Writ Petition No. 2512 of 2017 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:23783 WP No. 2512 of 2017 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 2512 OF 2017 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN:
Legal Reasoning
1. SRI K.CHANNAKESHAVAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O D.KRISHNAMURTHY @ D.KRISHNAPPA, R/AT NO.40, SANEGURUVANEHALLI, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 079. 2. SRI K.RAVIKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O D.KRISHNAMURTHY @ D.KRISHNAPPA, R/AT NO.40, SANEGURUVANEHALLI, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 079. …PETITIONERS Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka (BY SRI MUNIYAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA KRUPA, BENGALURU – 560 020. 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA KRUPA, BENGALURU – 560 020. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD 10.6.2013 ISSUED BY THE R-1 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:23783 WP No. 2512 of 2017 HC-KAR THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayers: "(a) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the Endorsement dated 10.06.2013 bearing No.BE A PRA/SA AA/MA MA/F.NO.23/13-14 issued by the Respondent No.1 [produced at Annexure-A] (b) Issue a direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus to the Respondent No.1 to consider the representation made by the petitioners dated 20.09.2012 [produced at Annexure-B] and to allot an alternative site as contemplated under Rule 11-A of the Bangalore Development Authority [Allotment of Sites] Rules or in the alternative to pay compensation to the property belonged to the grandmother of the Petitioners, acquired by the BDA; (c) Any other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Heard Muniyappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, B.S.Sachin, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and have perused the material on record. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:23783 WP No. 2512 of 2017 HC-KAR 3. The issue in the lis is with regard to payment of compensation to the petitioners for usage of the land by the Bangalore Development Authority for formation of the road. Petitioners are said to be fighting for payment of compensation for several years now. During the subsistence of the subject petition, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, a joint survey or joint inspection was conducted. The result of the joint inspection is placed before this Court. In terms of the joint inspection so conducted, it transpires that several packets of the land of the petitioners have been utilized for the purpose of formation of road out of the large extent where road is already formed, apart from the fact that about 800 sq.ft has been allotted to an allottee who had applied to the hands of the BDA. This is what is borne out from the joint inspection report. 4. Learned counsel Sri.Muniyappa, appearing for the petitioners accepts the report in toto and submits that the compensation be determined in terms of what the joint inspection report is. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA B.S.Sachin would submit that the extent is - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:23783 WP No. 2512 of 2017 HC-KAR large and the extent of formation of road and any allotment would be determined on consideration of the representation of the petitioners, but however, has filed a detailed note with regard to what the survey report would indicate. The survey report indicates the following: "As per the survey report dated 10.08.2023 a) Total extent of the land 948.87 SQ. Mts (10,213.55 SQ. Ft) b) The BDA has utilised the land for the purpose of road to the extent of 203.12 SQ. Mts (2186.54 SQ. Ft) c) The BDA has utilised the land for the purpose of formation of site to the extent of 74.32 SQ. Mts (800 SQ. Ft) d) In total BDA has utilised 277.44 SQ. Mts (2986.4 SQ. Ft) e) The petitioner has sold the portion of the property to the extent of 66.65 SQ. Mts (717.41 SQ. Ft) 2. Ownership of the petitioner a. The petitioner purchased the property site No 47 measuring 741.36 SQ. Mts (7980 SQ. Ft) b. The petitioner has sold the portion of the property to the extent of 66.65 SQ. Mts (717.41 SQ. Ft) c. As on today the petitioner is the owner of the land measuring 674.71 SQ. Mts (7262.51 SQ. Ft) 3. BDA UTILISITION - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23783 WP No. 2512 of 2017 HC-KAR i. The BDA has utilised the land for the purpose of road to the extent of 203.12 SQ. Mts (2186.54 SQ. Ft) ii. The BDA has utilised the land for the purpose of formation of site to the extent of 74.32 SQ. Mts (800 SQ. Ft) iii. In total BDA has utilised 277.44 SQ. Mts (2986.4 SQ. Ft) 4. Total extent of land - petitioners' ownership = Additional Land {948.87 SQ. Mts (10,213.55 SQ. Ft) 674.71 SQ. Mts (7262.51 SQ. Ft)} Additional land = 274.16 SQ. Mts (2951.40 SQ. Ft) 5. ADDITIONAL LAND - BDA UTILIZED LAND = PETITIONERS LAND {274.16 SQ. Mts (2951.40 SQ. Ft) - 277.44 SQ. Mts (2986.4 SQ. Ft)} PETITIONERS LAND = 3.28 SQ. Mts (35.306 SQ. Ft) 6. The BDA has utilised the petitioners land to the extent of 3.28 SQ. Mts (35.306 SQ. Ft)" 5. In the light of acceptance by both the parties of the joint inspection report or survey report as the case would be, I deem it appropriate to answer prayer (b) of the petitioners which is a direction to consider the representation of the petitioners. The representation of the petitioners shall merit consideration strictly in consonance with the report of the survey which both the petitioners and the respondent are accepting. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:23783 WP No. 2512 of 2017 HC-KAR 6. Since the petitioners have been fighting for compensation for years, I deem it appropriate to direct the BDA to consider representation of the petitioners as per the survey report dated 10.08.2023 and pass necessary orders, in accordance with law, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Thus, there is no reason to believe that the BDA would drive the petitioners yet again to this Court on the same cause of action. The petitioners are entitled to applicable rate of interest as is obtaining in law and damages. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32 CT:SS Page No.06 is retyped and replaced vide Court order dated 10.07.2025