sonkar and in the case
of Town House Building Co-Operative Society
9
Ltd., in the present case, the writ petitions having
been adjudicated on its merits and the present appeals
having been filed challenging the said decision, it is just
and proper that the entirety of the matter on its merits
be considered in these present appeals itself without
remanding the matter to the learned Single Judge.
40. There is a factual aspect which is required to
be placed on record at the present juncture. That the
250
acquisition proceedings commenced in the year 2008
with the issue of preliminary notification and a total
extent of 4043 acres and 27 guntas have been notified
for acquisition in the final notification. The subject
matter of the present appeals is an extent of 600 acres.
Further, the development of layout having been partially
completed as morefully noticed at para No.20
hereinabove and the question as to the validity of the
acquisition proceedings having been pending for
adjudication for nearly 16 years and various allottees of
sites for whom the layout is being formed as well as the
landowners are waiting for many years for a culmination
of the litigation, it is expedient that the merits of the
matter be adjudicated in the present appeals itself.
Hence, question No.(ii). framed for consideration is
answered in the negative .
Re. Question No.(iii):
41. Before considering as to whether the
acquisition made by the BDA is in accordance with law,
it is necessary to notice various judgments of this Court
251
as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to the
legal position of the acquisitions made by the BDA.
41.1 The acquisition made by the BDA for
formation of Arkavathi Layout was the subject matter of
challenge before this Court wherein a learned Single
Judge quashed the said acquisition. A Division Bench of
this Court while considering the appeals filed by the
5
BDA in The Commissioner BDA and Ors., while
considering the question as to whether the Land
Acquisition Act prevails over the Act, has held as
follows:
“ 41. Therefore, it is clear that the BDA Act is
one which will squarely fall under and traceable
to the powers of the State Legislature under
Entry 5 of List II of VII Schedule in the
Constitution of India. The BDA Act so far as
acquisition of land for its developmental activities
are concerned in substance and effect will
constitute a special law providing for acquisition
for the said purpose of the BDA and, therefore, it
cannot be considered to be part of the LA Act.
Thus a scheme formulated, sanctioned and set
for its implementation under BDA Act, cannot be
stultified or rendered ineffective and
unenforceable by a provision in the Central Act,
particularly of the nature of Section 4 or 5A
which has no application to the actions taken
under the BDA Act. Therefore, the finding
recorded by the learned single Judge in this
regard is liable to be set aside. ”
(emphasis supplied)
252
5
41.1.1 The Division Bench while considering
the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to interfere with the acquisition
proceedings which are in public interest, has held as
follows:
“77. Therefore, public interest should not
be permitted to be defeated on a mere
technicality. Procedural defects which do not go
to the root of the matter should not be
permitted to defeat a just cause. There is
sufficient power in the courts, to ensure that
injustice is not done to any party who has a just
cause. As far as possible a substantive right
should not be allowed to be defeated on account
of a procedural irregularity which is curable.
78. A memo filed by the BDA discloses
that, in the total extent of 2,750 acres which is
notified for acquisition in the final notification,
challenge to the acquisition is only to the extent
of about 748 acres. There is no challenge to the
acquisition regarding rest of the land. About 538
acres of land belongs to the Government itself.
In respect of 92 acres, no objections were filed.
It is on record that to the extent of about 1228
acres awards have been passed; compensation
paid, possession taken; layout is formed. 14,103
sites carved out. 2,29,000 applications received
for allotment of sites. Under these
circumstances to quash acquisition proceedings
of this magnitude on the aforesaid grounds
would be wholly unjustified and would be
against public interest.”
(emphasis supplied)
253
41.1.2 While considering the grievance of the
writ petitioners that there was discrimination and
arbitrariness on the part of the BDA in notifying the
lands for acquisition, wherein the lands belonging to
influential and powerful persons which are adjoining
their lands and which are similarly situated are not
5
notified for acquisition, the Division Bench has ordered
as follows:
“102. Though the learned single Judge
may be justified in holding that there is
discrimination and arbitrariness in acquiring the
land of the petitioners in W.P. No. 28087/2004,
after referring to the pleadings in para 5 of the
Writ Petition, which was not rebutted by the BDA
or the Government in their statement of
objections, he should have confined the relief
only to those petitioners who have proved their
case. On that ground he could not have quashed
the entire acquisition relating to 2,750 acres. We
are also satisfied that the plea of discrimination
taken by some of the land owners is well
founded. However, it is a disputed fact, which
cannot be gone into in these appeals, without
there being enough material on record. In fact
the BDA and Government have not traversed
those allegations of discrimination specifically.
Under these circumstances and in the light of the
aforesaid memo, we deem it proper to give an
opportunity to all those land owners (excluding
site owners) who have taken the plea of
discrimination to file an appropriate application
before the BDA for deletion of their lands from
acquisition, and to substantiate their contention
by producing such evidence which are available
with them. On such application being filed and
254
after holding an enquiry, the BDA shall consider
their requests. If they are able to establish that
their lands are similarly situated as that of the
other land owners, whose land was not at all
notified for acquisition, or having been notified
under Section 17(1) of the BDA Act, excluded
from acquisition after upholding the objection,
the said lands shall be excluded from acquisition.
On receipt of such a report, the scheme already
sanctioned by the Government shall stand
amended accordingly, and the Government shall
pass appropriate orders in this regard.”
(emphasis supplied)
5
41.1.3 The Division Bench upheld the
acquisition subject to certain conditions, the details of
which shall be noticed subsequently.
5
41.2 The judgment of the Division Bench was
the subject matter of challenge before the Hon'ble
6
Supreme Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy
wherein, with regard to the non- compliance of Sections
15 to 19 of the Act and the specific contention that
there was absence of specificity and discrepancy in
extent, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
“ 104 . Necessarily, a preparation of a
development scheme would contemplate survey
and ascertainment of suitable available land for
acquisition and preparation of a scheme. Before
the -scheme is finalised there will necessarily be
modifications and changes. Even publication of a
255
notification under Sections 17(1) and (3) of the
Act stating that the scheme has been made and
specifying the lands which are proposed to be
acquired is subject to a revision on consideration
of representations/objections and deletions
warranted. Therefore, the mere fact that there
were some modifications from time to time
between 2001 when the initial proposal was
mooted till the issue of the notification under
Sections 17(1) and (3) or that some lands were
omitted/deleted in the declaration under Section
19(1) will not affect the validity of the scheme.
In fact deletion of some items of land or
reducing the extent proposed to be acquired in
some items of land, when issuing final
declaration is made is quite common and is
indeed a result of the process prescribed under
any Act providing for acquisitions. The changes
and modifications are in fact contemplated in
the process of making the scheme under
Sections 15 to 19 of the BDA Act.”
(emphasis supplied)
41.2.1 With regard to the contention
regarding discrimination, malafides and arbitrariness,
6
the Hon'ble Supreme Court , has observed as follows:
“ 136. Sporadic small unauthorised
constructions in unauthorised colonies/layouts,
are not to be deleted as the very purpose of
acquisition for planned development is to avoid
such unauthorised development. If hardship is
the reason for such deletion, the appropriate
course is to give preference to the land/plot
owners in making allotments and help them to
resettle and not to continue the illegal and
haphazard pockets merely on the ground that
some temporary structure or a dilapidated
structure existed therein. A Development
Authority should either provide orderly
development or should stay away from
development. It cannot act like unscrupulous
256
private developers/colonisers attempting
development of small bits of land with only
profit motive. When we refer to private
developers/colonisers by way of comparison, our
intention is not to deprecate all private
developers/colonisers. We are aware that
several private developers/colonisers provide
large, well-planned authorised developments,
some of which are even better than
developments by Development Authorities.
What is discouraged and deprecated is small
unauthorised layouts without any basic
amenities. Be that as it may .
(emphasis supplied)
41.2.2. Considering the principles regarding
grant of relief in cases of discrimination, the Hon'ble
6
Supreme Court , has held as follows:
“143. We are conscious of the fact that when a
person subjected to blatant discrimination,
approaches a court seeking equal treatment, he
expects relief similar to what others have been
granted. All that he is interested is getting relief
for himself, as others. He is not interested in
getting the relief illegally granted to others,
quashed. Nor is he interested in knowing whether
others were granted relief legally or about the
distinction between positive equality and negative
equality. In fact he will be reluctant to approach
courts for quashing the relief granted to others on
the ground that it is illegal, as he does not want
to incur the wrath of those who have benefited
from the wrong action. As a result, in most cases
those who benefit by the illegal grants/actions by
authorities, get away with the benefit, while
others who are not fortunate to have
“connections” or “money power” suffer. But these
are not the grounds for courts to enforce negative
equality and perpetuate the illegality.
