Writ Petition No. 19708 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3053-DB WP No. 19708 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 19708 OF 2024 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. R VIJAYKUMAR, SON OF LATE B. RAMIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, (BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED) RESIDING AT NO.86, BYALKERE VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 089. AADHAR NO.635350453541 2. SMT. MANGALA GOWRI, WIFE OF B. RAJAGOPAL, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, (BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED) NO.295, 15/A CROSS, 1ST PHASE NEW TOWN, YALAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064. (BY SRI. ROHAN HOSMATH.,ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDIAH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 020. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3053-DB WP No. 19708 of 2024 3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, DR. K SHIVARAM KARANTH LAYOUT, OFFICE OF BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDIAH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 020. 4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DR. K. SHIVARAM KARANTH LAYOUT, OFFICE OF BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDIAH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 020.
Legal Reasoning
grievance that has been projected before this court in the subject petition and if BDA would consider the representation of the petitioners in the light of the order passed in W.P.No.14082/2023 (LA-BDA) between SMT.ANASUYAMMA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, disposed on 4.12.2024, would suffice for the present. Learned counsel for the BDA submits that if representation would be submitted by the petitioners and would merit consideration, then necessary orders would be passed, in accordance with law. In the light of the said submission, the following
Arguments
(BY SRI.SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR.,ADV., FOR R2 TO R4; SMT.CHANDINI S., HCGP FOR R1) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI/ QUASHING THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 30.10.2008 GAZETTED ON 31.12.2008 BEARING NO.BDA/COMMR/DC(LA)/SLAO/A5/PR/283/2008-09 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT No-2 INSO FAR AS THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND B) ISSUE A WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 30.10.2018 GAZETTED ON 01.11.2018 BEARING No.UDD/553/MNX/2018 BENGALURU INSO FAR AS THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3053-DB WP No. 19708 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M NAGAPRASANNA) Heard Sri. Rohan Hosmath, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri. Chandini S, HCGP, for Respondent No.1 and Sri. Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, learned counsel for Respondents 2 to 4. 2. Petitioners are before this court seeking the following prayers: " a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Preliminary notification dated 30.10.2008 gazetted on 31.12.2008 No.BDA/COMMR/ DC(LA)/SLAO/A5/PR/283/2008-2009 issued by Respondent No.2 the schedule property produced at Annexure-A; insofar as bearing b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of the Final certiorari quashing notification dated 30.10.2018 gazetted on 01.11.2018 bearing No.UDD/553/MNX/2018, Bengaluru insofar as the schedule property produced at Annexure-E; c) Issue a writ, order or direction to Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.5 to regularize the schedule property; - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3053-DB WP No. 19708 of 2024 d) Issue any other writ, order of directions as may be necessary in the interest of justice and equity." 3. Pursuant to the notification of acquisition, the petitioners had approached the Committee constituted by the Apex Court-A.V.Chandrashekar Committee seeking regularization of the construction. The Committee opines that the construction can be regularized but the situation now is that the road passes through the construction of the property of the petitioners. Therefore, the regularization that is made has become of no avail to the petitioners. Identical cases which had projected of some what similar circumstances, have all been decided by this court by observing as follows: “3. Petitioner claims to be the owner of the property and further claims to have put up certain construction in the schedule property, as depicted in the schedule to the petition. The subject matter is of the acquisition of land which included the land of the petitioner for formation of Dr.Shivaram Karanth The construction of the petitioner in the subject property is now passing through the road in the RMP for formation of layout and formation of roads in the layout. In such situation the Committee constituted by the Apex Court in Layout. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3053-DB WP No. 19708 of 2024 terms of order dated 21.08.2023 has evolved a solution. 4. In terms of what the Committee directs is that where the buildings would fall in the alignment of the road wholly or partially, the buildings need an evaluation if it has been regularized by the Apex Court and buildings which have been not regularized and those which have come up after 03.08.2018 would be deemed to be unauthorized and they do not merit any compensation. However the land which has been acquired and the building owner of the said land may be compensated with the land on land basis. 5. Learned Advocate General along with Mr.Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar would submit that they are agreeable for the solution that the Committee has found as quoted herein above. “Document No.1 JUSTICE A V CHANDRASHEKAR COMMITTEE BDA HEAD OFFICE, KUMARAPARK WEST BANGALORE – 560 020. PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE JCC No. /114/2023-24 DATED 21.08.2023 Sub: Regularised buildings on RMP and Layout roads. Ref: 1) Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 11.10.2022 2) 30th Report dated 2.12.2022 sent by JCC 3) Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 6.12.2022 *** - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3053-DB WP No. 19708 of 2024 In the course of execution of the Layout, certain roads have been re- engineered and alignments also modified depending upon the topography. As a consequence it is now found that in a few cases buildings exist in the alignment of the road fully/partially. The best course of action in these cases is to follow the procedure that was followed at the time of construction of Intermediate Ring Road so as to avoid unnecessary litigation and The consequent slippage following procedure therefore needs to be adopted. in work. 1. In cases where building fall in the alignment of the road wholly or partially, the building has to be valued concerned, Engineer by compensation determined and paid to the building owner by the SLAO concerned. the 2. The building owner should be compensation for the land on a land to land basis viz., equivalent extent of land he is loosing for the road should be given to him as close as possible to his existing property. DR.S.T.RAMESH JAYAKAR JEROMEA V CHANDRASHEKAR MEMBER MEMBER CHAIRMAN TO. 1. The Commissioner, BDA 2. The Engineer Member, BDA 3. The Town Planner Member, BDA 4. THE Secretary, BDA 5. The Deputy Commissioner, (LA) BDA - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3053-DB WP No. 19708 of 2024 6. Proceedings file” Document No.2 JUSTICE A V CHANDRASHEKAR COMMITTEE BDA HEAD OFFICE, KUMARAPARK WEST BANGALORE – 560 020. PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE JCC No. /198/2023-24 DATED 07.11.2023 Sub: Regularised buildings on RMP and Layout roads. Ref: 1) Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 11.10.2022 2) 30th Report dated 2.12.202 sent by JCC 3) Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 6.12.2022 4) Proceedings of the JCC No.114/2023-24 dated 2108.2023. *** With reference to the above subject, the issued clarification following specifically for the reference No.4 cited above. is in fall While the buildings the alignment of the road wholly or partially, the building needs to be valued only if it has been regularized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Buildings which have not been regularized and those which have come up after 3rd August 2018 are deemed illegal to be unauthorized/ buildings. Therefore, they do not merit compensation. However, since the land has been the building owner may be acquired - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3053-DB WP No. 19708 of 2024 TO. compensated with the land on a land to land basis viz., equivalent extent of the land he is losing for the road, should be given to him as close to his existing property, as possible. DR.S.T.RAMESH JAYAKAR JEROMEA V CHANDRASHEKAR MEMBER MEMBER CHAIRMAN 1. The Commissioner, BDA 2. The Engineer Member, BDA 3. The Town Planner Member, BDA 4. THE Secretary, BDA 5. The Deputy Commissioner, (LA) BDA 6. All the SLAOs, BDA 7. Sri.Satish, Engineer Officer-2, BDA 8. Sri.Niranjan, Executive Engineer, BDA 9. Proceedings file” is at liberty 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that inter alia the petitioner has several to submit a grievances, he representation to the BDA venting out those grievances and the BDA would consider the same in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not gone into merit of the claim of the petitioner and deem grievance of it appropriate to dispose of the petition by directing the BDA to consider the solution that is put forth by the Committee as quoted herein above in the case where the building would fall in the alignment of the road wholly or partially. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at this juncture would seek reasonable time to vacate the premises in which the petitioner is a resident. The time according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is three months, which is seriously objected by the learned Advocate - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:3053-DB WP No. 19708 of 2024 But, in our view, General. it would be reasonable if the petitioner is permitted three months time to vacate the premises after the determination as observed herein above by the BDA. The BDA shall expedite the process, co- terminus with the time that is granted to the petitioner for such vacation. 7. The learned Advocate General submits that there are 310 such cases, instead of driving everyone to court, we feel it appropriate to observe that this would be the formula that would be adopted by the BDA in all such cases. Therefore we direct that this would be the solution to all such cases identical to the ones that are decided in the cases at hand and in those properties the BDA shall not evict the persons in the properties till about three months from those respective residents staking a claim to such solution that is now projected herein above. It would be the duty of the BDA to communicate this order to all the 310 cases that is projected by the learned Advocate General. is noted herein above 8. The learned Advocate General would submit that if 15 days time as an outer limit is given to the BDA to bring about the solution in terms of what would be appropriate. We agree with the suggestion of the learned Advocate General and direct the BDA to bring about a solution as observed herein above within 15 days from today and three months time would get reckoned from the completion of 15th day, in all the 310 cases, including that of the subject cases. “ 4. In the light of the aforesaid orders, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they would submit - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:3053-DB WP No. 19708 of 2024 a representation to the respondent-BDA venting out their
Decision
ORDER [i] Petitioners, if they so desire, shall submit a representation to the respondent-BDA within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the BDA shall within six weeks thereafter consider the representation and pass necessary orders, in accordance with law bearing in mind the observations made by this - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:3053-DB WP No. 19708 of 2024 court in W.P.No.14082/2023 disposed on 4.12.2024 and a decision taken thereof shall be communicated to the petitioners. [ii] Till the decision is taken by the BDA, the status quo qua the property be maintained by the parties. With the aforesaid observations, this petition stand disposed. Ordered accordingly. Costs made easy. Sd/- (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE cbc List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18