R Hanumaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 November, 2010

[Cites 3, Cited by 14]

Karnataka High Court

R Hanumaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 November, 2010

Equivalent citations: 2011 (1) AIR KAR R 528

Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA M
AT BANGALORE  

Dated this the 16"' day Of November;    *
THE I-ION'BLE MR JUSTICE  V  

Misc.w.._Ig__75I Of.201Q  "

Writ Petition NO. 21 I86v_'_gf201 0','LA-EDIé;)
Writ PetitiOn'I'V_O§. 2:.388;5-95.;-£2010{LA-BOA}

BETWEEN

RHANUMAIAH.     
S/O LATE Ix/II_2.I.1,I3.A.;I;'" EAT/IAIAII

AGED ABOUT 90. VYEARS -- _ 

R/AT MESTEY EALYA ' .. " '
JAKKAS.m.\IDRI=T_     
ST. JOHNS MEDICAL COIJDEGE POST
BANGALORE  563034.   ~

, V . . PETITIONER
(Hy; Sri  Sri R Vijaya Kumar. AdvS.}

AND 5 »

 V'  .1: V'  STATE OE " K "" E A RNATAKA

REP. M BY  REVENUE SECRETARY

" T_ " ' MOB LTILDING
 _ «DR. AMHEEKAR VEEDHI
 BANGALORE _ 560 001.

g 2.  BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

. SANKEY ROAD, BLOCK :2
* 4_ KUMARAPARK WEST
. I {BANGALORE -- 560 020
' "BY ITS COMMISSIONER

 =  THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

SANKEY ROAD, BLOCK 12

 

 



 

KUMARAPARK WEST
BANGALORE -- 560 020   
BY ITS COMMISSIONER 1w,sEO'ND;ENIs
APPLICANT A It .

CITIZEN ACTION GROUP

JAWAN'S QUARTERS

BDA PARK, DOUBLE ROAD
INDIRANAGAR 157 STAGE

BANGALORE -- 560 038  

REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED'   ' .
SIGNATORY MRS. NOMITAIVOQHANDY '-

IBy Sri K   82 
Ms J ayna K0thari,--.AdV; fO'I'Cjp:jopOsed R4:
R1 ~«- servec_E~}._v V " 

M1sC.w., 1-9751 CF 201.0 FILED-UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 R/W ORDER _i>"R.ULE.10.f2) s;..sjEC'1ION 151 OF THE CODE OF
CIVIL PROC~EDURE-v-1908'--.PRAYING ":IfO..IMpLEAD THE APPLICANT
"CITIZENS A_CTI_ON GRGUP"'[HE%IN§AS AN INTERVENER IN THE
pE'II1IONs._ssv'IfOv..s_pueI':,_ .EOR'IIa1 sUC§.Iv"'OTHER DOCUMENTS AND
PLEADINGS As3Iv_IAY*I3E NECESSARY AND ETC.,

MI.sC.w.' 1OI7'5ij COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT 'MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

a person who Ciaims to be the of 6 acres 20 guntas of land, which had I A Corhe hotiﬁed for acquisition under Section 4 of the I It A ;A..I,and_.pACC;I1isition Act, 1894 [for short, the Act] way back in I 1959, for the purpose of forming what is known Ass Koramangaia layout in the east of Cantonment--Hosur 3 road, by the Bangalore city improvement trust board [CITB], who is now seeking for quashing of government and the developments. in according to one version, taken possession by the or thereafter and formed sites and" of many persons, come up with a notificatioriig V' Section 48 of the Act proceedings which had been initiated' 1959 sought to be in the bacgiggroundiwofr litigation either at the instance of or development authority or allottees as weil as the Supreme Court, which, _V though v'-vvtasito the advantage of the petitioner, had short- to a subsequent state government notiﬁcation

