SRI M MOHAN KUMAR v. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Judgment
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 1781 OF 2019 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN:
1. SRI M MOHAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE M G RAJU, NO.1, 2ND MAIN, 3RD PHASE, J P NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 078.
2. SRI MAGANLAL R PATEL, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O LATE RAMJI PATEL, R/AT SITE NO 1/1, OLD KATHA NO 298, NEW NO 420/1, GOTTIGERE VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 083.
3. SRI BHARAT M PATEL, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O MAGANLAL R PATEL, R/AT SITE NO 1, OLD KATHA NO 298, NEW NO 420, GOTTIGERE VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 083. (BY SRI ABHINAV R, ADVOCATE) AND:
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:10546 WP No. 1781 of 2019 HC-KAR
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N R SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 002.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. (BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2; SMT. CHANDINI SINGH, HCGP FOR R-3) …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF PROHIBITION FORBEARING THE RESPONDENTS FROM CARRYING OUT ANY ACTIVITY OF WIDENING OF ROAD [BANNERGHATTA ROAD] AND OTHER RELATED ANCILLARY ACTIVITIES SUCH AS DIGGING OF TRENCHES, BUILDING CULVERTS DITCHES, ETC IN RESPECT AND IN RELATION TO THE SCHEDULE PROEPRTY WITHIN UNDERTAKING THE REQUISITE DUE PROCESS OF LAW ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: "a) Issue a writ in the nature of prohibition forbearing the Respondents from carrying out any activity of widening of road (Bannerghatta Road) and other related ancillary activities such as digging of trenches, building culverts ditches etc. in respect and in relation to the Schedule Property without undertaking the requisite due process of law. b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondents to undertake any development or - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:10546 WP No. 1781 of 2019 HC-KAR relation road widening measures Bannerghatta Road adjoining the Schedule Property only after complying with the requirements of law and acquiring the properties by paying compensation as required by law. c) Grant costs; and d) Such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity. "
2. The grievance of the petitioner when he approached this Court on 11.01.2019 by filing the above petition was that without acquiring the land of the petitioner, the respondents are proposing to widen Bannerghatta road.
3. The learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2- BBMP submits that the said road would be widened by following due procedure of law by acquiring the land and making payment of the compensation to the Petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner today submits that, if acquisition is resorted to, the petitioner will have no objection for the said acquisition so long as the compensation is paid in terms of the Right to Fair - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:10546 WP No. 1781 of 2019 HC-KAR Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Writ petition is disposed reserving liberty to the respondents to acquire the land of the for the petitioner to the extent required purpose of widening of the Bannerghatta road under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and making payment of compensation to the petitioner. ii) Until the acquisition is made and compensation is paid, respondents are restrained dispossessing the petitioner from the subject property. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.