Karnataka v. (BY SRI K. KRISHNA, ADV., FOR R-1 TO R-4)
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Bangalore Development Act, 1976 s. 33(1)
Judgment
1. SMT. MARY THERESA RAJ AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS W/O LATE B.T. RAJ.
2. SRI DANIEL BENEDICT VIJAY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O LATE B T RAJ.
3. DR. TONY DAVID SANJIV AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O LATE B.T. RAJ. ALL RESIDING AT NO.1846 4TH MAIN ROAD, 5TH B CROSS 3RD BLOCK HRBR LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560 043 ALSO RESIDING AT OLD NO.1846 CORPORATION NO.217, OLD SY.NO.14/2 KACHARAKANAHALLI, 4TH MAIN ROAD 5TH B CROSS, HRBR LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560 043. (BY SRI K. DIVAKAR, ADV. FOR SRI SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADV.) AND:
THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, K.P. WEST BANGALORE - 560 020.
THE SECRETARY AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: High Court of Karnataka …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:25360 WP No. 15885 of 2022 K.P. WEST BANGALORE - 560 020.
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BDA NORTH SUB DIVISION, R.T. NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 032.
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY NO.4, BDA NORTH SUB DIVISION BDA SHOPPING COMPLEX, R.T. NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 032. (BY SRI K. KRISHNA, ADV., FOR R-1 TO R-4) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE BEARING NO.BDA/AEE/N-4/UAC/HRBR/2022-23/618 DTD 03.08.2022 ISSUED U/S 33(1) OF THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHROITY (BDA) ACT 1976 ISSUED BY THE R4 I.E., ANNEXURE-A AS ARBITRARY AND UNJUST, APART FROM BEING WHOLLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER
1. On the ground that Site No.5AC-313, HRBR 3rd Block Layout in Survey No.14/2, Kacharakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk the property of Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) and the petitioners have put up an illegal construction, BDA has issued a notice under Section 33(1) of the Bangalore Development Act, 1976 asking the - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:25360 WP No. 15885 of 2022 petitioners to show cause as to why an order to demolish the said construction should not be passed. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed with a prayer to set aside the show cause notice.
2. What is issued to the petitioners by BDA is only a show cause notice stating that the property belongs to the BDA and the petitioners have put up an illegal construction and that why the said property should not be demolished and why further action should not be initiated against the petitioners. The petitioners are always having a liberty to effectively reply to the said show cause notice to the BDA and if the petitioners are of the opinion that property does not belong to the BDA and it belongs to them, they are at liberty to submit records to the BDA in this regard also. It is needless to state that BDA will consider all the objections raised by the petitioners and take appropriate action thereafter. For that reason, the writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to show cause to the impugned notice issued by BDA on or before
19.07.2024 and if the BDA intends to initiate any action in respect of the property concerned including the structure - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:25360 WP No. 15885 of 2022 constructed thereon, the same shall be done only after taking an appropriate decision on the reply to be given by the petitioners. Sd/- JUDGE VMB CT:DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33
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.