Karnataka High Court
Sri Sivakumar R vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 June, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 KAR 1014
Bench: Alok Aradhe, Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.A. NO.1598 OF 2015 (LA-BDA)
IN
W.P. NOS.57428-430 OF 2013 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SIVAKUMAR R
S/O S. RAMANATHAN
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.242, 2ND FLOOR
5TH 'B' MAIN, 16TH CROSS
4TH PHASE, J P NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 078.
... APPELLANT
(BY MR. SUDHAKAR G.V. ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN
DEVELOPMENT, 4TH FLOOR
VIKAS SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560001.
2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2
3. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE - 560020.
4. SRI. RAVINDRA REDDY
S/O SRI THIMMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
5. SRI. V. NAGARAJ
S/O SRI VENKATAPPA @ MUNISWAMPAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
R4 & R5 ARE RESIDING AT
HULIMAVU VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 076.
6. SMT. GULLAMMA
W/O LATE SRI. ERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING AT ARAKERE VILLAGE
BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE- 560076.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1
MR. M.V. CHARATI, ADV., FOR R2 & R3
R4, R5 & R6 SERVED)
---
THIS W.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN
THE WRIT PETITION NOS.57428-57430/2013 DATED 06.03.2014.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 has been filed by the appellant who is a purchaser of the plot in question against the order dated 06.03.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.57428-30/2013.
2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the respondents were the owners of land bearing Sy.No.49/1, Sy.No.49/2, Sy.No.50, Sy.No.52/1, Sy.No.52/2, Sy.No.52/3 and Sy.No.53/1 measuring 13 guntas, 1 acre 38 guntas, 31 guntas, 11 guntas, 11 guntas, 21 guntas and 13 guntas respectively. The aforesaid land was needed by the Bangalore Development Authority for the purposes of implementation of the scheme viz., Byrasandra Tavarekere, Madivala-Phase VI layout. The process of acquisition of the land was set in motion and a preliminary Notification dated 08.09.1987 was issued 4 under Section 17(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. The objections were filed to the aforesaid Notification by respondents No.4 to 6. The Land Acquisition Officer of the Bangalore Development Authority passed an award on 21.12.1990 and took possession of the land in question on 02.02.1991.
3. Thereafter a Notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 08.07.1991. Thereafter, the authority on 22.08.2007 published 10 corner sites for auction and the auction was fixed for 05.09.2007. The bid of Mr.S.Harish Kumar was accepted in respect of the site bearing No.676, 3rd Block, II Phase 6th Stage of BTM Layout as he was the highest bidder and a sale deed was executed in his favour on 28.08.2009. The appellant by a registered sale deed dated 02.11.2012 purchased the site from the aforesaid S.Harish Kumar.
5
4. The respondent 4 to 6 filed a writ petition in which challenge was made to the validity of the acquisition proceedings. However, in the aforesaid writ petition viz., W.P.Nos.57428-30/2013, in which challenge was made to the validity of the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the authority, the appellant who had the right, title and interest in respect of site site bearing No.676, 3rd Block, II Phase 6th Stage of BTM Layout was not impleaded as respondents. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 06.03..2015, inter alia, held that the scheme framed by the Authority has not been implemented for a period of five years from the date of final declaration and the acquisition proceedings in respect of land in question includes the land purchased by the present appellant as well were quashed. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had purchased the site bearing 6 No.676, 3rd Block, II Phase 6th Stage of BTM Layout by a registered sale deed on 02.11.2011 for a valuable consideration of Rs.23 Lakhs and the appellant was a necessary party to the lis as his right, title and interest was involved. However, the impugned order has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant who was vitally interested in the result of the litigation. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the Bangalore Development Authority.
6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, the site in question was auctioned by the Bangalore Development Authority on 22.08.2007, which was purchased by the vendor of the appellant viz., S.Harish Kumar and the Bangalore Development Authority had executed the sale deed in favour of the vendor of the appellant on 22.08.2009 who in turn by a registered sale deed dated 02.11.2011 sold the same to 7 the appellant. The appellant, therefore, was vitally interested in the result of the litigation and is a necessary party to the lis. However, respondents 4 to 6 did not implead the appellant in the writ petition and the aforesaid aspect of the matter was not taken note of by the learned Single Judge and the writ petition was allowed. The impugned order has been passed by the learned Single Judge without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant who is the necessary party to the lis. The impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is accordingly quashed. The respondent Nos.4 to 6 are directed to implead the appellant as respondent in the writ petition and the matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge for decision afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. 8
In the result, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SS