257
158. Where arbitrary and unexplained deletions
and exclusions from acquisition, of large extents
of notified lands, render the acquisitions
meaningless, or totally unworkable, the court will
have no alternative but to quash the entire
acquisition. But where many landlosers have
accepted the acquisition and received the
compensation, and where possession of
considerable portions of acquired lands has
already been taken, and development activities
have been carried out by laying plots and even
making provisional or actual allotments, those
factors have to be taken note of, while granting
relief. The Division Bench has made an effort to
protect the interests of all parties, on the facts
and circumstances, by issuing detailed directions.
But implementation of these directions may lead
to further litigations and complications.”
(emphasis supplied)
41.2.3 Having regard to the various scenarios
contemplated while granting of reliefs when there was
6
discrimination, the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the
directions of the Division Bench of this Court and has
issued further directions.
41.3 The acquisition made by the BDA for
formation of the Vishveshwaraiah layout was the subject
matter of challenge before this Court. A learned Single
4
Judge in the case of Junjamma & Ors., while
258
considering as to whether the notifications are liable to
be quashed on the ground of vagueness, non
mentioning of public purpose and not giving clear
description of the property, has held as follows:
“14. A comparison of the aforesaid two
Sections discloses that in Section 17(1) of the
Act there is no obligation cast upon the
acquiring authority to mention the public
purposes for which the land is needed. On the
contrary what is to be mentioned in a
notification under Section 17(1) is that a
developmental scheme has been prepared and
the said fact is to be stated in the notification
and the limits of the area comprised therein and
naming a place where particulars of the scheme,
a map of the area comprised therein, a
statement specifying the land which is proposed
to be acquired and of the land in regard to
which a betterment tax would be levied may be
seen at all reasonable hours is all to be
mentioned in the notification. When we look at
Section 17(1) notification issued, it is mentioned
that it appears to the Bangalore Development
Authority that lands specified in the schedule
hereto is likely to be needed for the purpose of
formation of a layout called Sir M.
Visweshwaraiah Layout and in that regard a
developmental scheme has been proposed and
that the particulars of the scheme, the maps of
the area comprised therein and the statement
specifying the lands which is proposed to be
acquired may be seen in the office of the
Additional land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore
Development Authority, Bangalore, during the
office hours on all working days. Thus the
259
notification issued under Section 17(1) of the
Act complies with all the legal requirements
mentioned in the aforesaid provision. It is not
vague. In the judgment of the Supreme Court
as aforesaid, in the preliminary notification in
the column ‘public purpose’ it was shown the
land is required for residential purpose and the
only description given about the land to be
acquired was that 2.29 hectares of land
proposed to be acquired is situated in District
Mandsaur, Village Mandsaur. Whereas, in the
final notification issued under Section 6(1) the
public purpose has been stated to be housing
scheme of housing board, thus the public
purpose mentioned in 4(1) notification was
different from what was mentioned in 6(1)
notification which was again different from what
was mentioned in the letter of the Board to the
Government. Similarly, the description of the
property as required under law was not given.
The Supreme Court therefore held those factors
go to expose non application of mind by the
authorities while issuing the impugned
notification and it appears that they were not
even sure of the public purpose for which the
land was sought to be acquired. It is in that
context it was held that the impugned
notifications are vitiated on account of being
vague and for non-compliance with the
mandatory requirements of that law.
15. Whereas in the instant case, the notification
issued is strictly in conformity with the
requirements of law. The land sought to be
acquired is clearly mentioned by giving the
names of the kathedars/anubhavadars, the
survey numbers, the nature of the land, the
extent of land owned, extent of land proposed
for acquisition and the boundaries of the land
260
which is proposed to be acquired, name of the
Village where the land is situated and also the
total land acquired under the scheme. Under
these circumstances, I do not find any merit in
the submission of the learned counsels for the
petitioners that the notification is liable to be
quashed on the ground of vagueness.”
(emphasis supplied)
41.3.1. With regard to the contention that the
lands used for nursery and garden cannot be used for
residential purposes without there being appropriate
permission by the planning authority, the learned Single
4
Judge has held as follows:
“ 34. Similarly, there is no substance in
the contention that having regard to the user of
the land acquired, namely non-residential
purpose; industrial purpose, commercial
purpose, lands, used for nursery and garden
cannot be used for residential purpose without
there being appropriate permission obtained
from the planning authority. In fact, in this
regard the learned counsels for the petitioners
relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of
B.R. Baliga v. Town Municipal Council, Udupi,
D.K. [1995 (4) Kar. L.J. 408.] where it has been
held that when land which is acquired is an
agricultural land acquired for the purpose of
forming a residential layout the permission of
the Planning Authority is required for the change
of land use. Without such permission the land
cannot be used for residential purposes. That
again does not affect the power of the Authority
or the Government to acquire the land. It is only
261
after acquisition of the land that the authority
can seek permission for change of land use. The
very fact than there is at provision for change of
land use implies that the owner of the land is
entitled to approach the planning-authorities for
change of land use. But such a request is to be
made by the owner of the land. The ownership
of the land could be acquired by the Authority
by the mode of acquisition. Therefore, not
obtaining prior permission from the Planning
Authority for change of land use does not in
anyway vitiate the acquisition of land. In fact
while according sanction under Section 18(3) of
the Act, the Government has categorically
stated that the sanction sought for is granted
subject to the condition that the Authority shall
obtain permission for change of land use.
Therefore, not obtaining prior permission for
change of land use would in no way vitiate the
acquisition proceedings.”
(emphasis supplied)
41.3.2 With regard to the acquisition made in
the Green Belt, it was held as follows:
“36. ………. If as a result of acute
shortage of land within the city nearby
agricultural land situated in the green belt is
acquired by the Government it cannot be said
that it is not a case of proper exercise of power
under the Act by the Government. There is a
large influx of people from all over the country
to Bangalore. A comprehensive development
plan has been prepared by the Planning
Authority for the City of Bangalore earmarking
residential area, commercial area, industrial
area, etc., in the said plan. The said plan is not
static. It is reviewed from time to time.
262
Similarly, the green belt area shown in the
Comprehensive. Development Plan cannot be
static for all time to come. In any
Comprehensive Development Plan sufficient
area is to be earmarked as green belt area. If a
portion of a green belt area is utilised for the
formation of a layout consequently the
authorities may earmark equivalent extent of
land as green belt by extending the original
green belt area. That is the reason why the
boundary of the Bangalore Metropolitan area is
extended from time to time by issuing
notifications by the Government including more
and more villages. The need is ever growing. It
is for the planning authorities who are vested
with the power to prepare a Comprehensive
Development Plan, to take into consideration
the needs of the public and other factors and
earmark the green belt area. However all this
would not in anyway affect the power of the
Government under the Land Acquisition Act or
the power of the Authority or the Government
under the Act to acquire land which is situated
within the green belt area for the formation of
layout. Therefore, I do not find any substance
in the said contention.”
(emphasis supplied)
41.3.3. While considering the case of
acquisition of nursery lands and as to whether any
persons whose lands are similarly placed has not been
acquired, it was held as follows:
“48. ………….. if petitioners who are similarly
placed as that of the owners whose land is not
acquired then, on that ground the entire
263
acquisition itself cannot be set aside. At best
persons who are similarly placed are also
entitled to the relief which is given to others.
Therefore it is necessary to examine the
entitlement of the petitioners before Court to
the relief in the facts and circumstances of each
case. Before any relief could be given to the
petitioners in these case, an investigation has to
be conducted to find out whether their case
would fall within the parameters prescribed by
the authorities on the basis of which relief is
given to the persons who are similarly placed.
49 . In the statement of objections filed
before this Court the respondents deny the fact
that the petitioners are similarly placed.
Therefore, if this court has to grant any relief to
the petitioners the court has to investigate into
these disputed questions of fact and then only
the petitioners would be entitled to the relief.
