Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Prabhudas Patel vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 April, 2016

Bench: Chief Justice, Ravi Malimath

                          1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2016

                     :PRESENT:

     THE HON'BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE,
                   CHIEF JUSTICE

                         AND

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

          Writ Appeal No. 662 of 2016(LA-BDA)
                          AND
           Writ Appeal Nos.879-80 of 2016(LA-BDA)


BETWEEN:

1.    SRI.PRABHUDAS PATEL,
      S/O JIVARAJ D.PATEL,
      AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

2.    SRI. VINOD RAVJI PATEL,
      S/O RAVAJI D.PATEL,
      AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

3.    SRI. PARBAT JIVARAJ PATEL,
      S/O JIVARAJ D.PATEL,
      AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

      ALL ARE R/AT:No.155, 156,
      SWASTIK TIMBER TRADING COMPANY,
      HOSUR ROAD, RUPENA AGRAHARA,
      BANGALORE - 560 068.
                                ... APPELLANTS

 (BY SRI.Y.R. SADASHIVA REDDY, SR. ADV. FOR
     SRI. DEEPAK.J., ADV.)
                           2


AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       REPRESENTED BY ITS
       UNDER SECRETARY,
       HOUSING AND URBAN
       DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
       VIKAS SOUDHA,
       BANGALORE - 560 001.

2.     THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
       REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
       CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK,
       BANGALORE - 560 003.

3.     THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
       OFFICE OF BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
       AUTHORITY, CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA
       PARK, BANGALORE - 560 003.

4.     THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
       No.3, WEST SUB - DIVISION,
       H.S.R. LAYOUT, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
       BANGALORE - 560 102.
                                  ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MS.NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1)

                      -0-0-0-0-0-

       THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION
4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION
NO.54402-404/2015 DATED.26.02.2016.


       THESE   WRIT   APPEALS       COMING     ON   FOR
PRELIMINARY    HEARING   THIS   DAY,   CHIEF   JUSTICE,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                     3


                          : JUDGMENT :

This appeal is against the judgment and order dated February 26, 2016 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions.

2. By filing the writ petitions, the writ petitioners prayed for quashing of the notification dated December 15, 1984, for acquisition of the land in question. The petitioners claim that they had acquired title to the property by virtue of sale deeds of the year 1990. They have come to learn about the acquisition proceedings only in the year 2000. Immediately, they filed a suit in the City Civil Court at Bengaluru, being O.S.No.3075 of 2000, seeking for declaration of title, inter alia, on the ground of adverse possession. In the suit, they had, also, relied upon the registered deeds of sale.

3. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court, by judgment and decree dated April 18, 2002, decreed the suit. However, this Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. The writ petitioners approached the 4 Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition being SLP(Civil) No.12016 of 2013. The Special Leave Petition was registered eventually as Civil Appeal No.794 of 2015. By order dated September 24, 2015, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal against the appellants.

4. When the claim of title of writ petitioners was rejected by the Supreme Court of India, we hold that the present writ petitioners have no concern in the acquisition proceedings and, therefore, they are not entitled for any relief.

5. The Hon'ble Single Judge referred to the decision of the Supreme Court of India and held that the writ petitions challenging the acquisition proceedings were not maintainable.

6. Mr. Y.R. Sadashiva Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits that inspite of the dismissal of the suit of the writ petitioners, they are entitled to assert their title to seek to quash the acquisition proceedings by maintaining the 5 writ petition. We hold that the writ petitioners have failed to establish their title in relation to the property. They are not entitled to challenge the acquisition proceedings when their suit for declaration of title has been dismissed by the Supreme Court of India.

7. We do not find any merit in these appeals.

8. The appeals are dismissed.

9. In view of dismissal of the appeals, I.A.No.II/16 does not survive for consideration and is accordingly, dismissed.

We make no orders as to costs.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-

JUDGE *alb/-.