Karnataka High Court
Mr. Rajee Jebrial vs The Revenue Officer on 31 July, 2023
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:26550
WP No. 51630 of 2018
C/W WP No.44150 of 2018
WP No.52796 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.51630 OF 2018 (BDA)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.44150 OF 2018
WRIT PETITION NO.52796 OF 2018
IN WRIT PETITION NO.51630 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. G V SATISHA
S/O VEERABHADRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
SHOP NO.57
BDA SHOPPING COMPLEX,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-34
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed by (BY SMT. VATSALA SAMPATH AND
JUANITA SRI ASHOK MESTA, ADVOCATES)
THEJESWINI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. THE REVENUE OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
H.S.R.LAYOUT,
COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
BANGALORE-560102
2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:26550
WP No. 51630 of 2018
C/W WP No.44150 of 2018
WP No.52796 of 2018
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE-01
3. MFAR DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
K.K.BUILDERS,
ADD REALITY LIMITED,
MFAR CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED.,
REP BY MR. YENEPOYA MOIDEEN RIZWAN,
NO.3, LAVELLE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001
4. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S.BUILDING,
BANGALORE-01
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI B.S. JEEVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI SRIDHAR N. HEGDE, AGA FOR R4)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT TO THE
EFFECT THAT THE R-1 OFFICER HAS NOT AUTHORITY MUCH
LESS JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE NOTICE PURPORTEDLY
DTD 03.09.2018 UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE 'SOOCHANA
PARTA' VIDE ANNX-A TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN TERMS
OF WHICH NOTICES; AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 44150 OF 2018 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. PURITAN HOTELS PVT. LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:26550
WP No. 51630 of 2018
C/W WP No.44150 of 2018
WP No.52796 of 2018
ASHISH V SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
HALL NO.1,
BDA SHOPPING COMPLEX,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560 034.
2. LAKSHMI SUREKHA SHETTY @ SUREKHA R SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
SHOP NO.1,
BDA SHOPPING COMPLEX,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560 034.
3. SHIVASHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
SHOP NO.2,
BDA SHOPPING COMPLEX,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560 034.
4. RAMACHANDRA N. V.
(SINCE DECEASED),
REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIR,
KRISHNAMURTHY. R. N.
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
SHOP NO.2FF,
BDA SHOPPING COMPLEX,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560 034.
5. MIRA SIKAND
REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA HOLDER,
SYED ASGAR,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
SHOP NO.11,
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:26550
WP No. 51630 of 2018
C/W WP No.44150 of 2018
WP No.52796 of 2018
BDA SHOPPING COMPLEX,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560 034.
6. KRISHNAMURTHY. R. N.
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
SHOP NO.15,
BDA SHOPPING COMPLEX,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560 034.
7. C. R. S. LINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
SHOP NO.16,
BDA SHOPPING COMPLEX,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560 034.
8. DR. R. SHAILAJA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
SHOP NO.17,
BDA SHOPPING COMPLEX,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560 034.
9. NURAZAN BASHA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
SHOP NO.18,
BDA SHOPPING COMPLEX,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560 034.
10. HARINDRA SAVANUR
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
SHOP NO.19,
BDA SHOPPING COMPLEX,
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:26550
WP No. 51630 of 2018
C/W WP No.44150 of 2018
WP No.52796 of 2018
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560 034.
11. V. RAMCHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
SHOP NO.21,
BDA SHOPPING COMPLEX,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560 034.
12. MOHAMMED SHAFIULLA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
SHOP NO.35,
BDA SHOPPING COMPLEX,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560 034.
13. USHA DANG
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
SHOP NO.36,
BDA SHOPPING COMPLEX,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560 034.
14. VIJAY B KINGER
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
SHOP NO.39,
BDA SHOPPING COMPLEX,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560 034.
15. ANJALI SAIGAL
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
SHOP NO.40,
BDA SHOPPING COMPLEX,
KORAMANGALA,
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC:26550
WP No. 51630 of 2018
C/W WP No.44150 of 2018
WP No.52796 of 2018
BANGALORE-560 034.
16. KHIZAR AHMED. N
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
SHOP NO.42,
BDA SHOPPING COMPLEX,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560 034.
17. BASHEER AHAMED
REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA HOLDER,
AMINA BEE,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
SHOP NO.43,
BDA SHOPPING COMPLEX,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560 034.
