SMT. SYED FATHIMA BEGUM v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 s. 17
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. In my view, since the issues raised in the writ petition are already covered with the decision rendered by a Division Bench and also by the co-ordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.24709 of 2017, this writ petition will also have to be allowed in…
Judgment
1. SMT. SYED FATHIMA BEGUM W/O LATE SYED RAFIUL HUQ AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
2. SYED KADHIJA SHAHIN D/O LATE. SYED RAFIUL HUQ AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
3. SYED SAMIUL HUQ S/O LATE. SYED RAFIUL HUQ AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
4. SYED WASSIUL HUQ S/O LATE. SYED RAFIUL HUQ AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS Location: high court of karnataka ALL ARE R/AT NO.240/3 2ND CROSS, NEAR D.P.S. SOUTH MANGO GARDEN LAYOUT KONANAKUNTE CROSS BENGALURU - 560 062 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI: SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:13306 WP No. 17771 of 2021 M.S. BUILDINGS BENGALURU - 560 001
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOUDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU - 560 020 REPTD, BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOUDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU - 560 020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA .K., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & 3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 19.01.1978 ISSUED UNDER SUB SECTION (1) AND (3) OF SECTION 17 OF THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976 (IN SHORT BDA ACT) VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 28TH DECEMBER 1982, ISSUED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF THE BDA ACT, FOR THE FORMATION OF THE FURTHER EXTENSION OF RAJMAHAL VILAS II STAGE LAYOUT, VIDE ANNEXURE-B AS LAPSED UNDER SECTION 27 OF BDA ACT, IN RESPECT OF PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY; OR DECLARE DATED 19.01.1978, ISSUED UNDER SUB SECTION (1) AND (3) OF SECTION 17 OF THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976 (IN SHORT BDA ACT) VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 28TH DECEMBER 1982, ISSUED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF THE BDA ACT, FOR THE FORMATION OF THE LAYOUT CALLED RAJMAHAL VILAS II STAGE LAYOUT VIDE ANNEXURE-B AS ABANDONED AND IN RESPECT OF PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO PAY COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONERS NOTIFICATION PRELIMINARY IN-VALID, THE - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:13306 WP No. 17771 of 2021 AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT 2013 AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER
1. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the preliminary Notification dated 19.01.1978 issued under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short "the BDA Act") and the declaration dated
28.12.1982 issued under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act, on the ground that the scheme had lapsed as contemplated under Section 27 of the BDA Act. The land involved in this petition is land bearing Sy.No.33 to an extent of 1 acre.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court in Writ Petition No.24709 of 2017, basing its decision on the earlier Division Bench ruling rendered in the case of Dr.A.Parthasarathy and Others V. State of Karnataka and Others1, has concluded that the scheme had lapsed and has directed the BDA to initiate acquisition 1 ILR 2017 KAR 3489 - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:13306 WP No. 17771 of 2021 proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re- settlement Act, 2013, since it is claimed by the BDA that it had utilized the schedule lands for formation of layout or, in the alternative, directed the BDA to grant alternative land commensurate to the market value of the lands or allot developed lands or sites equivalent to the market value of the scheduled lands. He, therefore, submits that when this Court has already held that the acquisition of the RMV, II Stage layout has been held to have lapsed, at least in so far as Sy.No.33 is concerned, this writ petition which is filed in respect of the remaining portion of Sy.No.33, would also have to be allowed.
3. Learned counsel for the BDA, on the other hand, submits that it is against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.24709 of 2017, an appeal has been preferred in Writ Appeal FR No.443 of 2024 and he, therefore, requests that the matter be deferred for consideration. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:13306 WP No. 17771 of 2021
In my view, since the issues raised in the writ petition are already covered with the decision rendered by a Division Bench and also by the co-ordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.24709 of 2017, this writ petition will also have to be allowed in the same terms. It is accordingly allowed. Sd/- JUDGE *bgn/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 — s. 17.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Karnataka High Court, on 19 Jan 1978. The bench was N S SANJAY GOWDA.
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.