SRI SHIVANNA Vs BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

In these writ petitions, petitioners are seeking allotment

of alternative land by the respondent-BDA and as such, the

petitioners seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondent-

BDA to allot 100% of the land in lieu of utilization of their land,

in terms of the order dated 26^th July, 2012 in Writ petition

No.45695 of 2011.

2. Heard Sri D.L. Jagadeesh, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for Smt. Rakshitha D.J.; Sri C.M. Nagabhushan,

learned Senior Counsel; Smt. Vijetha R. Naik; Sri P.V.

Chandrashekar; Sri Lohitaswa Banakar; for the petitioners; Sri

G.S. Kannur, learned senior counsel for Sri Lakshmeesh Rao,

appearing for respondent-BDA; Sri K. Krishna, learned counsel

for Respondent-BDA; Sri Nityananda K.R., learned Additional

Government Advocate for respondent-State.

3. Sri D.L. Jagadeesh, learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioners argued that the land belonging to the petitioners has

been utilised by the respondent-BDA for the purpose of

formation of outer ring road connecting from Magadi Road to

Mysuru Road, which leads to Jnanabharati Layout and such

other identical cases. The principal submission of the learned

Senior Counsel for the petitioners that, in some of the cases

lands of the petitioners have been utilised without following the

procedure contemplated under law and therefore, the action on

the part of the respondent-BDA is contrary to the law declared

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of TUKARAM KANA JOSHI

AND OTHERS v. MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2013 SC 565.

Learned Senior Counsel invited the attention of the Court to the

paragraphs 8 and 17 of the said judgment and argued that

since the action of the respondent-BDA is illegal and contrary to

the constitutional parameters and therefore, the human rights

of the petitioners have been infringed and accordingly,

petitioners are entitled for 100% alternative developed sites.

He also referred to the decision of this Court in Writ Petition

No.16952 of 2014 decided on 18^th November, 2014 (SMT.

SUNANADA v. BDA AND OTHERS) and submitted that the said

judgment of this Court has been affirmed by the Division Bench

of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1382 of 2016 decided on 27^th

September, 2016 and confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

SLP No.849 of 2017 decided on 16^th January, 2017 and

therefore, he argued that similar benefit be extended to the

petitioners herein. Similar submissions have been made by

learned counsel appearing for other respective petitioners.

4. Per contra. Sri G.S. Kannur, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for respondent-BDA invited the attention of the Court

to the judgment of this Court Writ petition No.45396 of 2011

dated 26^th July, 2012 and in Writ petition No.3055 of 2016 and

connected matters disposed of on 08^th April, 2021, and argued

that the consideration of the grievance of the petitioners is only

with regard to the value and area of the lands in question and

therefore, he contended that the petitioners are not entitled for

100% alternative developed sites in lieu of acquired land by the

respondent-BDA. He further contended that the Division Bench

of this Court in Writ Appeal No.697 of 2018 disposed of on 12^th

September, 2019 has held that the prayer for grant of equal

area of developed land does not merit any consideration and

accordingly, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-BDA

sought or dismissal of writ petitions.

5. Learned AGA supports the submission of the learned

Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA.

6. In the light of the submission made by the learned

counsel appearing for the parties, the relevant question to be

answered in this writ petitions is, whether the petitioners are

entitled for allotment of developed land equivalent to the area

of land lost by them?

7. In the backdrop of the arguments advanced by the

learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute

that the land losers are entitled for compensatio