18. P. NAGARAJ
REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA HOLDER,
B. HARISH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
SHOP NO.44,
BDA SHOPPING COMPLEX,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560 034.
19. VASANTHA SHETTY. K
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
SHOP NO.46,
BDA SHOPPING COMPLEX,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560 034.
20. SHUBHAMATHI K SALIAN
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC:26550
WP No. 51630 of 2018
C/W WP No.44150 of 2018
WP No.52796 of 2018
SHOP NO.55,
BDA SHOPPING COMPLEX,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560 034.
21. J. B. EMMANNUAL
REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER,
NIRMALA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
SHOP NO.56,
BDA SHOPPING COMPLEX,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560 034.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. VATSALA SAMPATH AND
SRI ASHOK MESTA, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE REVENUE OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
H.S.R. LAYOUT,
COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
BANGALORE-560 102.
2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. MFAR DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
KK BUILDERS,
ADD REALITY LIMITED,
MFAR CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,
REP. BY MR. YENEPOYA MOIDEEN RIZWAN,
-8-
NC: 2023:KHC:26550
WP No. 51630 of 2018
C/W WP No.44150 of 2018
WP No.52796 of 2018
NO.3, LAVELLE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
4. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SACHIN B S, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI B.S. JEEVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI SRIDHAR N. HEGE, AGA FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-ISSUE
DIRECTION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE 1ST RESPONDENT
OFFICER HAS NO AUTHORITY MUCH LESS JURISIDICTION TO
ISSUE THE NOTICES PURPORTEDLY DATED 03.09.2018 UNDER
THE NAME AND STYLE "SOOCHANA PATRA" AS PER ANNEXURE-
A1 TO A21 TO THE PETITIOENRS HEREIN IN TERMS OF WHICH
NOTICES; AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 52796 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. MR. RAJEE JEBRIAL
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
KHALAK SHARIFF
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O LATE MOHAMMED ISMAIL SHARIFF
SHOP NO.33
BDA SHOPPING COMPLEX
KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE-560 034
...PETITIONER
-9-
NC: 2023:KHC:26550
WP No. 51630 of 2018
C/W WP No.44150 of 2018
WP No.52796 of 2018
(BY SMT. VATSALA SAMPATH AND
SRI ASHOK MESTA, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE REVENUE OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
H S R LAYOUT
COMMERCIAL COMPLEX
BANGALORE-560 102
2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 001
3. MFAR DEVELOPERS PRVIATE LIMITED
K K BUILDERS
ADD REALITY LIMITED
MFAR CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED
REP. BY MR YENEPOYA MOIDEEN RIZWAN
NO.3, LAVELLE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
4. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M S BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ H.T., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI B.S. JEEVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI SRIDHAR N HEGDE, AGA FOR R4)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DECLARATION OR
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:26550
WP No. 51630 of 2018
C/W WP No.44150 of 2018
WP No.52796 of 2018
ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO
THE EFFECT THAT THE R-1 OFFICER HAS NO AUTHORITY MUCH
LESS JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE NOTICE PURPORTEDLY
DTD 03.09.2018 UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE "SOOCHANA
PATRA" VIDE ANNX-A TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN TERMS
OF WHICH NOTICES, THE PETITIONER HEREIN AND OTHER
OCCUPANTS OF THE KORAMANGALA BDA SHOPPING COMPLEX
HAVE NOT ONLY BEEN DIRECTED TO VACATE THE PREMISES
IN THEIR OCCUPATION BUT ALSO CALLED UPON TO PAY THE
ARREARS OF RENT AND TO GET THE LICENSE DEEDS IN
QUESTION CANCELLED AND ALSO FURTHER DIRECTED TO
SEEK REFUND OF THE SECURITY DEPOSIT AMOUNT RELATING
TO THE RESPECTIVE PREMISES IN THE OCCUPATION OF THE
PETITIONER.; AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioners are all allottees/tenants/lessees of shop premises and other such establishments in Koramangala BDA shopping complex. They are aggrieved of the impugned notices issued in the month of September, 2018, at Annexure-A series.