For that purpose it has to be seen what is the
nature of the plea of each petitioner, what was
the position of the land on the date of
preliminary notification, whether the entire land
claimed by the petitioner would fall within the
exempted category, if not what is the extent of
land which could be excluded etc. It is also
necessary to find out whether any of the
petitioners have altered or improved the
properties after obtaining the interim order from
this Court. By mere looking into the
photographs produced it is not possible to arrive
at any conclusion. It requires an investigation,
after affording reasonable opportunities to all
the parties concerned to produce evidence and
then to arrive at a conclusion. This Court cannot
undertake this exercise in its jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, I am of the view the appropriate
264
course would be as was done in Subesingh's
case where Supreme Court directed the
authority to consider the objections raised by
the petitioners for exclusion of their properties
from acquisition in the light of what is stated
above and then pass appropriate orders on its
merits. If said lands are similarly situated as
that of the others certainly the authorities are
bound to give the same benefit to those
persons. If it is not similarly placed it is always
open to the authorities to reject their objections
and proceed further in the matter. This
complaint could not have been made by the
petitioners in the original objections filed by
them for acquisition. Therefore, all that they
have contended in their objection statement is
that their land is not liable to be acquired for the
reasons mentioned therein. The present
objection has arisen after their objections are
over ruled whereas the objections of persons
who are similarly placed are accepted.
Therefore, the authorities have to necessarily
take in to consideration the material which was
before them while upholding the objections of
others and compare the same with the
petitioners herein who have raised similar
objections and then come to their own
conclusion on merits and pass appropriate
orders. It is in the nature of a subsequent event.
Therefore, there is no necessity to quash the
acquisition which is otherwise valid and legal
and thus it would meet the ends of justice.”
(emphasis supplied)
265
42. The acquisitions in the said case have been
upheld subject to various directions which shall be
discussed subsequently.
43. Having regard to the settled position of law
and the factual matrix as noticed above, it is clear that
consequent to the approval granted by the State
Government on 02.04.2008 approving the scheme and
permitting the BDA to issue Preliminary Notification
under Section 17 of the Act, the Preliminary Notification
was issued on 21.05.2008 under Section 17(1) and (3)
of the Act whereunder, it was proposed as follows:
“Whereas it appears to the Bangalore
Development Authority, that the lands specified
in the schedule hereto likely to be needed for
the purpose ie, for the formation of layout called
"NADA PRABHU KEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT"
including Link Roads. In this scheme as
approved by the Government of Karnataka vide
2007, Bangalore,
£ÀCE 427 ¨ÉA¨sÀƸÁé
dated:2/4/2008, 45% of the Land covered
under the scheme would be used for Civic
Amenities, Play Grounds, Roads, etc., and the
residential sites, would be formed by utilizing
the remaining 55% of the Land. Out of this 55%
developed residential area, 40% of 55% will be
offered as compensation to the farmers as
specified in the scheme and the remaining 60%
of 55% will be the share of the BDA. The
farmers are also given option to accept the
developed eligible residential land or opt for
Compensation / both.”
266
44. Vide the said notification, an extent of 4814
acres 15 guntas of land was notified. Subsequently, vide
notification dated 18.02.2010, a Final Notification was
issued under Section 19 of the Act whereunder, it was
stated as follows:
“Now, therefore in exercise of the powers
conferred under Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of
the Bangalore Development Act, 1976
(Karnataka Act No.12 of 1976), the Government
of Karnataka hereby declares that the lands
specified in the Scheduled noted below be the
same a little more or less are needed for public
purpose viz for the formation of a layout called
“NADAPRABHU KEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT" and in
exercise of the powers conferred by Clause-(c) of
the Section 3 and Section 7 of Acquisition Act,
1894 (Central Act- 1/1984) as amended and
extended from time to time by the Land
Acquisition (Karnataka and amendment) Act
1961 (Karnataka Act 17 of 1961) read with
Section 36 of the Bangalore Development
Authority Ac, 1976, the Additional Land
Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Development
Authority, Bangalore, is hereby appointed to
perform the duties and functions of the Deputy
Commissioner (Land Acquisition), under the Land
Acquisition Act and directed to take order for
Acquisition Lands.”
45. The extent of lands notified in the said final
notification is an extent of 4043 acres 27 guntas.
Thereafter, it has been placed on record by the BDA
267
that award is passed for 2700 acres of land, out of
which 2694 acres 26 guntas of land has been handed
over to the engineering section for formation of layout
and 26918 sites are formed in an extent of 2208 acres 4
guntas of land. The details of the land used for civic
amenities and other utilities are noticed at para 20
hereinabove.
46. Having regard to the aforementioned, a
relevant consideration is that, undisputedly, the lands
have been acquired in public interest for the purpose of
formation of a layout to satisfy housing needs of the
general public in the city of Bengaluru. It is further
notified that 20% of the sites are reserved for schedule
caste, schedule tribes and backward classes category
and steps are to be taken to construct free houses for
economically weaker sections. The judgment in the case
5
of The Commissioner, BDA , lays down the scope of
interference of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution to interfere with the acquisitions which are
made in the public interest. It is also relevant to note
268
that out of 4043 acres and 27 guntas notified for
acquisition, the acquisitions have been challenged only
insofar as an extent of 600 acres.
47. With regard to the contention of the writ
petitioners that a large extent of land which was notified
in the preliminary notification was left out in the final
notification, it is relevant to note that the Hon’ble
6
Supreme Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy
has categorically held that deletion of some lands or
reducing the extent proposed to be acquired when
issuing a final notification is common and is a result of
process prescribed under the Act. Hence, the said
contention of the writ petitioners is liable to be rejected.
48. In the present case, it is clear that the
Preliminary Notification and Final Notification have been
issued after following the due process as stipulated
under the Act. The contention of some of the writ
petitioners that their lands have been notified for
acquisition while similarly placed lands have been left
out, has to be considered on the facts of each individual
269
case and the said contention is not a ground to quash
the entire notification / acquisition.
49. It is also relevant to note that in the case of
4
Junjamma & Ors., the contention regarding
vagueness of the notification and not giving clear
description of the property has also been considered
and that it has been categorically held that as long as
survey number and extent of lands and the boundaries
of lands are mentioned, as has been done in the present
case, the question of quashing the acquisition under the
said ground does not arise.
50. With regard to the contention that Nursery
and Garden lands cannot be acquired and reliance is
placed on various Government Orders in support of the
same, it is relevant to note that said aspect has also
been considered by this Court in the case of Junjamma
4
& Ors., wherein, it has been categorically held that it
is only after the acquisition that the authority is required
to seek adequate permission for change of land use and
hence, on the said ground, the acquisition proceedings
270
cannot be quashed. Further, Government Orders will not
in any manner restrict the exercise of a power vested
under a statute.
51. In view of the foregoing discussion, the
acquisition made by the BDA cannot be said to be
contrary to the provisions of the Act. The acquisition
made is just and proper. The preliminary notification
dated 21.05.2008 and final notification dated
18.02.2010 having been validly issued are accordingly
upheld. Hence, question No.(iii) framed for
consideration is answered in the affirmative.
Re. Question No.(iv):
52. After considering the submissions made by
various learned Counsels wherein contentions were
urged which were peculiar to the facts of the said
individual cases, their grievances could be categorized
as follows:
271
i) grievances by owners of nursery/garden
lands as well as lands where the owners were
carrying out agricultural operations;
ii) grievances by owners of lands who contend
that similarly placed lands have been left out
when the final notification was issued or in respect
of which subsequently the lands have been
denotified from acquisition under Section 48 of the
Act;
iii) grievances by owners of lands where
educational institutions are situated;
iv) grievances by owners of lands whose
surrounding lands have been denotified;
v) grievances of site owners who have
purchased sites in layouts formed prior to the
preliminary notification and where, in some cases
residential houses have been constructed; and
vi) grievances of owners who are running a
brick or other industry.
