Karnataka High Court
Sri Kunnappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 April, 2010
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
1N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 3"' day0fApri§, 2.010
Before
THE HoN'BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVAIJI G RAIi§ii§;s"i£.'Vj-~~i: --:-
Writ Petition 22751 /2009 (KL11e;~~--»i._:'j:~..i"-7
Between:
Sri Kurinzippzi S/0 late Rangetppzz
80 yrs, R/a # 158, 6'?" Cross
Shivanahlli, WCR, Bazngailore 44
Now r/a Holzilgere Paiya
Keznpasagara Post, Maigadi Tq
Ramamagara District V J
(By Smt V Vijaya1akshm.i Vishukuinar.:_Aci'Vvj)i
And:
' is».-
Stailcvoi'Kumaluvféuii"-. "
Revcmie Departmeiii ._ "
M S Builckiagg Amijx.-:d}<;;1r VVCé't7n')i
Bangfalore V'
S;i_3_1'.'~ Dfspuiga Co :1i:11iS's"i<32':ér
« .Baizga]0rc Ufhgin District
K GTR0;icf, ,B*.~mga.1ore
" frziivisiidag = '
B'aing;i1_0'ré:. Exist
K R Purzim, Bangalore
ii B;mzga]()i'e DeveEo;3me.n1 Authority
U Pfwcsi, Bangaiore 20
"VB;-' iis C0minissi()|ier
H lnzepectcir General of Police &
Dqjartmcnt of Fire. 8: Emergency Services
Peiiiioiier
10
# E, Annaswznny Mudaiizar Road
Bangalore 422
K21lyananagz1ra Resicienis Wckfare .i\:ssoci21t.i0n
By its Generak Secmary W B Shambu Kunmr
Bangalore Dex-'el0pmen1 Authority Ward Office
1" Block. Bang:-,1E0re 43
Sm: K Vim:,1iz1mm.a W/0 Jayaranwiah
Sri N Jayaramaiah S/0 Na1raya11appa'_
7-8 are I'/'ck # 15, 1"' Main Road
Kalidasa Marg, Ga:1dhi11agar
Bartgalore V '
Sri H S Seshadri S/0 late H Su-bAt)ai{%;h';
# 703. T" B Mam.'-1"' C C;-gs-as . ' 'V
1*' Biock. HRBR"Ex'_u:11s'u5_n. &3;mga:ere"a1',:v~. V'
Smt S-a_lAE_y Jc5;~;s::[ii; Blip 1zu:2_ C Kldsepvh
# 705'. 7""8--M:un§ 2":*§"C Ci~as$; '
HRB-R Extansiog~}f"Biot:2<, " _
Bamz-1§wadi.._ Kuiyz1rmz1gai",V.B2i:=;gz1§0re 43
Wg.Co:n;m?r. A Thcma..~~:-V 13'-.2115
s/:;'1;~.:¢ J Abra-h11§n'1,"# 105
fig gxgzam, HRBR' «E_x_t__ensi0n
1*" Bk3r:'E<. Banaswadi, I<.aEyananagar
' _ V ' B-a:1g--;1_IO':'e'4¢3 V ._
_ Kunniappan
Rfa if 539, healer Road Extemion
Sf'.T§1C2afnaé;' Town Post, Bangalore 84
B?"
31)
in",
Sri John Stephen Henry S/o J S Raj ax':
Grace Caro] Henry. # 108. 7'" [-3 Main
HRBR Extension. E" Block. Bamziswadi
KE1i);'£1l}:11EgLlI'._ Bangalore 43
Sri Borulinguizzh S/oKempninh
R/a # :04, 7"* 13 Main, HRBR Extension
1"' Block. Bunzzswai, Kzilyzmariagar
Bangziloir: 43
Karnataka Public Lands Corpn. Ltd _
D C Court Compk-3x :
Near City Civil Court Comp!-ex
K G Road, Bzmgalore 9 Rcsfgrytidciits "
(By Sri G K.rishnnmur£hy. Sp1.AGA for
Srr A M Vijayu for R4: Sri K M Prukzmh for R18,
Sri Shzmkar S Bhai, Adv. for RE();l.i.l3, *
M/s R210 & Rao for R9. 12: R5, {S sd/»---_) 3. .
