The Commissioner Bangalore ... vs Smt Shobha on 18 February, 2011

[Cites 5, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

The Commissioner Bangalore ... vs Smt Shobha on 18 February, 2011

Bench: Ashok B.Hinchigeri

E
IN THE HEGH CQURT GF E<ARNﬁT!3s.i<A AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS YHE 18TH DAY C}? FEBRUARY, 2011

BEFORE

THE HQFFBLE may JUSTICE ASHGK B. b::NCH:Q§::::--I'_ __'__j5:  

R.F:.A.NoK2581/2037 {INN
BETWEEN:  h'

The Cemmissioner,  _
Barzgaiore Develepmerzt Authority, '  .. ~ V . _   
Bangaiore,    Agapeliant

(By Sri LG.Ga<:h't;h§nar::°:;éi£h¥L.:)!f«a:if§2o.(;atej "' 

AND:

1. Smt, Shobha, _  _  '    
W/o A.VEnod  _   V   " 
Aged about;37'y.ea~-rs;V__      '

Hindu, R/0-_ Nc>,1' 1.E'3*,-_.  _   
st" cross-, Azad :\zVa'ga;.:,_   
Chamaraj{f>--e_t,'% V  4' = ''
Bangalgre w''i3; . 

2; V' «.;S.mt:L._ ':r<.:_w_1an'jAuEa Mi3'§<u'nVda,
 ,W/Q i<.R.$$'}uk:;s.m:ia,
 _A'ge_C§'ab'e._ut».48_ years,
R,/5 -No .'9, "jg: __C:'c>'Ss,
». HMT Layoa.2t',~-Mathikere,
. Bangaiorfe #54.

   K+.I.m.S.SHitpashree,

 '* E).fo ?<;.C. Shivanna,
_  2'-=..g"eLi'about 31 years,
 Hénciu, R,/0 930,231/12,
 "'4'"' Main, Kernpegewda Nagar,
* Bangaiore ~ 19.  Respenztients

(By Sri $5., Srikanteshwaran, Advocate fer R--~2}



2

This Reguiar" First Appeai is filed under Sectien §6 ef CPC
against the judgment: and decree dated :t.12u2003 passed in
O.S.Ne,8':339/G2 on the fife ef the XVI Additienaf City Civii and
Sessieas Judge, Baagaiere City, decreeing the suit for eerpetuai
injunction.

This Regular First Appeai coming on for Hearing 
the Court defivered the foilowing: '  

JUDGMENT

This apnea? is directed against th'e>Aje'dgnient'a:n"d._d.e{:teej dated :L12.2003 passed by the Court ef'ht.he--._>.(\/I ad_tditivenaE'=--'\C'ét§?"--, Civii and Sessions Judge, Bangaiore"i~nT®..S.No;'8S39fDLi}._

2. There is a deiay yeats:9t:.;_n.eth..ths Ztihdavys (1385 days to be Qrecise) in fiiiag this a:A3pé"tatEt.f'h J

3. ThegleamedV'u:;eu:nseE"tVter'the appeitant submits that the matter was ehtfusted t7t:_§.¥¥*§/'s;'t3:t1_.asarza Asseeiates on 3.3.2005 for pteferringﬁliah"~appea1';~--..V:vas the said advocates déd not We the a;§p_ea|;V'«the withdrawn from them and entrusted to ae0th'.erAV'adtveCat'a,_ ':'ta'naeEy, Sri Gangadhar Sangoifi or: 14.2.2006 V7?l__for"-prefe§§*§hg"'-theeppeai. As the said advocate aise déd not fife .1 the matter was entrusted to the eresent advocate on "taxis.:ue.2Qd7';:

'I '\ .:

4. "i"i*ie Eeemee coeiisei tot the aoeeiient further submits that the appeiierit has got a good case on merits. §he further submits that the suit sciiecitiie properties are ail fornied4...oiu.t'io_f the Eerie at Sy.F~io.16 of Vaddarapaiya Viiiage arid _ land at the said survey number ie acquireti for th-e"p.e}_poe~e matte "~ 'V benefit of the apeeiiant - Bangeiore :'i;)ev:eio§:ir%ieieEit.'ﬁeth:jo.tit=;x;_ié (BEA). She S;§l.ibiTiEiZS that the preiiV'n*s.E_Ijar3,Vr"'~ootificatvi'oii:.vi:ah§ii final notification are issueci on §i.5.1994 resoectiveiy. She submits tiiVai't._zo"n_Ap'eLse:ihVe":=h'e:avgard, possession of an the iands at Sy.No=,:i6 iniciuehifiig properties was taken on Compensation is already depo:S_ite:_:I--iri.{'i'ti"sV--t.i{iie Court. She submits that the respondenteijhaye"'*;):ij"i;fi.he:eeiii4the suit scheduie properties betweeii 1§§i'S;9S end it S.'v._'Si%€_2F to my notice that the appeiiant has filed LA.No';2/'C_Z«iAfo'i'7tiieiﬁriﬁduction of additionai documents. Copies the ".f.)i'ei'i.VI':TiEi:ax'i"y notification, dated 29.12.1988, finai tieted 9.5.1994, possession Certificate and the evidencing the depositing of the compensation %.""v.V_'3!"i'i.4:'é}Vi,i'Eif§iiiai"e produced aiong with thegéaid IA