53. Some of the writ petitioners have placed on
record notifications issued under Section 48 of the LA
272
Act wherein, the lands have been deleted from
acquisition, the details of which are as follows:
| Sl.<br>No. | Date | Sy.<br>No. | Extent<br>Acquired<br>A – G | Extent<br>With-<br>drawn | Village | Name of the<br>Kathedar |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 22.5.2010 | 8<br>(nursery<br>land) | 99.21 | 2.00 | Sulikere | H.V.Subbakrishna |
| 2 | 6.4.2010 | 3 | 3.28 | 3.28 | Kodigehalli | Huchhappa,<br>Parthasarathi |
| 3 | 7.4.2010 | 101/2 | 3.05 | 3.05 | Kenchanapura | Dr.P.Mallikarjuna<br>swamy<br>s/o R.Puttamadaiah |
| 4 | 7.4.2010 | 22 | 2.00 | 2.00 | Kencahanapura | R.Puttamadaiah<br>s/o late Ramaiah |
| 5 | 8.4.2010 | 15 | 4.00 | 4.00 | Sulikere | Lankappa,<br>Hanumanthaiah,<br>Government,<br>R.Naveen<br>s/o Ramaswamy |
| 6 | 27.5.2010 | 55/1 | 9.28 | 4.33 | Kodigehalli | Doddahanumanthaiah<br>Revanna,<br>Chikkahanumanthaiah<br>K.K.Krishnappa s/o<br>Late H.K.Kalappa |
| 7 | 6.9.2010 | 28 | 14.20 | 8.33 | Challaghatta | M.Madanlala s/o<br>Mongilala, D.Jaichand<br>s/o Deepchand,<br>Rajakumari w/o<br>D.Jaichand,<br>Rajakumari w/o<br>D.Jaichand |
| 8 | 7.4.2010 | 22 | 2.00 | 2.00 | Kencahanapura | R.Puttamadaiah<br>s/o late Ramaiah |
54. It is further relevant to note that the writ
petitioners have also referred to the orders passed in
certain writ petitions wherein, the acquisitions have
been dropped, the details of which are as follows:
273
54.1 Order dated 2.4.2014 WP No.9097-
9100/2010 & 9103-9106/2010, which reads as follows:
“O R D E R
The learned Senior Advocate Shri
Jayakumar S Patil, appearing for the Counsel for
the respondent – Bangalore Development
Authority (BDA), files a memo, which reads as
follows:-
“MEMO
As per the affidavit of the Commissioner of
Bangalore Development Authority dated
18.8.2011 and list accompanied the following
petition schedule lands are Nursery lands.
| Sl.No. | Sy.No. | Extent | Village |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 111 | 9 acres | Ramasandra |
| 2 | 116 | 1 Acre 30 guntas | Ramasandra |
| 3 | 115 | 27 guntas | Ramasandra |
| 4 | 75 | 2 acres 21 guntas | Kommaghatta |
| 5 | 76 | 03 guntas | Kommaghatta |
| 6 | 77/1 | 1 acre 19 guntas | Kommaghatta |
| 7 | 77/2B | 3 acres 36 guntas | Kommaghatta |
It is noticed that the BDA has not recommended
deletion of all the items of petition schedule
lands from the acquisition proceedings.
274
2. In view of the memo, it is now for the State
Government to pass appropriate orders in the
light of the recommendation made by the BDA, in
so far as the items of lands mentioned in the
memo. The State Government shall expedite
consideration and shall pass orders on or before
th
30 June 2014, failing which, it shall be deemed
that the lands are withdrawn from the acquisition
proceedings.
The petitions stand disposed of in terms as
above.”
54.2 Order dated 30.4.2014 passed in WP
Nos.43467-43468/2012, which reads as under:
“Shri C.R.Gopalaswamy, learned Counsel
takes notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. The learned Senior Advocate Shri
Jayakumar S Patil, appearing for the Counsel for
the respondent – Bangalore Development
Authority (BDA), files status reports, in respect
of the lands forming subject matter of the
present writ petitions, which reads as follows:-
Status Report in W.P.No.43467/2012
“As per court documents given by the
petitioner and perusal of the same. The
above said lands there exists nursery in
the name of “Janata Farm and Nursery”.
They have not submitted business
transactions from PN Date to till date. The
case of the petitioners along with the
report of the Land Acquisition Section will
be examined and accordingly proposal will
be sent to the Government for
appropriate action.”
Status Report in W.P.No.43468/2012
275
“As per court documents given by the
petitioner and perusal of the same. The
above said lands there exists nursery in
the name of “Rishi Farm and Nursery”.
They have not submitted business
transactions from PN Date to till date. The
case of the petitioners along with the
report of the Land Acquisition Section will
be examined and accordingly proposal will
be sent to the Government for
appropriate action.”
In view of the Status Reports, it is now
for the State Government to pass appropriate
orders. The State Government shall expedite
consideration and shall pass orders on or before
31st July 2014, failing which, it shall be deemed
that the lands are withdrawn from the
acquisition proceedings.
The petitions stand disposed of.”
54.3 Order dated 23.4.2014 passed in WP
No.43469/2012, which reads as under:
“Shri C.R.Gopalaswamy, learned Counsel
takes notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. The learned Senior Advocate Shri
Jayakumar S Patil, appearing for the Counsel for
the respondent – Bangalore Development
Authority (BDA), files a status report, in respect
of the lands forming subject matter of the
present writ petition, which reads as follows:-
“As per court direction petitioners have
submitted the records, on the perusal of
the same in the above said lands there
exists nursery in the name of “Teju Farm
and Nursery”. They submitted registered
ID Card. They have not submitted
276
business transactions from PN date to till
date. The case of the petitioners along
with the report of the Land Acquisition
Section will be examined and accordingly
proposal will be sent to the Government
for appropriate action.”
In view of the Status Report, it is now for the
State Government to pass appropriate orders.
The State Government shall expedite
consideration and shall pass orders on or before
31st July 2014, failing which, it shall be deemed
that the lands are withdrawn from the
acquisition proceedings.
The petition stands disposed of.”
55. It is also relevant to note that with regard to
nursery lands, the State Government has passed Order
bearing No.HUD 478 MNX 86, Bengaluru, dated
1.1.1987 wherein it was ordered as follows:
“ Government have further examined the
request and hereby order that the lands used for
nurseries be exempt from Land Acquisition for
its developmental schemes by the Bangalore
Development Authority. If the owners of these
nurseries discontinue to use those lands for
nurseries, the lands will be acquired by the
Bangalore Development Authority.”
56. Having regard to the aforementioned, it is
clear that the State Government has issued notifications
under Section 48 of the LA Act denotifying certain lands
277
which were notified for acquisition. In addition, during
the pendency of the writ petitions, pursuant to orders
passed by the learned Single Judge, spot inspections
have been carried out and mahazars have been drawn,
consequent to which memos filed by the BDA and the
acquisition has been withdrawn in respect of various
lands. Amongst the said lands, various lands have been
left out from acquisition on the ground that they are
nursery lands or where layouts have been formed or
where there are revenue sites as also due to various
other reasons.
57. While considering the contentions of the writ
petitioners that similarly placed lands have been
denotified, it is relevant to notice some of the
judgments that have been referred to, which are as
under:
11
57.1 Hari Ram & Anr v. State of Haryana ,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
“ 40. It is true that any action or order contrary
to law does not confer any right upon any
11
(2010) 3 SCC 621
278
person for similar treatment. It is equally true
that a landowner whose land has been acquired
for public purpose by following the prescribed
procedure cannot claim as a matter of right for
release of his/her land from acquisition but
where the State Government exercises its power
under Section 48 of the Act for withdrawal from
acquisition in respect of a particular land, the
landowners who are similarly situated have a
right of similar treatment by the State
Government. Equality of citizens' rights is one of
the fundamental pillars on which the edifice of
the rule of law rests. All actions of the State
have to be fair and for legitimate reasons.
41. The Government has obligation of acting
with substantial fairness and consistency in
considering the representations of the
landowners for withdrawal from acquisition
whose lands have been acquired under the same
acquisition proceedings. The State Government
cannot pick and choose some landowners and
release their land from acquisition and deny the
same benefit to other landowners by creating
artificial distinction. Passing different orders in
exercise of its power under Section 48 of the Act
in respect of persons similarly situated relating
to the same acquisition proceedings and for the
same public purpose is definitely violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution and must be held
to be discriminatory.
