Back
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.PRASANNA B.VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
WRIT APPEAL NO.957 OF 2021 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARAPARK WEST
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 020
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI D.N.NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SMT. SUBHA KRISHNA MURTHY
W/O LATE K.S.KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT NO.556, 3RD STAGE
1ST BLOCK, WEST OF CHORD ROAD
BASAVESHWARA NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 079
2 . SRI M V MOHAN
S/O LATE M.V.RANGAIAH SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT NO.28, HB SAMAJA ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI
BENGALURU - 560 004
3 . SMT. SHANTHA KUMARI
W/O D.V.SRINIVASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT NO.1972, L N NILAYA
NEHRU LAYOUT, MALURU
KOLAR DISTRICT
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H.C.SUNDARESH, ADVOCATE)
- 2 -
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 26.11.2020 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.51351/2019
(BDA) AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY DISMISSING THE WRIT
PETITION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant.
2.
Our attention is invited to the order passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition
No.51351/2019 dated 26.11.2020. By considering the
prayers in the writ petition and the response submitted by
the respondent – Bangalore Development Authority (BDA),
the writ petition was allowed with certain directions. In the
operative portion of the said order, in clause (ii), the
demands raised by the respondent – BDA impugned in the
petition at Annexures-H, J and K were quashed. By clause
(iii) of the order, the respondent – BDA was directed to
redo the calculation of the market value of the subject sites
as per the market value as it stood in the year 2005-06 and
was further directed to issue fresh allotment letters in
favour of the petitioners. The respondent – BDA was also
directed to complete this exercise within a stipulated period
- 3 -
of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the
order. By raising grievance of non-compliance of the
impugned order, contempt petition is filed in this Court
namely, CCC No.484/2022. Annexure-D to the contempt
petition (page 22) refers to the demand calculated to the
tune of Rs.21,06,500/-. Annexure-E (page 23) of the
contempt petition is the copy of remittance of the amount
vide challan to the treasury.
3.
It
is
submitted
before
this
Court
that
while
undertaking the exercise as referred in clause (iii) of the
order dated 26.11.2020, inadvertently, the calculation is
done as per the Government Circular dated 04.03.2021 and
the same was accepted by the petitioners without raising
any objection to that.
4.
Considering this fact, we are of the opinion that the
appeal itself can be disposed of with a modification to
clause (iii) of the order dated 26.11.2020. Clause (iii) shall
be read as follows:
“The respondent – BDA is directed to redo
the calculation of the market value of the
subject sites as per the market value in
- 4 -
accordance to the Government Circular dated
04.03.2021.”
5.
The appeal is partly allowed by effecting the
modification as recorded above.
6.
The pending interlocutory applications do not survive
for consideration and are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
AHB
