1 in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 21 ST DAY OF JUNE 2012 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.VIKRAMAJIT SEN, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA Writ Appeal Nos.1346-1350/2012(GM-POLICE) & WA Nos.1512-14/12 BETWEEN: 1. SRI LAKSHMINARAYAN S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT DODDAKALLASANDRA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560062 2. SRI SRINIVAS S/O LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT DODDAKALLASANDRA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560062 3. SRI HANUMANTHAPPA S/O LATE H VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT DODDAKALLASANDRA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560062 4. SRI MUNIRAJU S/O KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT DODDAKALLASANDRA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560062 2 5. SRI MUNIVENKATAPPA S/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT DODDAKALLASANDRA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560062 6. SRI T SRINIVAS S/O KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT DODDAKALLASANDRA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560062 ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI P KRISHNAPPA, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI K S RAMAPRIYA S/O K SRIDHAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO. 80/81, 70TH CROSS SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560003 2. SRI S K PRAHALADA S/O SRI S N KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO. 160, SATHYANARAYANA LAYOUT 3RD STAGE, 4TH BLOCK BASAVESHWARANAGAR BANGALORE-560079 3. SRI C UMAPATHY S/O L CHAKRAPANI AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO. 205, MAYURA GARDEN 2ND CROSS, EGYPURA BANGALORE-560047 4. SRI. DRUVA BHAT S/O LATE GANAPATHY BHAT AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO. 795, 9TH "A" MAIN ROD RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560040 3 5. SRI. S VIJAYENDRAN S/O D R SUDEENDRAN AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO. 10/10, S V LAYOUT 5TH A CROSS, BSK 3RD STAGE BANGALORE-560065 6. SMT. SUKANYA S/O R RAMACHADNRA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO. 158, 32ND "B" MAIN ITI LAYOUT, SARAKKI, JP NAGAR 1ST MAIN BANGALORE-560062 7. SMT. SUJAYALAKSHMI NAGENDRA W/O L NAGENDRA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO. 26, ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET SHESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-560020 8. SRI. K K MUKUNDA S/O SRI K KURUP AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT NO. 26, 3RD CROSS PAPANNA GANGANAGAR R T NAGAR POST BANGALORE-560032 9. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING VIDHANASOUDHA BANGALORE-560001 REP BY ITS SECRETARY 10. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT DC COMPOUND BANGALORE-560009 11. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER PODIUM BLOCK VV TOWER,DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001 12. THE BANK OFFICERS & OFFICIALS HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED 4 SITUATED AT DODDAKALLASANDRA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE-560062 REP BY ITS SECRETARY 13. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD BANGALORE-560020 14. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560009 15. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANASOUDHA BANGALORE-560001 REP BY ITS SECRETARY 16. THE COMMISIONER OF POLICE BANGALORE CITY, INFANTRY ROAD BANGALORE-560001 17. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER SUBRAMANAYAPURA POLICE STATION BANASHANKARI SUB DIVISION UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE-560061 18. SRI JAGADISH S/O LATE SHAMANNA AGED MAJOR R/AT DODDAKALLASANDRA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560062 19. SRI UMESH S/O LATE SHAMANNA AGED MAJOR R/AT DODDAKALLASANDRA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560062 ... RESPONDENTS 5 (BY SRI SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADV. FOR SRI K MANJUNATH, ADV. FOR R1 to R8, SRI M. SRINIVAS, ADV. FOR R12, SRI C.R. GOPALASWAMY, ADV. FOR SRI K.M. SOMASHEKARA, ADV. FOR R13, SRI B. VEERAPPA, AGA FOR R9 to R11, R15 TO R17, SRI K.N. PUTTEGOWDA, ADV. FOR R14) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.15229-15236/2011(GM-POLICE) DATED 13/01/2012. THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY , CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT VIKRAMAJIT SEN, C.J. (Oral) : We have heard the matter on merits. Delay condoned. 2. These appeals seek to assail the order of the learned Single dated 13.01.2012 passed in WP Nos.15229- 15236/11 in which the appellants were arrayed as respondents. 3. The grievance of the writ petitioners was that their possession was Being interfered with By the appellants By virtue of their claim to have occupancy rights over the land which stands duly acquired. Challenge to the acquisition has Been affirmed By the Hon’Ble Supreme Court and therefore has attained finality. 6 4. The learned Single Judge has noted the orders of another learned Single Judge dated 08.01.2001 which pertain to the inter se claims of the erstwhile owners of the land and the erstwhile occupants who are appellants Before us. The proceedings Before the Land TriBunal pursuant to the remand order passed By the learned Single Judge on 08.01.2001 are still pending. 5. Since the acquisition has Become final and a new layout as visualized in the acquisition, has Been formed and possession of the sites has Been handed over to the various allottees including the petitioners in WP Nos.15229-15236/11, the learned Single Judge correctly opined that Annexure-D i.e. the order dated 08.01.2001 did not have any impact on the writ petitioners. In other words, the only suBsisting dispute is Between the appellants on the one side and the erstwhile owners on the other with regard to the appellants’ claim for occupancy rights. If and when they succeed and occupancy rights are granted in their favour By the Land TriBunal, the only effect will Be that compensation payaBle pursuant to the acquisition may Be receivaBle By the appellants and not the erstwhile owners. 7 6. The appellants cannot Be aggrieved By the impugned order as that seems to adjudicate rights of the petitioners in those proceedings i.e. allottees suBsequent to the formation of the layout. It appears that, in the inter se disputes Between the erstwhile owners and the tenants (appellants) an interim order had Been passed requiring the maintenance of status quo. The impugned order correctly clarifies that since the writ petitioners are not parties to those proceedings, that order of status quo would not Be Binding on them. 7. We find no error in the impugned order or in the order in Review Petition No.81/2012 dated 16.03.2012. 8. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE Sk/-.