42. …………
43. It is unfair on the part of the State
Government in not considering representations
of the appellants by applying the same
standards which were applied to other
landowners while withdrawing from acquisition
of their land under the same acquisition
proceedings. If this Court does not correct the
wrong action of the State Government, it may
leave citizens with the belief that what counts
for the citizens is right contacts with right
persons in the State Government and that
judicial proceedings are not efficacious. The
279
action of the State Government in treating the
present appellants differently although they are
situated similar to the landowners whose lands
have been released can not be countenanced
and has to be declared bad in law.”
(emphasis supplied)
57.2 BEML Employees House Building
12
Co.op., Society Ltd., v. State of Karnataka ,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering a
case where the land owners have challenged the
acquisition proceedings which was allowed by a learned
Single Judge of the High Court which was also affirmed
by the Division Bench. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
considering a challenge to the same by the beneficiary
of acquisition has upheld the judgment of the High
Court and held that similarly placed lands have been left
out from acquisition based on the recommendation of
the land acquisition officer. That the land of the writ
petitioners also having been recommended for dropping
off the same from acquisition was entitled to the same
relief.
12
(2005) 9 SCC 248
280
57.3 Mrs.Latha U.Kamath & ors. V. The
13
Commissioner, Bangalore , wherein a Division
Bench of this Court was considering a case wherein the
writ petitioners were owners of nursery lands which
were acquired by the BDA. It was the contention of the
writ petitioners that the BDA and the Government
having resolved not to acquire nursery lands, the
acquisition was required to be quashed. The Division
Bench of this Court placing reliance on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omprakash
14
& Anr., v. State of U.P and ors., refused to quash
the acquisition proceedings. However, it ordered as
follows:
“51. In these circumstances, we direct the
appellants to make a representation to the State
Government within three weeks from the date of
receipt of this Order and the State Government
shall consider the following matters:—
(i) Whether there were any nurseries on
the acquired lands at the time of Section 17
notification;
(ii) Whether such nurseries were a legally
permissible nurseries;
13
ILR 2003 KAR 1604
14
[1998 (6) SCC 1]
281
(iii) Whether such nurseries have
continued to exist till the date of representation;
(iv) Whether such nurseries were covered
by any government policy (Annexure-G) in force
at the time of issuance of Section 17 notification
and/or Section 19 notification of the B.D.A. Act
1976 for not acquiring lands having such
nurseries;
(v) Whether such Government policy
(Annexure-G) has continued to be in force till
the date of representation.
52. The State Government which is a final
authority shall determine these issues and pass
orders in accordance with law as expeditiously
as possible on the basis of the representation if
possession has not been taken. Pending disposal
of the representation, interim orders granted by
this Court shall enure to the benefit of the
appellants. If no representation is made within
the stipulated time the interim orders granted
by the earlier Division Benches of this Court
shall stand vacated.”
58. While considering the said contention, it is
also relevant to note another contention that was
canvassed by the writ petitioners that the Government
having resolved not to acquire nursery lands and the
BDA having acted upon the said decision by denotifying
various nursery lands, the petitioners who are the
owners of nursery lands also had a legitimate
282
expectation that their lands also would be denotified.
Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand v.
15
Brahmaputra Metallics Ltd., as also the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
16
West Bengal v. Gitashree Dutta (Dey) .
58.1 It has been held by the Hon'ble
16
Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand
that the Doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation
is one of the ways in which the guarantee of non
arbitrariness enshrined under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India finds concrete expression.
58.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
17
case of State of West Bengal has held as follows:
“ 14. There is a necessary inter-play between
the plea of legitimate expectation and Article 14.
For a decision to be non-arbitrary, the
reasonable/legitimate expectations of the
claimant have to be considered. However, to
decide whether the expectation of the claimant
is reasonable or legitimate in the context, is a
question of fact in each case. Whenever the
question arises, it is to be determined not
15
2020 SCC OnLine SC 968
16
2022 SCC OnLine SC 691
283
according to the claimant's perception but in
larger public interest wherein other more
important considerations may outweigh what
would otherwise have been the legitimate
expectation of the claimant.”
(emphasis supplied)
59. A similar contention is also urged by the writ
petitioners whose neighbouring lands have been left out
of acquisition, while their lands have been notified.
60. Before passing orders with regard to the
aforementioned, it is relevant to note that despite the
avowed object with which layouts are formed by the
BDA, it has been consistently noticed by this Court that
in the manner of implementation of such schemes, the
BDA as well as the State Government have repeatedly
failed in ensuring that a proper and transparent process
by which the grievances of the landlosers and the
allottees of the sites are seamlessly addressed. In view
of the same, this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court
have been constrained to resort to various measures to
ensure that the process of acquisition is carried out in
accordance with law by the BDA, so that the grievances
284
of the landlosers and allottees are adequately dealt
with.
61. At this juncture, it is relevant to notice the
rationale, methodology adopted and directions issued by
this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court while
upholding the acquisitions made by the BDA:
61.1 A learned Single Judge of this Court in the
17
case of G.R.Jayamma & ors., v. BDA & Ors., while
upholding the acquisition made by the BDA in respect of
Anjanapura Layout has recorded the consensus that was
agreed in the said case and held as follows:
“9. After the matter was heard further, a broad
consensus was reached between petitioners and
BDA. Having regard to the special facts and
circumstances of these cases, petitioners and
BDA submitted that these petitions may be
disposed of recording the following terms agreed
between them:-
(a) Petitioners hereby withdraw their objections
to the acquisition and assure full support and
co-operation to BDA in forming the layout.
(b) Petitioners shall register themselves as
applicants for allotment under the Bangalore
Development Authority [Allotment of sites]
Rules, 1984 within a period of two months from
today (extendable by another one month by
17
Order dated 20.7.2001 passed in WP No.20875/2001
285
BDA, if sufficient cause is shown). Petitioners
will have to pay only the registration fee. They
need not pay initial deposit as their sites have
been acquired and they have agreed not to
receive compensation in regard to the sites
under this arrangement.
(c) The petitioners shall file applications for
allotment of sites to BDA within three months
from to day, in the prescribed form stating that
they are applicants who were the petitioners in
these writ petitions. Petitioners shall file their
documents with BDA within a period of two
months to enable BDA to verify the same.
(d) BDA will treat them as applicants entitled to
priority in allotment and allot each of them a
site measuring 30'x40' in Anjanapura Layout or
in any other nearby layouts in Bangalore at the
prevailing allotment prices subject to petitioners
satisfying the twin requirements for allotment
under the BDA (allotment of sites) Rules 1984;
that they must be the residents of Bangalore
(ten year domicile) and should not be owning
any residential property in Bangalore (subject to
exception as per Rule 10).
(e) If there are no rival claimants for
compensation in regard to the plots claimed by
petitioners, and if the ownership of the
petitioners in regard to their respective sites
which have been acquired is not disputed, BDA
shall calculate the compensation payable to the
petitioners and give credit to the same by
adjusting the same towards the allotment price
for the site to be allotted and call upon the
petitioners to pay the balance. Petitioners shall
be given six months time for making payment
(to enable petitioners to know the amount of
compensation which they will be entitled and to
ascertain how much balance they should pay].
(f) If there are rival claimants in regard to the
survey numbers or the sites or if any petitioner's
title in regard to the sites are challenged, BDA
286
shall make a reference in regard to the
compensation in regard to such site/land in
question to the Civil Court under Section 30 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; and the
petitioners will have to sort out the matter
before the reference Court. In that event, such
petitioners will have pay the full allotment price
within the time stipulated, without seeking
adjustment of compensation for the acquired
site.
(g) If any of the petitioners does not fulfil the
requirements for allotment, under the allotment
Rules, their cases may be considered for
allotment of 20’x30' sites as per the Rules
containing incentive scheme for voluntary
surrender of lands. For the purpose of the said
scheme, such petitioners will be deemed to have
voluntarily surrendered the sites.
(h) The above scheme will be available to only
those who are owners, as a consequence of
execution of registered sale deeds in their
favour prior to the date of preliminary
notification/(and not to GPA/Agreement
Holder).”
