Karnataka High Court
M Koshy vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 October, 2014
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S.Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION Nos.56713-14/2013 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
M.Koshy,
S/o.Mathew,
Aged about 71 years,
R/a.No.2, Koshy Cottage,
Amarjyothi Layout,
Thanisandra,
Bangalore - 560 045.
Since dead, rep. by his LRs.
1(a). Smt.Mariamma Koshy,
W/o.M.Koshy @ Mathai Koshy,
Aged about 66 years,
Permanent resident of India,
No.2, Amarjyothi Layout, Ashwathnagar,
Thanisandra,
Bangalore - 560 077.
1(b). Sri.Binoj Koshy,
S/o.Late M.Koshy @ Mathai Koshy,
Aged about 43 years,
Permanent resident of India,
No.2, Amarjyothi Layout, Ashwathnagar,
2
Thanisandra,
Bangalore - 560 077.
Serving as Lt. Col in the
Indian Army Camp,
Gandhinagar, Gujarat-382042.
1(c). Sri.Biju Koshy,
S/o.Late M.Koshy @ Mathai Koshy,
Aged about 40 years,
Permanent resident of India,
No.2, Amarjyothi Layout, Ashwathnagar,
Thanisandra,
Bangalore - 560 077.
1(d). Mrs.Biji Ronald George,
D/o.Late M.Koshy @ Mathai Koshy,
Aged about 35 years,
Permanent resident of India,
No.2, Amarjyothi Layout, Ashwathnagar,
Thanisandra,
Bangalore - 560 077.
The LRs 1 (b) to (d) have executed
Power of Attorney and are rep.
By their mother
1.a.Smt.Mariamma Koshy. ...PETITIONERS
(Amended as per court order dated 1.7.2014)
(By Sri.V.Shiva Reddy, Adv., for G.Gangi Reddy)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
3
Department of Housing and Urban Development,
M.S.Building,
Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Bangalore Development Authority,
T.Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020.
Rep. by its Commissioner.
3. The Addl. Land Acquisition Officer,
BDA, T.Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West,
Bangalore - 560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.S.V.Girikumar, AGA for R1;
Sri.M.N.Ramajaneya Gowda, Adv. for R2 & 3)
******
These petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned
endorsements dated 12.6.2013 and 23.11.2013 vide Ann-H
and J respectively.
These petitions coming on for Orders this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
I.A.No.3/14 is filed seeking to bring on record the additional facts and grounds based on the documents produced along with the application. The application is 4 allowed. The facts pleaded, grounds urged and the documents produced are made as part of the petitions.
2. The petitioners are before this court assailing the endorsements dated 12.6.2013 and 23.11.2013 which are impugned at Annexures-'H' and 'J' respectively. The petitioners are also seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law in the light of the directions issued by this court in the earlier petitions as referred and also as per the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3. The petitioners claim to be the owners of the property bearing Sy.Nos.8/1 and 8/2B of Thanisandra Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore, measuring 24 guntas and 1 acre 26 guntas respectively. The fact that the said property was included in the Notification for acquisition of the property for formation of Arkavathi Layout is the 5 admitted position. The petitioner however contending that the said lands are developed and therefore not fit for being utilized for formation of the layout had made representation seeking that the land in question be deleted from the process of acquisition. By the endorsements impugned at Annexures-'H' and 'J' respectively, the request of the petitioner has been rejected.
4. On noticing the contentions put forth on behalf of the petitioners as also the respondents, a perusal of the endorsements disclose that the detailed consideration of the case as put forth by the petitioner claiming that a school building is constructed and the adjoining open area is being utilized as the play ground for the school, has not been specifically adverted to except stating in the endorsements that the supporting documents have not been produced. It is no doubt true that in the endorsements it has been stated that as per the inspection of the spot, no building had been noticed. However, the documents which have 6 been produced along with the application and which have been taken on record would refer to the area being used as a play ground and the school building being situated. In such circumstance, these are all factual aspects which shall have to be taken into consideration by the respondents keeping in view the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy Vs. Bangalore Development Authority (2010)7 SCC 129 and thereafter appropriate consideration in that regard is to be made. To enable appropriate consideration, the petitioners have to be given an opportunity to file additional documents with the respondents to enable the respondents to consider the case in an appropriate manner.
5. To enable such consideration, the endorsements dated 12.6.2013 and 23.11.2013 Annexures-'H' and 'J' are quashed. The petitioners shall now file copies of the representations along with all supporting documents with the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent shall reconsider the 7 matter in accordance with law and in the light of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and pass appropriate orders thereto in an expeditious manner but not later than three months from the date on which the copies are furnished. Needless to mention that if the consideration is in favour of the petitioners, the 3rd respondent shall place the proposal before the 2nd respondent who shall also thereafter decide the matter in an expeditious manner. Until the consideration is made and a decision is taken, the status-quo existing as on today shall be maintained.
In terms of the above, the petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Dvr: