Sri B M Raju S/O Muddaiah vs The Commissioner on 2 August, 2012

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri B M Raju S/O Muddaiah vs The Commissioner on 2 August, 2012

Bench: K.L.Manjunath

                            1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

     DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF AUGUST 2012

                        PRESENT

        HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH

                           AND

        HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO

         WRIT APPEAL NO. 5589 OF 2011 (BDA)

BETWEEN :

Sri.B. M. Raju,
S/o. Muddaiah,
Aged about 42 years,
Residing at No.30, 'A' Block,
6th Cross Road, Agrahara,
Dasarahalli,
Bangalore - 560 079                     ...   Appellant

(By Sri.Padmanabha Mahale, Sr.Counsel
for M/s.K.S. Nagaraja Rao & Assts.)


AND :

1.   The Commissioner
     Bangalore Development Authority,
     Kumara Park West,
     Bangalore - 20

2.   The State of Karnataka,
     Urban Development,
     Vikasa Soudha, Dr. Ambedkar
     Veedhi, Bangalore - 1
     By its Chief Secretary
                            2




3.   M/s. Karnataka Dalit Sangharsha
     Samithi, No.1095, 4th Main,
     12th Cross, M.C. Layout,
     Vijaynagar, Bangalore - 40,
     Represented by its President    ...   Respondents

( By Sri. R. Om Kumar, AGA for R2)

     This Writ Appeal is filed under Section. 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order
passed in the Writ Petition No.19515/2011, dated
08.06.2011.

      This Writ Appeal coming on for Preliminary
Hearing this day, K.L.MANJUNATH. J., made the
following: -

                     JUDGMENT

The appellant not being satisfied with the relief granted to him by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.19515/2011, dated 08.06.2011, has preferred this appeal.

2. Heard Shri.Padmanabha Mahale, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate for respondent no.2.

3. One Shri.K.R. Jagannath owner of a revenue site No.2001 of Agrahara Dasaraghalli, Magadi Road Chord Road, Bangalore, which land was acquired by the 3 Bangalore Development Authority (for short 'BDA') long back. Thereafter, on 28.09.1977 a resolution was passed by the BDA to reconvey the site, acquired in favour of Shri.K.R. Jagannath. Though a resolution was passed, the site was not reconveyed to Shri.K.R. Jagannath.

4. Thereafter, Shri.K.R. Jagannath filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No.27285/2007, which writ petition came to be allowed on 28.02.1977, directing the BDA to consider the representation of Shri.K.R. Jagannath. Shri.K.R. Jagannath was pursuing for reconveyance, as there was no order of reconveyance made by BDA, Shri.K.R. Jagannath for his legal necessities sold the very same property in favour of the appellant on 10.11.2005. Based on the same, the appellant requested for reconveyance.

5. Since the request of the appellant was not considered. He filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge having considered the case of the parties, held that since BDA 4 has already allotted the site in question in favour of third respondent herein and as the site was earmarked as Civic Amenity (C.A) site, directed the BDA to allot an alternative site in favour of the appellant, within a period of four months.

6. Being not satisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal is filed.

7. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that no error is committed by the learned Single Judge, considering relief granted by the learned Single Judge to the appellant by directing the BDA to allot an alternative site within a period of four months from the date of the order.

8. Admittedly, the BDA has already allotted the site in favour of the third respondent. The site in question is earmarked as civil amenity site. When the resolution of the BDA of the year 1977, is not persuaded by the appellant's - vendor within a reasonable time and on account of changed circumstances if the property 5 cannot be reconveyed due to the allotment made to the third respondent, it is for the BDA to rectify the mistake committed by it, by allotting an alternative site to the appellant who has stepped into the shoes of Shri.K.R. Jagannath.

9. In the circumstances, we are of the view that if the BDA has not taken any action to allot an alternative site as directed by the learned Single Judge in favour of the appellant, it is for the appellant to file a contempt and proceed against the BDA.

10. With the above observations, the writ appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE JJ

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court