61.2 A Division Bench of this Court in the
5
case of The Commissioner BDA and Ors., while
upholding the acquisition of the Arkavathi Layout has
issued the following directions:
“(C) The acquisition of the lands for the
formation of Arkavathi Layout is upheld
subject to the following conditions:—
287
(a) In so far as the site owners are
concerned they are entitled to the
following reliefs:—
(i) These site owners/writ petitioners shall
register themselves as applicants for
allotment under the Bangalore
Development Authority [Allotment of
Sites] Rules, 1984 within a period of
two months from today (extendable by
another one month by BDA, if
sufficient cause is shown). Petitioners
will have to pay only the registration
fee. They need not pay initial deposit
as their sites have been acquired and
they have agreed not to receive
compensation in regard to the sites
under this arrangement.
(ii) The petitioners shall file applications
for allotment of sites to BDA within
three months from today in the
prescribed form stating that they are
applicants who were the petitioners in
these writ petitions. Petitioners shall
file their documents with BDA within a
period of two months to enable BDA to
verify the same.
(iii) BDA will treat them as applicants
entitled to priority in allotment and
allot each of them a site measuring
30′ × 40′ in Arkavathi Layout or in any
other nearby layouts in Bangalore at
the prevailing allotment prices subject
to petitioners satisfying the twin
requirements for allotment under the
BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984,
that they must be the residents of
Bangalore (ten year domicile) and
should not be owning any residential
property in Bangalore.
(iv) If there are no rival claimants for
compensation in regard to the plots
288
claimed by petitioners, and if the
ownership of the petitioners in regard
to their respective sites which have
been acquired is not disputed, BDA
shall calculate the compensation
payable to the petitioners and give
credit to the same by adjusting the
same towards the allotment price for
the site to be allotted and call upon
the petitioners to pay the balance.
Petitioners shall be given six months
time for making payment. [To enable
petitioners to know the amount of
compensation which they will be
entitled and to ascertain how much
balance they should pay].
(v) If there are rival claimants in regard
to the survey numbers or the sites or
if any petitioners title in regard to the
sites are challenged, BDA shall make a
reference in regard to the
compensation in regard to such
site/land in question, to the Civil Court
under Section 30 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, and the
petitioners will have to sort out the
matter before the reference Court. In
that event, such petitioners will have
to pay the full allotment price within
the time stipulated, without seeking
adjustment of compensation for the
acquired site.
(vi) If any of the petitioners does not fulfil
the requirements for allotment, under
the allotment Rules, their cases may
be considered for allotment of 20′ ×
30′ sites as per the Rules containing
incentive scheme for voluntary
surrender of lands. For the purpose of
the said scheme, such petitioners will
be deemed to have voluntarily
surrendered the sites.
289
(vii) The above scheme will be available
to only those who are owners, as a
consequence of execution of registered
sale deeds in their favour prior to the
date of preliminary notification (and
not to GPA/Agreement Holders).
(D) In so far as the land owners excluding the
site owners, are entitled to the following
reliefs:—
(i) All the petitioners who are the land
owners who are seeking dropping of the
acquisition proceedings in so far as their
respective lands are concerned, on the
ground that: (a) their lands are situated
within green belt area; (b) they are
totally built up; (c) properties wherein
there are buildings constructed by
charitable, educational and/or religious
institutions (d) nursery lands; (e) who
have set-up factories (f) their lands are
similar to the lands which are adjoining
their lands but not notified for acquisition
at all, are permitted to make appropriate
application to the authorities seeking such
exclusion and exemption and producing
documents to substantiate their
contentions within one month from the
date of this order.
It is made clear that the BDA shall
consider such request keeping in mind the
status of the land as on the date of
preliminary notification and to exclude
any developments, improvements,
constructions put up subsequent to the
preliminary notification and then decide
whether their cases are similar to that of
the land owners whose lands, are notified
for acquisition, notified and whose
objections were upheld and no final
notification is issued.
290
In the event the BDA comes to the
conclusion that the lands of those persons
are similarly placed, then to exclude those
lands from acquisition.
(ii) Petitioners who are interested in availing
this benefit shall make appropriate
application within 30 days from the date
of this order and thereafter the BDA shall
give notice to those persons, hear them
and pass appropriate orders
expeditiously.
(iii) Till the aforesaid exercise is undertaken
by the BDA and the applications filed by
the petitioners either for allotment of site
or for denotifying or exemption sought for
are considered their possession shall not
be disturbed and the existing construction
shall not be demolished. After
consideration of the applications, in the
light of the aforesaid directions, if the
lands are not excluded then the BDA is at
liberty to proceed with the acquisition. ”
61.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
6
Bondu Ramaswamy while upholding the directions
5
issued by the Division Bench of this Court has issued
the following further directions:
“160. In view of the foregoing, we affirm the
directions of the Division Bench subject to the
following further directions and clarifications:
(i) In regard to the acquisition of lands in
Kempapura and Sriramapura, BDA is
directed to reconsider the objections to
the acquisitions having regard to the fact
that large areas were not initially notified
291
for acquisition, and more than 50% of
whatever that was proposed for
acquisition was also subsequently deleted
from acquisition. BDA has to consider
whether in view of deletions to a large
extent, whether development with respect
to the balance of the acquired lands has
become illogical and impractical, and if
so, whether the balance area also should
be deleted from acquisition. If BDA
proposes to continue the acquisition, it
shall file a report within four months
before the High Court so that
consequential orders could be passed.
(ii) In regard to villages of
Venkateshapura, Nagavara, Hennur and
Challakere where there are several very
small pockets of acquired lands
surrounded by lands which were not
acquired or which were deleted from the
proposed acquisition, BDA may consider
whether such small pockets should also
be deleted if they are not suitable for
forming self-contained layouts. The
acquisition thereof cannot be justified on
the ground that these small islands of
acquired land, could be used as a stand-
alone park or playground in regard to a
layout formed in a different unconnected
lands in other villages. Similar isolated
pockets in other villages should also be
dealt with in a similar manner.
(iii) BDA shall give an option to each writ
petitioner whose land has been acquired
for Arkavathi Layout:
(a) to accept allotment of 15%
(fifteen per cent) of the land
acquired from him, by way of
developed plots, in lieu of
compensation (any fractions in
excess of 15% may be charged
prevailing rates of allotment);
292
OR
(b) in cases where the extent of
land acquired exceeds half an acre,
to claim in addition to
compensation (without prejudice to
seek reference if he is not satisfied
with the quantum), allotment of a
plot measuring 30′ × 40′ for every
half acre of land acquired at the
prevailing allotment price.
(iv) Any allotment made by BDA, either
by forming layouts or by way of bulk
allotments, will be subject to the above.”
61.4 This Court in the case of Junjamma &
4
Ors., upheld the acquisition of Vishveshwaraiah Layout
subject to the following conditions:
“1. The challenge to the acquisition in all these
Writ Petitions fails and is accordingly rejected.
The acquisition is upheld subject the following
conditions.
(a) The petitioners in W.P. Nos. …………. who are
all owners of sites in question which are
acquired are entitled to the following:
(b) These petitioners shall register themselves
as applicants for allotment under the Bangalore
Development Authority [Allotment of sites]
Rules, 1984, within a period of two months from
today (extendable by another one month by
BDA, if sufficient cause is shown). Petitioners
will have to pay only the registration fee. They
need not pay initial deposit as their sites have
been acquired and they are not entitled to
293
receive compensation in regard to the sites
under this arrangement.
(c) The petitioners shall file applications for
allotment of sites to BDA within three months
from today, in the prescribed form stating that
they are applicants who were the petitioners in
these Writ Petitions. Petitioners shall file their
documents with BDA along with the application
to verify the same.
(d) BDA will treat them as applicants entitled to
priority in allotment and allot each of them a
site measuring 30′ × 40′ in Sir M.
Visweswaraiah Layout or in any other nearby
layouts in Bangalore at the prevailing allotment
prices subject to petitioners satisfying the twin
requirements for allotment under the BDA
(allotment of sites) Rules, 1984, that they must
be the residents of Bangalore (ten years
domicile) and should not be owning any
residential property in Bangalore.
(e) If there are no rival claimants for
compensation in regard to the plots claimed by
petitioners, and if the ownership of the
petitioners in regard to their respective sites-
which have been acquired is not disputed, BDA
shall calculate the compensation payable to the
petitioners and give credit to the same by
adjusting the same towards the allotment price
for the site to be allotted and call upon the
petitioners to pay the balance. Petitioners shall
be given six months time for making payment
[to enable petitioners to know the amount of
compensation which they will be entitled and to
ascertain how much balance they should pay].
