Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 26544 (KAR)

SRI SAMPATH KUMAR SAMBU v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/16170/2024 · 2025-03-07

Krishna S Dixit, M Nagaprasanna

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10145-DB WP No. 16170 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 16170 OF 2024 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SAMPATH KUMAR SAMBU, SON OF SIVANAGAIAH SETTY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, NO. B405, S V LEGACY APARTMENT HOPE FARM JUNCTION, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE - 560 066. 2. SMT. NAGAMALLESWARI METLA, WIFE OF SRINU BABBA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, FLAT NO. SO1, SARATHY APARTMENTS, 9TH CROSS, A BLOCK, AECS LAYOUT KUNANAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 037. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S. SARAVANA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001, BY ITS SECRETARY. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10145-DB WP No. 16170 of 2024 2. THE COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 020. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; SRI. ADITYA VIKRAM BHAT, AGA FOR R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONERS AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND H, DATED 30/05/2024, EXTENDING BENEFIT IN TERMS OF NOTIFICATION AS PER ANNEXURE-E, EITHER BY REGULARIZING THEIR SITES OR FOR ALLOTMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITES AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10145-DB WP No. 16170 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) The petitioners are before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondent-Bengaluru Development Authority (for short, BDA) to consider the representation submitted on 30th May, 2024 seeking extension of the benefit in terms of the Notification either by regularizing the sites for or for allotment of alternate sites. In identical circumstances, we, by our order dated 25th October, 2024, has directed the BDA to consider the representations with an outer limit of four weeks and communicate the decision taken thereon to the petitioners therein. We have held as follows: "3. The petitioner Nos.1 & 2 claims to be the joint owners of the land in respect of Site No.25, carved in Sy.No.75, Khata No.132, Portion of Assessment No.75, and petitioner No.3 is owner of Sy.No.75 in an extent of 30 guntas, assigned with Khata No.132 out of which Site No.24 carved in an extent of 1200 sq.ft, both situated at - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10145-DB WP No. 16170 of 2024 Ganigarahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North. On the notification of acquisition for formation of Dr.Shivaram Karanth Layout, the petitioners have submitted representations seeking certain relief as is obtaining in the representations. Non-consideration of the same has driven the petitioners to this court in the subject petition. 4. Learned counsel Sri.Shivaprasad M Shantanagoudar, appearing for the respondent-BDA submits that if reasonable time is granted, representations would meet its consideration in accordance with law and necessary orders would be passed. 5. In that light, we deem it appropriate to dispose the petition with a direction to the respondent-BDA to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 01.07.2024 within an outer limit of four weeks and communicate the decision taken to the petitioners thereon. Till the consideration of the representations happens at the hands of the respondent-BDA, the BDA shall not precipitate the matter qua the property of the petitioners". 2. In the light of identical orders passed directing consideration of representation, the case of the petitioners should also merit consideration, in accordance with law and a decision taken thereon to be communicated to the petitioners within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Till such time, the Respondent-BDA shall not precipitate the matter. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10145-DB WP No. 16170 of 2024 With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed. Sd/- (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3 CT: BHK