IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY,2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT W. P. Nos. 26640-650/2016 & 26651/2016 & 26652-656/2016 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN:
1. SRI K S BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O. SRI. SHIVASHANKARAIAH, R/AT NO. 109/6, VEERABHADRANAGAR, KOMMAGHATTA, SULIKERE POST, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE 560060 2. SMT. KATHYAYINIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, W/O. SRI. SHIVASHANKARAIAH, R/AT KOMMAGHATTA, SULIKERE POST, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE 560060 3. SRI. SHIVASHANKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O. LATE. BYRAPPA R/AT KOMMAGHATTA, SULIKERE POST, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE 560060 4. SRI. D. SOMASHEKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O. LATE. BYRAPPA R/AT KOMMAGHATTA, SULIKERE POST, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE 560060 5. SRI. MALLIKARJUNA ARADHYA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, S/O. LATE. NANJUNDARADHYA R/AT KOMMAGHATTA, SULIKERE POST, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE 560060 6. SRI. K R DAYANANDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O. LATE. RAJASHEKARAIAH R/AT KOMMAGHATTA, SULIKERE POST, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE 560060 7. SRI. JAYANNA R AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O. LATE. K.G. REVANNA, R/AT KOMMAGHATTA, SULIKERE POST, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE 560060 8. SRI. JAGADISH R AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O. LATE. K.G. REVANNA, R/AT KOMMAGHATTA, SULIKERE POST, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE 560060 9. SRI. K M BASAVARARADHYA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, S/O. LATE. R.N. MALLIKARJUNAIAH, R/AT 68, 4TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE 560018 10. S V SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O. SRI. R. VIRUPAKSHAIAH, R/AT NO. 18, REVANASIDDESHWARA NILAYA, KRISHNAPPA GARDEN, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN, BANGALORE 560060 11. SRI. MOHAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O. SRI. LAKSHMAN RAO, R/AT NO. 123, VISHVESHWARAIAH NAGAR LAYOUT, 4TH BLOCK, CHIKKABASTHI, ULLAL UPANAGARA POST, BANGALORE 560010 12. SRI. CHANDRASHSEKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O. LATE. SIDDALINGAIAH, R/AT KOMMAGHATTA VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE 560060 W.P. Nos. 26651- 26653/2016 W.P. Nos. 26657-
26658/2016 is dismissed as withdrawn V/o dated 29.08.2017 W.P. Nos. 26659/2016 V/o dated 13.10.2017 dismissed as not proved (NOTE: The Petitioners 2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10 and 12 are not claiming the benefit of Senior Citizen) ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. C M NAGABUSHANA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE 560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST EXTENSION, BANGALORE 560020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST EXTENSION, BANGALORE 560020. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. VIVEK YAVAGAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 &3) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT OF SIMILAR NATURE PROHIBITING THE RESPONDENTS FROM ALLOTTING THE SITES FORMED IN THE NADAPRABHU KEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT I.E., THE SITES FORMED IN THE LANDS OF THE PETITIONERS TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioners who have lost the lands in question and to whom an assurance was given by the respondent- BDA that certain portion of the land in the form of sites in the layout formed therein would be given, are before this Court complaining that the respondent-BDA is abundantly arbitrary in treating their claim.
2. The respondent No.1 has entered appearance through learned HCGP Shri Dildar Shiralli; the 2nd & 3rd respondent-BDA having appeared through their panel counsel Shri Vivek Yavagal have filed the Statement of Objections inter alia contending that the respondent-BDA has set apart 3,500 sites in the layout in question for being allotted to the land losers on the agreed Apportionment Formula of 40:60 between them and the BDA; that if the land losers come forward with the authenticated documents vouching their title to the lands in question, there would be no difficulty in allotting these sites in their favour in accordance with law, without brooking any delay.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners Prof.
C.M.Nagabhushan vehemently contends that the respondent-BDA has been brooking delay with one or the other excuse only by stating that sites would be allotted to the land losers; but not even a leaf is turned nor a step is put forward in discharging the said obligation on the principle of agreed Apportionment Formula. He also submits that the BDA officials concerned are raising unnecessary objections for “obvious reasons” and this causes a great hardship and heartburn to the land losers. There is some force in this submission.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners Prof.
Nagabhushan also submits that there is a dire need for evolving certain guidelines to regulate setting apart the sites for the allotment to the land losers and that in the absence of the same, the BDA and its officials would abuse their power and discretion by taking undue advantage of the vulnerable position of these land losers. There is force in this submission too.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners Prof.
Nagabhushan lastly submits that the respondent-BDA is not justified in going for allotment of the sites in favour of the public at large before the allotment is made to the land losers inasmuch as the land losers will not have any option than to take those inferior sites that are left untaken by others. There is no satisfactory explanation offered by the other side to this grievance of the petitioners.
In the above circumstances, these Writ Petitions succeed; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondents 2 & 3 to take immediate steps for allotment of sites to the land losers; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the 1st respondent-Government and to the 2nd respondent-BDA not to go for allotment of sites to the public till after sufficient area/sites are earmarked in the layout for the benefit of land losers.
The respondents 1 & 2 shall consider formulation of some norms/guidelines for regulating the earmarking of the area/sites for the benefit of the land losers in the BDA layouts.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Snb/