(f) If there are rival claimants in regard to the
survey numbers or the sites or if any petitioners
title in regard to the sites are challenged, BDA
shall make a reference in regard to the
compensation in regard to such site/land in
question, to the Civil Court under Section 30 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the
294
petitioners will have to sort out the matter
before the reference Court. In that event, such
petitioners will have to pay the full allotment
price within the time stipulated, without seeking
adjustment of compensation for the acquired
site.
(g) If any of the petitioners does not fulfil the
requirements for allotment, under the allotment
Rules, their cases may be considered for
allotment of 20′ × 30′ sites as per the Rules
containing incentive scheme for voluntary
surrender of Land. For the purpose of the said
scheme, such petitioners will be deemed to have
voluntarily surrendered the sites.
(h) The above scheme will be available to only
those who are owners, as a consequence of
execution of registered sale deeds in their
favour prior to the date of preliminary
notification (and not to GPA/Agreement
Holders).
(i) It is left to the discretion of the authorities
also to consider the case of GPA
Holders/Agreement Holders and persons who
are claiming on the basis of affidavits the sites
in question though they are not entitled to the
same as a matter of right, only if they belong to
weaker sections, poor and down-trodden.
(j) The Authorities shall also consider whether
these petitioners have purchased the sites by
way of investment or with the intention of
having a roof over their head and based on the
said consideration, to pass appropriate orders,
in the light of the observations made in this
order.
2(a). All the petitioners who are the land owners
who are seeking dropping of the acquisition
proceedings in so far as their respective lands
are concerned, on the ground that: (a) their
lands are situated within green belt area (b)
they are totally built up; (c) converted for non -
295
agricultural use; (d) garden land and nursery
lands; (e) who have built hospitals, educational
institutions and factories; (f) who have not been
served with the notice of acquisition and (g)
who are in doubt about the inclusion of their
land in the notification are permitted to make
appropriate application to the authorities
seeking such exclusion and exemption and
producing documents to substantiate their
contentions within three months from the date
of this order.
(b) It is made clear that the authority shall
consider such request keeping in mind the
status of the land as on the date of preliminary
notification and to exclude any developments,
improvements, constructions put up subsequent
to the preliminary notification and then decide
whether their cases are similar to that of the
land owners whose objections were upheld to
the extent of 357 acres 25 guntas and in respect
of those lands no final notification is issued.
(c) In the event the Authority come to the
conclusion that those persons are similarly
placed, then to denotify their lands and exclude
them from acquisition.
(3) Petitioners who are interested in availing this
benefit shall make appropriate application within
90 days from the date of this order and
thereafter the authority shall give notice to
those persons, hear them and pass appropriate
orders expeditiously.
(4) Till the aforesaid exercise is undertaken by
the Authority and the applications filed by the
petitioners either for allotment of site or for
denotifying or exemption sought for are
considered their possession shall not be
disturbed and the existing construction shall not
be demolished. After consideration of the
application in the light of the aforesaid
directions, the Authorities are at liberty to
proceed with the acquisition. ”
296
62. Despite the detailed directions issued by a
coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of The
5
Commissioner BDA and Ors., and a few additional
directions by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bondu
,6
Ramaswamy , the same was not followed, which has
resulted in this Court in the case of Sri
11
K.P.Anjanappa appointing a Committee of three
members and issuing various directions.
63. At this juncture, the observations made by
this Court while considering the acquisitions made by
the BDA are required to be noticed:
63.1 A learned Single Judge of this Court in the
case of Sri Gangaiah Naidu, by his L.Rs., v. The
18
BDA, rep.by its Commissioner & Anr., while
considering a situation where the levy of betterment tax
was issued in respect of the lands that were denotified
has observed as follows:
“ 64. The three resolutions referred to supra by
which the BDA has resolved to levy betterment
18
ILR 2010 KAR 1794
297
tax clearly exposes the callousness with which
this power of acquisition is exercised by the
Government and Authority to formulate a
scheme of providing residential sites to needy
citizens. The law is observed more in breach. It
clearly demonstrates not only blissful ignorance
of laws but also scant respect of the law. It
clearly points out the shortcomings in the
preparation of the scheme by the BDA in the
first instance. It is obvious that before notifying
the land for acquisition, proper attention is not
given to find out the existing position. i.e., if, in
the land which falls within the scheme, whether
already buildings have come up and people are
residing, and what are the developmental
activities which has taken place. Though power
to acquire is not disputed, the said power before
it is exercised should be exercised with more
care and caution. The law provides for levy of
betterment charges in respect of those
properties which fall within the scheme and
which is going to be affected by the
development of a layout by the BDA and
provides for levy of betterment tax after hearing
such land owners. The said procedure is rarely
followed by the BDA. On the contrary even
those developed land or buildings are included
in the scheme and notified for acquisition. When
objections are filed pointing out the said facts
instead of giving relief to such deserving
persons, in most of the cases they are denied
the relief to which they are entitled to in law. On
the contrary, the lands where there is no
development at all are dropped from acquisition,
obviously for extraneous consideration. Money,
power, nearness to the seat of power and a host
of other factors come into full play behind the
scene for dropping the acquisition proceedings.
In fact, a new breed of professionals, as a class,
have come into existence who have specialized
in the art of getting the lands denotified from
acquisition proceedings. Politicians, bureaucrats,
land mafia and other professionals are all
partners in this lucrative enterprise. That is how
in Bangalore, next to IT industry, this real estate
298
business is the most attractive and lucrative
business resulting in people who are nothing in
real life have become stinking rich and powerful
overnight. Thanks to real estate business. The
money from this business has spread its
tentacles in all walks of life, thus polluting the
health and culture of the society. After
considering the objections, when the scheme is
submitted by the BDA to the Government for
approval, hardly there is any application of mind
by the Government while according sanction to
the scheme. It is almost automatic and
mechanical. The affected persons have no say in
the matter at that stage. Their elected
representatives are no better. If really the
recommendation made by the BDA is flawless,
they have considered all genuine objections and
their recommendation is based on merit and the
Government do not find any justification to
reconsider and interfere with the said
recommendation, after according sanction to the
scheme, the Government should see that the
scheme is implemented in letter and spirit But,
unfortunately in reality the conduct of the
Government is otherwise. After the Government
accords sanction to the scheme, a final
Notification is issued making known the
intention to acquire the land, as the Government
has accorded sanction. Then a spate of requests
are made to the Government for denotification
of the land. Without any reason or rhyme, again
for extraneous consideration, at the instance of
the professionals who again become active
behind the scene, indiscriminately land's are
denotified. Obviously, again it is for a price
which is not accounted anywhere.”
(emphasis supplied)
63.2 This Court in the case of Junjamma
4
& Ors., has noticed as follows:
299
“ 56. The concern shown by this Court for the
poor, needy, downtrodden and economically weaker
sections of the society should not be construed as a
license to allot sites to all the persons who have
purchased sites in the approved and unapproved
layouts and in revenue plots. Here it is emphasized
that a distinction has to be made between persons
who are struggling to have a roof over their head for
shelter and persons who are speculators and who
have purchased sites by way of investments. It could
be easily made out from the sale deeds. If sites are
purchased in the name of a family members minors
and persons who are not residents of Bangalore and
who are residing in other parts of the country,
certainly there is no obligation cast upon the authority
to allot sites in lieu of such sales. It would be a just
exercise of discretion to award them compensation for
the sites acquired. In this regard every care should be
taken to scrutinize each sale deed by the officials
concerned and keeping in mind the observations
made by this Court in these Writ Petitions and terms
of the order in respect of Anjanapura layout and see
to it that the benefit conferred under this judgment is
not misused, abused and misinterpreted. If persons
who are entitled to allotment of sites are denied the
sites and persons who are not entitled to sites are
granted sites, and if any person were to approach this
Court with the aforesaid complaint certainly this Court
would view the matter very seriously and the
concerned official who has been vested with the
power to process claims could be held personally
liable for all the consequences flowing therefrom. The
experiences gained should lead the Authority to
prompt action being taken in future to avoid repetition
of similar situation so that there could be an orderly
development of the beautiful city of Bangalore, and
the land grabbers and speculators are kept at bay and
innocent people are not lured into such helpless
situations.”
