Smt B.M. Shakunthala vs Bangalore Development Authority on 19 November, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt B.M. Shakunthala vs Bangalore Development Authority on 19 November, 2010

Bench: V.Jagannathan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated the 19"' day of November 2010»,"""'--.,
:BEFORE: "'"'

HONTﬁ£HMRJUSTHH3EVJAGANNATHAQTArd'4
VVRfFPETKHCmJNo.i87O6/'2OU9iB{HﬂvAV,'" '

BETWEEN :

Smt.B.M.Shakuntha1a, _v _ '  '    
D/o Late Muninanjareddy, W,/_ o H.Gov-indaraju,,
Aged about 40 years, R/a 1\Eo.--1'E}O,''»-.,, ''  
Bommanahalli Vi1Iage,f--Begur-- Hobiiv, ' " « . %
Madiwaia Post, Bangalore-':3.60,»'O68._   -.

. . Petitioner

(   Advocate. )

1. vKBangakﬁeiDeveHaﬁnentAaahorﬁy,
KnfnaraV.Park We__s"t, "Bangalore,
rep by its -  issioner.

 __gS1'i,_K.A.Nach.appa @ Murali,
 o *K,A.Appachu, Aged about 63 years,
  9t?1Cross,
" "\__ " A  (Stage, Bangalore.

33- v~De'p;aty Commissioner,
" _ Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore.

  Director of Municipal Administration,

Vidhana Veedhi, Bangalore.
. . Respon dents

{ By Sri HA/enkatesh Dodderi, Advocate for R-1.
Sri Ananth Mandgi, Senior Counsel, for
Sri M.B.Chandrachooda, Advocate for R-2.
Sri Jagadeesh Mundari, G.A. for R-3 & R-4. ]



has suppressed the material facts and this is evident

from the order passed by this court in 

7602/2006 and also W.A.No. 1877/2006. 

senior counsel argued that. as   

pertaining to the plan sanctionecioiri  l

concerned, the litigation went up't.olthe 

the petitioner herein suffered'_order' ..la_tvlallllflevels viz.,
before the trial  of injunction
is concerned   aforementioned
Writ petitioii  also before the

Apex_co.u_rt~   /2005, disposed of on

4.i.2oo€s.. '

7. _ It is; ther'efore,"submitted by the learned senior

 v  ,  for R-l2"that, having lost all the earlier rounds of

 petitioner now wants this court to once

 the B.D.A. to examine as to whether the

 plan .that was sanctioned in favour of R-2 is valid or not

   this conduct on the part of the petitioner is nothing

glbut an attempt to circumvent the orders passed in all

the earlier proceedings and, as such, the Writ petition is

liable to be dismissed on this score alone.

E/i

F



and, as such, it is not open to seek the reiief of directing
the B.D.A. to examine the Validity of the plan sa,rict:ic.ned

by it in favour of R-2.

11. In the light of the aforesaid eeeeeeeestgt put" 

forward, whether the relief  

be granted, is the point for e:onsiderat_ion   

12. It is not in dis.p'uteg..  " 'thev'V§petitioner
and the respondents?  pending in the

trial court andlione /05 and other one is the said suit the relief soughtby: to declare her as the owner of the suit'L's.chved'ulef'.;oro't5erty which is also the subject of the "pr-e-sent Writ petition. A perusal of the by the trial court on I.A.1 which is Annex R6 by the 2116 respondent herein indicates that there are as many as four suits that are 'pending before the trial court and they are ___§O.S.Nos.3490/05 to 3493/05. The rejection of the LA. for injunction also gave rise to lVI.F.A being filed before this court and the gaid M.F.A was also dismissed and 17 respondents during the period 1989 to 2005 as to possession, remains.

unrebutted by the appeliant."

16. It is also pertinent to mention that.the.: of .. court in the aforementioned M=t:F.A~~wIasaiso"-confimied by the Apex Court in st',P,No.;2eo'roV-25o'7y1goods.en]. 4.1.2006 [Annexv-R8}.:_

17. in the light of the question of directing the the plan sanctioneddby. Law or not, does not arise cohcerhing the Validity of the sanctioned rest by the Apex Court by dismissing.they'vS;1;;;,i5"~~--"'t'i1ed by the petitioner. Even as t'h'e"*2=*d respondentscounsel has submitted :v44i2I§:§1"_:..respondent has already completed the in the property in question and therefore the ciutedstion of directing the BDA to examine the validity of the sanctioned pian at this point of time does not it .. _ arise as the dispute between the parties is with regard to the sale of the property in question, it is a matter which W111 have to be thraﬂeii out before the triai court in the aforementioned suits filed by the petitioner and this court time and again has also observed that th&e~.ysaid matter is seized by the Civil Court and question cannot be gone into. W1'1i1e_ the M.F.A ﬁled by the petitioner, this an observation that the platilyvas ; in favour Of the 2nd respondent _ considering the documents produced' :'2F§l'.grespondent and the observations which above from the order passed approval from the Apex _Co__u_I't bf of the S.L.P filed by the petitiorlen ' 18.5' »U/ndelr 'aforesaid circumstances. it is not open ,toVd"thé'dpetitioner once again ask this court to direct .tV.'ex:amine the validity of the sanctioned plan. As»rightiytsubmitted by the learned senior counsel Sri. V. Ananthtd Mandgi for the 2nd respondent, if at all the l"-petitioner succeeds in her suit, she can always claim it "back the property, but that is not a ground to ask the EDA to reexamine the validity of the sanctioned plan. k 23

25. Since civil suits between the parties are pending before the trial court, the petitioner has got thejiiberty to question the documents, which according genuine documents and observations madeain, 'this_'_orderu' however shall not in any parties in the trial court on-rrierits in suit' V and it is for the triaJ.:-'courtp..to' thesaiti: aspect of the matter. _ . . p

26. In the resu1t,,the-:]Wri*t_.'*petitior1':is dismissed by imposing..eXernp:1ary'v cost _Von.._t1ie petitioner having regard to thefacts ~-circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated above. The petitioner is therefore :toc_._payVHam cost of Rs.50,000/-- which amount :_sh__a111"'b'e..V:depvo:sited with the High Court Legal Services iaicopvy" of this order.

Committee within two months from the date of receipt of sd/i Iudge ckc / --

Dvr:

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court