Karnataka High Court
N Basavaraj vs State Of Karnataka on 24 August, 2021
Author: B. V. Nagarathna
Bench: B. V. Nagarathna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B. V. NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT
WRIT PETITION NO.1549/2021 (KLR - RES)
BETWEEN:
1. N.BASAVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
S/O G. NANJAPPA
NO.164/1, SHAMANNA LAYOUT
VINAYAKA NAGARA, HAGADURU
WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560 066.
2. S.N.RAJA
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS
S/O LATE SRINIVASAIAH
R/ OF SAMETHANAHALLI
ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI
HOSAKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560 067.
3. VINOD KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
S/O N. BASAVARAJ
NO.164/1, SHAMANNA LAYOUT
2
VINAYAKA NAGARA, HAGADURU
WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-562 114.
... PETITIONERS
(SRI.S.N.BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DISTRICT
K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DISTRICT
K.G.ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
4. TAHASILDAR
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
K.R.PURAM
BENGALURU-560 036.
5. TAHASILDAR
HOSAKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL-562 114.
6. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA
PALIKE (BBMP), HUDSON CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 001
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3
7. ADMINISTRATOR
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
(BBMP), HUDSON CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 001.
8. JOINT COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
(BBMP), MAHADEVAPURA
BENGALURU- 560 048.
9. SMT. RINKU DESPANDE
MAJOR, W/O NOT KNOWN
R/AT PEBBAL BE APARTMENT
TOWER-4, PLOT NO.123
1ST MAIN ROAD, R.M.V. 2ND STAGE
DOLLARS COLONY
BENGALURU-560 094.
10. KEMPANNA.M.
S/O MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS
R/AT 2317, 3RD CROSS
BDA EXTENSION
JEEVANBHEEMANAGAR
HAL 3RD STAGE
BENGALURU-560 075.
11. KRISHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS
W/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA
NO.18, 2ND CROSS
1ST MAIN ROAD
JEEVANBHEEMANAGAR
HAL 3RD STAGE
BENGALURU-560 075.
12. BENGALURU METROPOLITAN
TASK FORCE (BMTF)
HUDSON CIRCLE
4
BENGALURU-560 001
REP. BY ADGP
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.C.N.MAHADESHWARAN, AGA
FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. V. SREENIDHI, ADV.,
FOR R6-R8; SRI. A.S.PONNANNA, SENIOR
ADV., ALONG WITH SRI. RAKESH BHAT, ADV.,
FOR R9)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING
THE RESPONDENT NO.2 MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT
OR ORDER ALLEGED GRANT DATED 16.01.1965 MADE IN
FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT NO.10 AND 11 WITH RESPECT
TO LAND IN SY.NO.143 AND 144 (OLD SY.NO.115)
SITUATED AT CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE, BIDRAHALLI
HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK MEASURING 8 ACRES
AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION TO TAKE BACK THE
POSSESSION OF THE LAND BY CANCELLING ALL THE
TRANSLATION INCLUDING THE SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF
9TH RESPONDENT.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is stated to be filed in public interest.
2. Pursuant to the order dated 17.08.2021, petitioners are present before this Court. 5
3. When we queried petitioner No.1 as to why he published in newspaper "Shalini Vani" of which he is the publisher and editor and the news item concerning the issues raised in this case, he had no answer.
4. At the outset, we deprecate the practice of publications being made by the parties who filed the petition in public interest when the matter is sub-judice before this Court.
5. Be that as it may. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned senior counsel for respondent No.9 and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
6. Learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.9 drew our attention to ex-parte order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 28.01.2021 directing the respondent No.2 to hold an enquiry into the question whether the grant dated 16th January 1965 which is referred in prayer clause (1) is a 6 genuine grant and the competent authority to take decision about the said grant. Further direction was issued to submit the report before this Court.
7. Learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.9 as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 submitted that the compliance report has been filed before this Court on 16.08.2021 inasmuch as the enquiry held pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on 28.01.2021 has been complied as the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru has passed an order on 12.08.2021 and the same is appended to the compliance report. Therefore, learned senior counsel as well as learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that appropriate orders may be made in the writ petition as the prayer sought for in the writ petition has been complied with by the State.
8. Further, learned senior counsel for respondent No.9 submitted that an ex-parte direction was issued by 7 this Court to hold an enquiry into the legality of the grant without hearing respondent No.9.
9. Be that as it may. Pursuant to the order dated 28.01.2021 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, an order has been made on 12.08.2021. Therefore, liberty may be reserved to respondent No.9 to assail the correctness and legality of the said order in accordance with law and the petition would not survive for further consideration as the prayer sought for by the petitioners has been granted by this Court by way of interim directions.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the order passed by respondent- Deputy Commissioner dated 12.08.2021, the consequential proceedings may be initiated by the official respondents and possession of land measuring 8 acres in Sy.Nos.143 and 144 (old Sy.No.115) of Channasandra Village, Bidarahalli hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk may be taken by annulling all transactions in respect of the said land. 8
11. To this submission, learned senior counsel for respondent No.9 vehemently contended that an opportunity must be given to respondent No.9 to assail the order dated 12.08.2021 passed by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner or otherwise there would be violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as without granting an opportunity to challenge the said order, further action to be taken in this writ petition would result in failure of justice.
12. We find force in the submission of learned senior counsel for respondent No.9 having regard to the prayer made by the petitioners herein and the interim order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 28.01.2021 and the subsequent order passed by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner on 12.08.2021.
13. We find that the petition would not call for further consideration inasmuch as the prayer sought for by the petitioners has been granted pursuant to the interim order dated 28.01.2021 and the subsequent order passed 9 by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner dated 12.08.2021.
14. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to respondent No.9 or any other respondent who is aggrieved by the order dated 12.08.2021 passed by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner to assail the same in accordance with law.
No costs.
All contentions with regard to the legality of the order passed by the respondent -Deputy Commissioner dated 12.08.2021 are left open to be raised before the appropriate forum.
We restrain the petitioners from making any publication regarding the petition filed by them in their newspaper "Shalini Vani".
10
The aforesaid restraint order is having regard to the fact that petitioner No.1 is also the publisher and editor of the said newspaper and hence, the aforesaid order.
Consequently, I.A.No.1/2021 stands disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SSD