(emphasis supplied)
300
64. It is also relevant to note that while
undertaking the process of acquisition of lands the
6
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the process of
leaving out certain lands or de-notifying certain lands
are part of the process as contemplated under the Act
when the acquisition is undertaken. However, it is also
relevant to note that the obligation is on the State to act
fairly while leaving out the lands from acquisition or
issuing notifications for denotification of the lands. It is
not open to the authorities of the State to pass different
orders in respect of persons who are similarly placed.
65. While considering cases where similarly
placed lands have been left out, it is relevant to note
that at the time of filing objections to the preliminary
notification, the land owners would have placed on
record as to the nature of the land and as to why the
said land ought not to be acquired. The said objections
after being considered, the final notification has been
passed. While it is the contention of the writ petitioners
that their objections have not been properly considered,
301
and the BDA seeks to justify their action of notifying the
lands for acquisition, it is relevant to note that, the
petitioners have now placed on record various
notifications wherein lands have been de-notified as also
various instances wherein the BDA has given up lands
from acquisition. Hence, the contention of the
petitioners that they are similarly placed as persons
whose lands have been de-notified / left out of
acquisition, could not have been put forth or considered
when the land owners filed their objection to the
acquisition. Hence, the said aspect is required to be
considered having regard to the said material on record,
which exercise this Court cannot undertake under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. As has been done
earlier by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court,
the authorities are required to examine the objections of
the land owners for exclusion of their properties from
acquisition in light of the contention of the Petitioners
that similarly placed lands have been de-notified / left
out from acquisition. The authorities will necessarily
have to take into consideration factors / material on the
302
basis of which the objections of some land owners were
upheld and their lands were denotified / left out of
acquisition, while considering the cases of the present
writ petitioners. If the said lands are similarly placed,
the authorities are bound to give the same benefit. If
not, it is open to the authorities to reject their
objections and proceed further in the matter.
4
66. With regard to site owners, this Court while
considering the peculiar problems of persons of city of
Bengaluru with regard to needs for housing and having
regard to the said need emanating from the persons
belonging to economically weak and backward
communities as well as various other factors and
considering the possible solution and also noticing what
was done in the case of Anjanapura Layout, has held as
follows:
52. …………. Here I would like to suggest that
in the given case if the Authority is satisfied that
though some of the petitioners do not possess a
registered sale deed or they have acquired title
to the land after preliminary notifications or
claiming right under power of attorney or any
other mode other than by way of a registered
sale deed if such persons belonged to weaker
sections, economically backward, poor in their
303
discretion the same benefit may also be
extended to them.
53. Similarly, if a layout has already been
formed with approval of some authority or if a
pucca layout is formed even without such
approval if it is of the specifications prescribed
under the BDA Act itself and if the said layouts
could be harmonized or mingled with the layout
to be formed by the BDA as far as possible
every attempt should be made to synchronize
the said layouts with the BDA layout and if it is
possible to allot the very same sites to the
petitioners and in particular to those who have
already put up construction and living there.
That would be the best way of solving this
human and housing problem. However, if those
sites or constructions come in the way of layout
formation, it is open to the authorities to disturb
the possession of the occupants of the said sites
and buildings and allot a site in the layout to be
formed by them. All these suggestions are made
only with the fond hope of minimizing the
hardship to those site owners, to reduce the
cost of forming a layout and the heart burn is
likely to cause. The same cannot be claimed as
a matter of right by any of the petitioners.”
(emphasis supplied)
67. Hence, while considering the objections of
the site owners, the authorities are required to keep in
mind the observations made in para 66 hereinabove.
68. The observations made by this Court in the
18 4
case of Gangaiah and Junjamma & Ors., as
noticed in para 63 hereinabove are merely two
304
instances wherein, this Court has repeatedly, after
noticing the manner in which the acquisition process is
carried out has emphasized the yardstick that is
required to be adopted while implementing the process
of acquisition, keeping in mind the main purpose with
which acquisition of lands are sought to be done i.e., to
provide housing to the needy and deprived sections of
society. Hence, the BDA and the State Government are
required to take abundant care and caution in ensuring
that the directions of this Court are implemented in
letter and in spirit, in a manner to sub-serve the
interest with which the acquisition is initiated in the first
place and also while considering the lands to be
acquired and the allotment of sites, the interest of the
poor, needy, downtrodden and economically weaker
sections of the society should be the paramount
consideration.
69. In view of the aforementioned, the
following:
305
ORDER
i) The above appeals filed by the BDA are
allowed;
ii) The order dated 11.7.2014 passed by the
learned Single Judge in WP No.32186/2010 and
other connected writ petitions is set aside. The
orders passed in writ petitions which are decided
placing reliance on the order dated 11.7.2014
passed in WP No.32186/2010 and other
connected writ petitions are also set aside;
iii) The preliminary notification bearing
No.BDA/ COMMR/DC(LA)/ALAO/158/2008-2009,
Bangalore, dated 21.5.2008 and the final
notification bearing No. UDD 51 MNX 2010,
Bangalore, dated 18.2.2010 issued for acquisition
of lands for the formation of the “Nadaprabhu
Kempegowda Layout” are upheld subject to the
following conditions:
a) With regard to the land owners
(excluding the site owners):
306
i) All the land owners/writ petitioners
who are seeking for dropping of their lands
from acquisition on the ground that their
lands are (1) nursery lands; (2) situated
within green belt; (3) totally built up; (4)
that the buildings are constructed by
religious/charitable educational institutions;
(5) that similar adjoining lands have been
either left out from acquisition or de-
notified, are permitted to make an
application to the BDA seeking for dropping
of their lands from acquisition by producing
all such material that they deem
fit/necessary in support of their applications
within 3 months from today;
(ii) The BDA shall consider each of the
said application/s keeping in mind the
status of the lands as on the date of the
preliminary notification and without taking
into consideration any developments /
improvements / constructions made
subsequent to the preliminary notification;
307
iii) The BDA shall complete the exercise
of considering the applications of the writ
petitioners and deciding on the same within
an outer limit of six months from today;
iv) The BDA, upon consideration of the
applications shall intimate the writ
petitioners about its decision;
v) If the BDA is of the opinion that the
acquisition will have to be proceeded with,
the BDA is at liberty to proceed further in
accordance with law;
b) Insofar as the site owners who have
not made an application as contemplated in para
(iii)(a) hereinabove:
i) They shall register themselves for
allotment under the BDA (Allotment of
Sites) Rules, 1984 within three months
from today by paying the registration fee.
However, payment of initial deposit by
them is exempted. The necessary
documents along with the said applications
308
are also to be filed to enable the BDA to
verify the same;
ii) The BDA shall treat the applicants as
being entitled for priority allotment and
allot each of them a site measuring 30x40
feet in the Nadaprabhu Kempegowda
Layout at the prevailing allotment prices
subject to the applicants satisfying the dual
requirements of allotment under the Rules
that they must be the residents of
Bengaluru (for 10 years) and should not be
owning any residential property in
Bengaluru;
iii) In case the applicants/writ petitioners
do not fulfill the requirements for allotment
under the Rules, 1984 they may be
considered for allotment of 20x30 feet sites
as per the Bangalore Development
Authority ( Incentive Scheme for Voluntary
Surrender of Land ) Rules, 1989;
c) Insofar as the owners of residential
sites who form part of a layout and who have
309
sought for dropping their lands from acquisition
in accordance with para (iii)(a) hereinabove, the
BDA shall consider the same having regard to the
observations made at para 66 hereinabove. If the
BDA rejects their applications, the site owners
who have first filed applications pursuant to para
(iii)(a) hereinabove, shall be entitled to a further
period of one month after the decision as
contemplated therein is intimated to opt to and
apply in the manner as contemplated in para
(iii)(b) hereinabove.
iv) Till the aforesaid exercise directed to be
undertaken by the BDA and the applications filed
by the writ petitioners, either for allotment of
sites or for dropping of the lands from acquisition
are considered, their possession shall not be
disturbed and the existing construction shall not
be demolished.
310
v) In view of the allowing of the above
appeals, pending interlocutory applications, if
any, stand disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
ND/BS
CT-YSP, SL