6. The learned sioeesei for the tesoendeets eehrnits __that no goed grenade are made out for eendoning the iong aesa:'y.'_ia£, 3 years 9 months 20 days. He submits that the ~ and decree is passed on 1.12.2803. Its __Co.pyj was-i K"

the aopeiiant only on 188.2004. He szjemitlai doee not dieelese whet followup ec';"i_o1'e._.i.A.saeA'talf<en t§fgf"'{§e..,.§£z.¥'>}ét'e Law Qffieer with the two advocaAt_e:.iSu}A'~:.hanfie|§';% ..,gf\/:'l,._/Qtsﬁgaasana Associates and Gangadhar SaVn'go7lIi. rny notice that, going by the version ofthe ap;a'e§'¥'an"t were lying with M/s.Upasar2a_ and with Sri Gangadhar 'At every stage, the undue delay i:§__to »sf§oV>_'<:i:o--ntends the learned Counsel for the tespondente."'--i%_l"e dismissal of the LA. for the con_dVonatio'n_%fCof d.ela3l_ ~- V' V haste. weight with the Court in considering the 1}.agoplicaituoﬁforitthe_»..go'i:é'dVonation of delay is not the length of the delay,' but the 'e.:iiff'ioiet3cy of the cause shown for the delay. In '":tt;fese;. it ie not known when the first application for the iv"'»'V.'eop*,tjof'"the"judgment and decree, dated 1.12.2003 came to be "the certified Copy of the judgment flied with the appeal .u"i..hﬁei'.norandum ahews that it wa_pp|ied on 5.10.260? and that the semi was 'ready on 25,10,230? 'thereafter aise §ieng weeks are taken fer fiiirig tee eppeai, This deiay is het exeiained at aii.

8, The affidavit is siient, as to whether the e0nceijn"etd"'t4ta~ia»V Gfficer ef BSA was tolidwing up the matter with Mfs'.t};:ia:sa"tiaE' M Associates. Nothing is forthcoming a.'s'AA'Vte«.s;vi?iat.;«'tifa'ii3i3ire'dVi"".

between 33,2005 (the date on which theiicasefwas>e_:j'tteste'd:'_.te.i:v"

M/s.Upasana Associates) and 14.2,2Uv£)::$'v-i(theVhd'ate=.en_: the case was entrusted to Sriv:".c§angte'd'h'at_ifj uS'a.ngoiii)'."* hes the continuation weuid have it, noitdhingiiL-is'fertht:ti_ni1ir'._g as to what happened (the date on which the case was entrfu«sted-- advocate). The affidavit is deficient in tr2anyV'tes;deei;g., deiay of 3 years 9 months 20:.':'sd'a.ys sva.tisfa"ct0'i"i'iy and cogentiy explained by the appelia_:nt.: "approach of the BDA cannot be approved Thai: aaatt, BDA has not been showing any diligence or ;b{en4Aaf~ifti'eAs.'i"It is not known as to why BOA did not repiy ice the 'tfes.1§e.i'ide;nts' notice, dated 30.73002 issued under Section 64 of V{"'tVi'1eu"'Bi3A Act, did not ﬁie the witten statement, did not <.:;'oss--~ es :3 examine PW}. and ate snot enter the witness hex. It aetiears to be a stars? of rnissea eppettunities, Even in the aeeeai memorandum aise these iapses on the part of the BDA are not expiairled away at aii.

10, For ail these reasons, this Ceurt finds the ,. submissions regarding the concicmatien of ae:;».«,§{ {l;'_e.ul' onperstiasive and unconvincing. §.A.No.1,-'"0? torﬁthe ee.n:ti>o;*iaVt'i*o'ri of delay is rejected.