--','.~'rr1'enti'oned above, by which, the state government went " back on the withdrawal notification, as though there was No NA AAE~l41 BEMAASI 2006 dated g13'ér1;jg1~2_oo9 temp, at AnneXure~AA to the writ petitiionj, ..vissu-ed.::by,V :_/3 I the app1icant--society, the outcome of the present writ petitions may have a bearing on the or otherwise of the extent of 6 acres of land, mater of withdrawal notiﬁcation:,'"for. ag xasuaj. lung space for the residents of it t is the endeavour of the is so retained and for such .purp0'St; n_t'1f1eV""s.ocietfyhadialso filed a public interest 1itigatit>ri._'<ynt this court in WP No 2476384-of petition for issue of certain? can ensure that subject' area or playground etc.; that "still pending before a Division Bengt:-h of even while such a petition is ifaordersflllare to be passed in the present writ affect the interest of the applicant in getting.-__'reI--ie'fAin the pending PIL writ petition and therefore toapprise this court and to educate this court of all such 'developments and to impress upon the court the need for "passing orders which can only ensure preservation of the 9/

6. Be that as it may, I find it is wholly unnecessary to order this application for the simple reason._V'1"ar as the applicant is concerned, ltﬂis not .ti1e'---i:1'_1tei'eStV ofﬁthe_u"--..

applicant which is in examination to whether the subject 1andv'sh.ouid--"be -Ia area or piayground or a even according to the submissions of the appiicant, the very land is public interest litigation #0 it is open to the appiicant. 'concentrate and pursue its efforts in thatwrit before the Division Bench of this 'court';~. a matter is pending, such a 'neither be examined in the present writ it necessary and in so far as the present concerned, the applicant is no more than '*._a and the intervention at the cost of the time of "i--f:'(:ourt is the time made availabie to the litigant public the state under the Constitution of India is nothing if short of an obstruction in the present proceedings as has M 8 been observed by the Supreme Court in the case~..pf J M DESAI Vs. ROSHAN KUMAR [AIR 1976 36], reading as under:

36. It will be seen that in the 'context Z-ocusj standi to apply for a:=writ'oj'ceriiorar'i, applicant may ordinarily"-fall any these categories': _ ii} jperscn ciggrieved': w:'ii'} 'stranger'; (iii) busybody or~._rrieddlesome interloper. __ Persons _'in_ the last category are easily"~w.distinguis.hable from those coming uncier- If'I'7.§?Vi:'»_f:lI'Sl fiwo categories.

Such persons"interfere iritf'iing;s which do not _concern them' They "mg-:zsquerade as crusaders for€_jiistice.._ Theyrpretend to act in"'the.. B._On_O Publico, though 1 they,haue'no'iraterest cf the public or even

-------- .AoVf,iheirwvown'----.to p'ro.;'ect. They indulge in ._ the, _pcLst--ti_m*?.,.. of meddling with the " judicitiiprocess" either by force of habit or ° from'v._irnprQperimotives. Often, they are "aciuiated 'byﬁ-a desire to win notoriety or cheappopularity; while the ulterior intent .__of soine-----applicants in this category, may _ no more than spoking the wheels" of " .,ad_ministrai1'on. The High Court should do v to reject the applications of such ."busybodies at the threshold.

" is alosoiutely nothing that the applicant is required or assist this court in the context of the cause lllbrougiit before this Court by the petitioner and the examination is as to Whether the writ petitioner an-get any reiief as sought for in the prayer made in and examination in the petitions is strictly of the statutory and constitutionial' based on any philanthropic Vddapproaclfi considerations, which does in-tfj:qj'¢éxainination in the exercise of jurisdiction forvviudicial review of administrative action i i i

7. The short of a frivolous application.andTit';Tis;':ijcjectepdand"'i't;is only because the applicant has society espousing pubiic causes, it has escaped 'Vfro'znb'eing mulcted with costs. 'vi-0751 of 2010 is dismissed.

3 (:2 U 7 £33 T~ as:

E"

.5 J ,

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court