This i'Peti{ir>n TEES'i"§.]¢(f._'ili}dCI'. Ar£.226/227 of the Consrétiaiiorr
praying to qunsh {Ere order. 'Ci-citric! 'z:nr1cxnre J by the 2"'? respondent.
Ehllowing: A. -- ..
This WriEV'i3r;{iti()I} co_111i12_giora3..for orders this day, {he Court made the ' . . . . . .. ' ii .Pcnnofier"_av;;.__be~§Ls';e this Cour: beirig, aggrieved by the order pa-zsseci by the Spccin"! De'.pu£'y"iComnnissiorier, Bangalore in RRT 2 CR SE/9536 on " v2if}@9i i§t11ovi\l"ing_ {he iznplcading npplicaztions. According to the pe.titi0ner's eoun.<eL eatrher the application filed by the BDA has been rejected by the Deputy Commissioner (3E"l..V'.R.~._:t.'tl'<7'.'."V.3E"){x)I. Further. according to the petitioner's counsel when the ettse_-sf the "i't:=I,_s' t. been rejected. question of allowing them to eomemon J'€3C01TJ"d(§'CS:ii0IV'iii7iSC,V tt__is"
a't].~;o snhmit't'ed, the land has lost the ehar21cte':_ <)t';ta:1§<.:' bed. LII"-(.3:-V1"':lS'"5tI{?h."'3§?C application of the intpteading appiie21t1ts¥ea.;)nc>t bee0n;~:idered"andthey _t;ztnnot_ he come on record. The order passed by the Deputy_Con1m'i::si0t1er isvynorrest and the order sheet maintained t'ts'_t_§;"'~s1t)t fbeent "lsigttevdprtaperfy and there is irreguiurity.
also the 0overnme'11tVsu't;:'t'§'i-fitted» 2t1't.eintie)'en'dent order has been (in! )as.s'ecE on
2.'7.?,()09 by e0nsi;ie:*ing the eeAnten't'iot1 of the parties and the order passed is a reasoneti erdezt which V('}'{}(:SVE1()£ cat}! for int'erferenee. ' pThe. ceunseti*e.p1'esentEng some of the alfottees sutmtitted that since they areL";-tte'Ee:;1ed" lr3irt:tie:¢..t._'t3§f virtue of the allotment made by the BDA. some Vttevelc)pnhent 5,t(-3[.1\".iU:€S- have taken place and in the event any order is pzssseti xze"
conirzlry [0 their interest, ultimately they would be al'€'cci.c(l and [lazy are suitable parties to come on record.
Having heard the counsa-3!. ii is noticed, ;al1.l1oa'g'i3v-..1l1;:rc'=.is'--some irrctgularity in the Order Sheet :11:-rintnénecl. Ehcrcy is an..ilnclrzpcmient"<3:*dcr*-r;);1se;;:{i on 2.7.2009 by the Special Deputy Com't;1l_ssionéi'arid after, »l'(jl0l<i.rV1'g in lo [lac various contentions raised by the parties. 'lay the circnimstgilncéis. z§l§l(>wi11g the impleading Llpf)llC21ll()n of the pzr_1'ti'es c()_ficcr11c'(l..._w.oii§--:.l no: in any way take away the right lfzmy, available :0 the '§3c:_tiLE£5fie:'s. 2 been rejcczecg l1'¢1~?«'l'k}gl()_[l";lC._l'i§CI (Exit the p1'CS€l1CC of the BDA is very much necsesssary"because"L:lii'i;1ALaLelVy""the land of which the petitiom-31' claims lrzwlng :'igl:t"a:J.d inte1"<-;st_ and BDA ll';-ES also [nude z1ll()tz'ne11I.<; without any V";5_.cqlu'ésri£ldli1 pri:c}c3(ll":2gs, at least from the point ()fde.fcI1ding the matter to kzlcccssziry p:1r{y.:n bt':,0n record.
explain -lihrylsévt-alrrzldn r§:~..::'vc:1 to claim relief against the BDA, it would be a V"