11. Ordinarily, if the appeiiant"'i*aVi'i's to crests"ioeerwiliﬁhewlfirst hurdle of delay, this Court woif.I'l~d,_ no_i:io_oit,in,to~._the merits of the case. But in the ,r;er:Vtll'i'3a:"i.f:a'<:tna_|:"iinatr-ix of the case, even when the appeal has '*-to be' on the rejection of the app_Iicati0n',.i§er the condonatierl of delay, certain clarifications and 0bservati~e_,hs _v'>'h?la\,u'«.._;3e necessary. If the land is indeed compu'|"so'ri.l_yt a"{:a§"u_vi.;fe'ti,"'i'Vn exercise of the eminent domain of the Tgtate, any"""mat:ter*'iaertaining to or arising therefrom cannot be Way of a suit before the Civil Court. For iii."zfeiteifatiiog this iegai position, reference has to be made ta the 'Court's judgment in the case of STATE OF BIHAR v. 4"'*ir,t4i'ae§:heneeA KUMAR AND emeas reported in (1995)-4 scc it

229. The teievaot oertéoo of the said judgment is exttagtted hereéttbeﬁow:

"3. ..... at We are, therefore, incfined to thin_i:,:.:mas' presently advised, that by necessary imp/icatiotij'=.ti'iei.:' power of the civi'! court to take cogn.'2'a'nce.of..&tne« _¢'<3'.<Ti¢3 under Section 9 of CPC stands excluded, a;fidi~.3 CM! .i:a'm{' has no jurisdiction to go into tnea';;uestio'n_Vof the or iegafity of the notiii<:ati"on 'igisnder S:ec*tior;VV.e¢4_= declaration under Section of, excepat..oi("the--.tiigh 'Court iota proceeding under Articie 22_5}9f tire §:.ons.ti'tution. So, the civil suit itself was not maintainaiijfei; is the situation, the find.€ng.__of theV"'tii'ai' .ooi§rt tiﬁaiiyjdvere is a ;:)n'ma facie ttiaeie:§lissueV:"is€,unsustainab'ie;" Moreover possession was handed over to the Housing of'i'njunt:tion was without }'ur/'SdiCt/"ion. "__ --

12$ It is aise ,Vbe'n_e'f'it:iai:':'_"_;:o4 refer to the Apex Court's judgment s.si:t'the cas'e'v...of__'__§,AXMI CI-{AND AND omens v.

GR'i~u5{l»'__!(ARARIA AND omens reported in portion below the Head Note 'B' of the said judgmnent ehxtracted heteinbeiow:

3 ""Setti'on 9 of the Civii Procedure Code, 1908 gives juirisdiction to the civil court to try all civii suits, unless V"'i._,~oart;*ed' The cognizance of a suit of civil nature may "'guei"ti"7er exotessiy or impiiediy be barred, The scheme of " the not is compiete in itseif and thereby the jurisovkrtion of 41;. 3 8 the emf court to take cognfeence of the cases arising under the élct, by necessary imp!/'catioh, stood herreeh 'Fhe e;"w'i ceert :'hereh;v* is cfevoio' er jer;'se'iets"er: re give ciecieretion on the invalidity of the procedure cohtempfeted under the Act. The only right an aggrieved person has is to approach the constitutional courts, VI'Z,,"»-

the !-h'gh (fear: and the Supreme Court under plenary power under Articles 226 and 136 respe:<:t}'veIyJ:'V' with seffaimposeo' restrictions on their exerc'l'se:j~'.. ' extraordinary power. Barring thereofg; ' there' is he ';oc:v§ferx 'V to the ch/ilcourf." _l , . _ 1.3, It is this Court's anxiety"t_het the"nonapalrti'c~§.palt§on3 of the BDA in the matter, for the reaVs_ohs_ best itself, should not ofélevolbyllltc interest," Therefore, while dismissiVrigVV"thls ground of delay, liberty is reserved to the to file constituted suit for declaration t:h:af'tV'it~.;s owinerttéof the""stiiVt schedule properties. If one such suit "is'V',fi|'edlf...tt:e~.:Triai Court shall consider the same Ev.:l'i'hdepencfet}t%ly unmindfui of its judgment and decree, passed in O.S.l\i0.8539/OZ. Needless to 't_he:t it shall also be open to the respondents to take site-h.';'clvefencesas are permissible in law including the point of .._§'lmEte't§e:l.

14' Subject t3 the absewationg made here§nabeve,__ti':i3 appeai is dismissed on the ground of deiay.

MD

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court