Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 532 (KAR)

N. Jagadish v. State of Karnataka

2009-07-22

B.S.PATIL

body2009
JUDGMENT : Sri Basavaraj V. Sabarad, learned -Counsel is directed to take notice for the 2nd and 3rd respondents-BDA. Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for the 1st respondent. 2. In these writ petitions, petitioners are seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent-BDA to consider the representation dated 28-5-2009 submitted by them vide Annexure-J requesting for allotment of sites bearing Nos.12 and 13 carved out in Sy.No.135 wherein they have put up construction. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners of site bearing Nos.12 and 13 carved out of Sy.No.135 of Ullalu Village. According to them the site measures 60 feet 80 feet. The BDA has acquired the land in question by issuing preliminary notification dated 15-4-2002 for formation of Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah Layout, II Stage. The entire extent of 4.9 acres comprised in Sy.No.135 was notified as needed for the purpose. Final notification under Section 19 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act,1976 is published on 31-10-2002 acquiring an extent of 2.16 acres in Sy.No.135. An award is also passed. Petitioners claim to have approached the 2nd respondent-BDA on several occasions seeking information as to what is the exact location of the land acquired in Sy.No.135. By an endorsement dated 3-8-2007 issued by the 2nd respondent-BDA, it has informed the adjacent owner that an extent of 1.33 acres in Sy.No.135 was not part of the acquisition. The case of the petitioners is that they were under the impression that their portion of the land was not acquired. However, when they realised that the land wherein they have put up construction was also the subject-matter of acquisition, they have requested the authority to allot the portion of the property measuring 60 x 80 feet comprised in Site Nos.12 and 13 carved out of Sy.No.135 so as to enable them to protect the residential house and other constructed portion. As the BDA has not considered this representation, petitioners have approached this Court. 4. Counsel for the petitioners bringing to the notice of the Court the judgment passed in the case of Junjamma and Others v Bangalore Development Authority and Others 2004 (7) Kar. L.J. 677: ILR 2005 Kar. 608 submits that in similar circumstances, the BDA has not directed to consider the representation filed by the affected individuals and has issued several directions. 5. L.J. 677: ILR 2005 Kar. 608 submits that in similar circumstances, the BDA has not directed to consider the representation filed by the affected individuals and has issued several directions. 5. Sri Basavaraj V. Sabarad, Counsel appearing for the BDA submits that if the petitioners are entitled as per law and in terms of the judgment of this Court referred to supra and if the representation is still pending consideration, the same will be considered and the petitioners will be accordingly informed of the result. 6. In the light of the above submissions and in view of the judgment referred to hereinabove, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the BDA to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law and in the light of the judgment referred to hereinabove as expeditiously as possible.