2. It is the contention of the petitioners that they are the lawful allottees/tenants/lessees in the premises and it is their further contention that although there was a resolution passed by the Board of the Bangalore Development Authority, which is the owner of the property, that first priority before
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:26550 WP No. 51630 of 2018 C/W WP No.44150 of 2018 WP No.52796 of 2018 implementing the relocation plan shall be given to all such occupants/tenants/lessees and in spite of such a decision taken by the Board, the impugned notices are issued calling upon the petitioners to evict themselves from the premises.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority submits that under similar circumstances, in several writ petitions, such as, Writ Petitions No.12764 of 2017, 14297 of 2017 disposed of on 12th April, 2021 and Writ Petition No.53697 disposed of on 28th April, 2021, the petitioners therein were permitted to submit their reply to the Notices therein within 21 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order passed by this Court. The learned Counsel would further submit that these writ petitions could also be disposed of in similar terms.
4. However, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in respect of Indiranagar BDA Shopping Complex, this Court in Regular First Appeals No.483 of 2016 and connected matters disposed of on 06th May, 2016, had noticed the submissions made on behalf of the occupants/tenants/lessees that since the schedule premises is "public premises" as defined
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:26550 WP No. 51630 of 2018 C/W WP No.44150 of 2018 WP No.52796 of 2018 under Section 2(e) of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974, no action can be taken to dispossess such occupants/tenants/lessees without following the due process of law. Those appeals were dismissed directing the Bangalore Development Authority not to dispossess the appellants or resume possession of the premises other than in due course of law.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; learned counsel for the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority and having perused the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that admittedly action is sought to be taken by the Respondent-Bangalore Development Authority to demolish the existing BDA Complexes since they have become old and may be in dilapidated condition and therefore, a resolution may have been passed by the Board taking into account the difficulties the occupants/tenants/lessees would face if they are to be evicted. Therefore, it appears that a certain package has been formulated to accommodate/give priority to the existing occupants/tenants/lessees. Since the learned counsel for the petitioners had pointed to the said
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:26550 WP No. 51630 of 2018 C/W WP No.44150 of 2018 WP No.52796 of 2018 resolution, it can be presumed that petitioners are seeking the benefit flowing out therefrom.
6. On the other hand, if the petitioners are bent upon taking a stand that they shall be evicted only in accordance with law, and they are definitely entitled for such a direction that they shall be evicted only in accordance with law, however, it should be made clear that in similar circumstances, this Court has issued certain directions, which may have to be repeated here. In certain other writ petitions where municipalities were faced with the same problem of vacating the occupants/tenants/lessees, when admittedly the writ petitioners who had come before this Court seeking protection were aware of the fact that they had over-stayed and nevertheless insisted on they being evicted only after following due process of law, were reminded that it is the law of the land that public premises should be respected and protected and for that purpose provisions are made in the Karnataka Municipalities Act, Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, the present Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020, and all such statutes of local bodies, to ensure that the premises of the local bodies are put to best use and fetch the best price in the
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:26550 WP No. 51630 of 2018 C/W WP No.44150 of 2018 WP No.52796 of 2018 market. Provisions are found in all these enactments to mandate that public premises shall not be leased out for more than five years at a stretch. The wisdom behind such provisions is obvious, that opportunity should be given to as many as possible to have the premises of the local authorities and periodical revision of the rate of rent is enabled. In that view of the matter, this Court had directed that if the writ petitioners insist on having them evicted only in accordance with law, then there shall also be a direction to the authorities to black-list all such writ petitioners who seek to be evicted only in a manner known to law although they are aware that they have over-stayed and are squatting on public premises after the expiry of the lease period.
7. In that view of the matter, these writ petitions are disposed of in similar terms as was done in the writ petition No.12764 of 2017 and connected matters and writ petition No.53697 of 2018, directing that the impugned notices shall be treated as show-cause notices. The petitioners are given 21 days' time to give a reply to the impugned show-cause notices. In the reply that would be given by the petitioners, if they seek only the benefit flowing out of the resolution passed by the
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:26550 WP No. 51630 of 2018 C/W WP No.44150 of 2018 WP No.52796 of 2018 Bangalore Development Authority, then certainly all those benefits shall be given to the petitioners, provided they fulfill all the conditions that were imposed in the said resolution. On the other hand, if the petitioners in their reply insist that they should be evicted only in accordance with law, then, certainly the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority shall follow the provisions contained in Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974, or any other law applicable to the premises of BDA before evicting the petitioners. However, it is hereby directed that if any of the writ petitioners take a stand that they shall be evicted only in accordance with law, then after evicting them in accordance with law, they shall be black-listed and shall never be given any property belonging to Bangalore Development Authority in future. Such list shall also be shared with other local authorities such as Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Karnataka Housing Board, etc. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE LNN