Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 793 (KAR)

Pillappa v. State of Karnataka

2014-09-08

A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA

body2014
ORDER : A.V. Chandrashekara, J. 1. Present writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his application filed vide Annexure 'A' dated 04.01.2014. 2. Perused the records. Head the learned counsel appearing of the parties. 3. Case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner in possession of 21/2 guntas of land in Sy. No. 83/1 and his brother V. Krishnappa is in occupation of 5 and 11/4 guntas of land in the same Survey number of Amruthahalli, Bangalore Taluk. They are stated to be together in possession of 8 guntas of land. It is their case that they have constructed their respective residential houses in the land in question. Photographs have been produced to that effect. 4. Second respondent-Bangalore Development Authority, chose to issue a preliminary notification on 03.02.2003 acquiring 1 acre of land in the above Sy. No. 85/3 and 8 guntas of land claimed by the petitioner and his brother which are stated to be part and parcel of land acquired for the formation of Arkavathy layout. Final notification was issued on 23.02.2004. 5. When the matter was challenged before a Division Bench of this Court, several directions were given to the respondents to consider the case of the land owners. As many as six guidelines have been laid down in the decision given by the Division Bench of this Court vide W.A. No. 2624/2005. The said judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy and Others vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Others reported in (2010) 7 SCC 129 . 6. Perused the orders passed in respect of identical writ petitions filed before this Court in W.P. No. 11500/2014 and connected writ petitions disposed of on 12.08.2014. This Court has considered the guidelines, given in Bondu Ramaswamy's case which is approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 7. Learned Senior Counsel Sri G. Lakshmeesh Rao, appearing for the BDA has submitted that the petitioner cannot espouse the case of his brother, more particularly, in the light of there being no Power of Attorney. This Court has considered the guidelines, given in Bondu Ramaswamy's case which is approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 7. Learned Senior Counsel Sri G. Lakshmeesh Rao, appearing for the BDA has submitted that the petitioner cannot espouse the case of his brother, more particularly, in the light of there being no Power of Attorney. If the petitioner's brother's land is also a part and parcel of 1 acre of land acquired for the Arkavathy notification, nothing comes in the way of the petitioner's brother making a representation to the Bangalore Development Authority. It is submitted by Sri K. Lakshmeesh Rao that the representation of V. Krishnappa is stated to have been considered and rejected vide order dated 25.03.2011 i.e., after the matter was disposed of by Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in (2010) 7 SCC 129 . 8. After perusing the records and the order passed in W.P. No. 11500/2014 and connected matters, this Court does not find any difficulty to pass similar orders. Hence petition is to be allowed by passing the following: ORDER Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner in respect of 21/2 guntas of land in Sy. No. 85/3 of Amruthahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The petitioner shall now file one more copy of the representation along with the supporting documents before the respondents 2 and 3 within four weeks from today and thereafter the matter shall be considered by respondents 2 and 3 within two months from the date of filing of representation. Till such time, the parties to maintain same state as they existed today. It is needless to mention that if the consideration is in favour of the present petitioner, further approval in that regard will have to be obtained in an expeditious manner according to law. There is no order as to costs.