Karnataka High Court
Smt.R.Bhagyalakshmi vs State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2022
Bench: Chief Justice, Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT APPEAL NO.145 OF 2022 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1 . SMT. R. BHAGYALAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
W/O. SRI R. SHYAMPRASAD REDDY
2 . SRI R SHYAMPRASAD REDDY
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
S/O. LATE R.T. MALLAREDDY
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
FLAT NO. 702,
'SAI KUTEER APARTMENT',
SY. NO. 2/1, VIDYANAGAR,
THANISANDRA VILLAGE,
DR. SHIVARAMKARANTH POST,
BENGALURU - 560 077.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K. SUMAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
-2-
KUMARA PARK WEST EXTENSION,
BENGALURU - 560 020,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST EXTENSION,
BENGALURU - 560 020.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S. RAJASHEKAR, AGA FOR R1)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 27/09/2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN W.P. NO.19783/2018 (ALONG WITH CONNECTED
MATTERS I.E., W.P. NO.51929/2014 CONNECTED WITH OTHER
WRIT PETITIONS) DISMISSING THE SAID WRIT PETITION AND
TO CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION NO.
19783/2018 FILED BY THE APPELLANTS AS PRAYED FOR AND TO
AWARD COSTS AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF(S) AS THIS
HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND EXPEDIENT IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, SURAJ GOVINDARAJ J. DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Mr.S.Rajashekar, learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1.
2. This intra-Court appeal has been filed challenging the decision of learned Single Judge dated 27.09.2021 in W.P. No.51929/2014 and connected matters.
3. The appellant/petitioner filed W.P.No.19783/2018 challenging the acquisition of two -3- sites belonging to him measuring 40 X 72 ft. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by learned Single Judge holding that the land, out of which, the sites have been formed i.e., Sy.No.46/2 measuring about 2 acres 9 guntas had been acquired by Bengaluru Development Authority (for short 'BDA'). After taking possession, 13 sites were formed and allotted to various applicants, who had sought the sites. It is this dismissal which is under challenge.
4. Sri.K.Suman, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant by referring to and relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy & Ors vs. Bangalore Development Authority [(2010) 7 SCC 129], more particularly, paragraph No.145 (iv) submits that the land owners whose land are situated in small pockets and the land surrounded has been deleted would also have the benefit of the said decision and in that case, relief could be granted to the land owners to seek for deletion of the same from the acquisition proceedings. It is further submitted that the land of the petitioner being two small sites would form an island and therefore, the same would not be beneficial and not suitable for formation of a layout by the BDA who had acquired the land and as such, the petitioner is also entitled -4- for the benefit of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bondu Ramaswamy's case at paragraph 145 (iv). He also relies on the conclusion of the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 160 (ii) to contend that where the land of the petitioner is in small pockets, the same could be deleted as the same not being suitable for forming self- contained layout and the acquisition not being justified.
5. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
6. The only contention of learned Senior counsel is that the two sites of the petitioner form a small area and therefore, they are not suitable for formation of the layout and the said sites ought to have been deleted and on this basis, the writ petition ought to have been allowed and the acquisition in respect of the petitioner's sites be quashed.
7. We have perused paragraph 145 (iv) and paragraph 160 (ii) of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bondu Ramaswamy's case as well as the reasons of the learned Single Judge at paragraph 75 of the impugned judgment.
-5-
8. A perusal of the same indicates that the sites of the petitioner is a part of a larger property measuring 2 acre 9 guntas in Sy.No.46/2 of Amruthahalli Village. There is no dispute that the entire land in Sy.No.46/2 has been acquired for the purpose of formation of the Arkavathy Layout along with other land. While taking the extent of land in totality. the extent of 2 acre 9 guntas cannot be said to be an island entitling the petitioner's case to the benefit of paragraph 145 (iv) of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bondu Ramaswamy's case.
9. Admittedly, it is not only the two sites of the petitioner which are acquired. In that view of the matter, the case of the petitioner does not come within the purview of paragraph 145 (iv) or paragraph 160 (ii) of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bondu Ramaswamy's case.
10. In view thereof and the learned Single Judge having already accepted the fact that BDA has formed 13 sites and allotted the same to the applicants, we do not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned Single.
11. The writ appeal stands dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
-6-
12. The pending interlocutory application stands disposed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE VM