- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18 th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA RP No.534/2015 & RP Nos.570-571/2015 (In Writ Petition Nos.55974-55976/2013 (KLR-RES-PIL)

BETWEEN :

1. M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT "THE FALCON HOUSE" NO.1, MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD -560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LEGAL MR. T ARVIND PAI ... PETITIONER (By Sri GANAPATHI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND :

1. THE KARNATAKA PRAJARAJYA VEDIKE (R) NO.9, NEAR GOVT. PRIMARY SCHOOL FIRST MAIN ROAD VIJAYANAGAR POST-WHITEFIELD BANGALORE-560066 REPRESENTED BY ITS FOUNDER PRESIDENT MR RAFEEQ AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

2. THE KARNATAKA JANANDOLANA SANGATANE REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT PRESIDENT SRI B PARAMESH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O COLONY BELATHUR MAIN ROAD POST BANGALORE-560 067.

- 2 -

3. THE KARNATAKA KARMIKA DALITHA JAGRUTHI VEDIKE (R) REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PRESIDENT SRI A C RAJU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O SAMETHANAHALLI ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI KADUGODI VIA BANGALORE-560 067

4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNEMNT DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (LAND GRANTS), MULTISTORIED BUILDING DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDI BANGALORE-560001

5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE-560 009

6. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE-560 009

7. MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA PUBLIC LANDS BOARD URBAN DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE BANGALORE-560 009

8. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ENFORCEMENT CELL) PREVENDION OF UN-AUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTIONS CELL D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009

9. THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK K.R.PURA BANGALORE

- 3 -

10. THE TALUK SURVEYOR BANGALORE EAST TALUK OFFICE K.R.PURA BANGALORE-560 036

11. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR NADA KATCHERI DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE WHITEFIELD BANGALORE-560 066

12. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR (R.I.) REVENUE CIRCLE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE WHITEFIELD CIRCLE BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560 066

13. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT (V.A.) DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE WHITEFIELD CIRCLE KRISHNARAJAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560 066

14. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB) A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING OFFICE AT NO.14/3, SECOND FLOOR R.P BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

15. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DR B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001

16. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (B.D.A) HEAD OFFICE, PALACE GUTTAHALLY BELLARY ROAD BANGALORE-560 009

- 4 -

17. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALKIE (BBMP) HEAD OFFICE, HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 009

18. M/S. JOY ICE CREAMS (BANGALORE) PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMAPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.33 FIRST CROSS, AMBEDKAR NAGAR WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE-560 066 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

19. M/S. WILDFLOWER ESTATE AND RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS OFFICE AT : NO.301, SHAH SULTAN NO.17, BANGALORE-560 052 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri P NARAYANAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 MISS NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R4 TO R6, R8 TO R13 & R15 SRI I. GOPALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R4. SRI N. JAGADISH BALIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R17 SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI ARUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R18)

THESE REVIEW PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 27/07/2015 PASSED IN WP Nos.55974-55976/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.

THESE REVIEW PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

- 5 -

ORDER

By order dated July 27, 2015, Writ Petition Nos.55974-

55976 of 2013 were disposed of by us.

2. Being aggrieved by that order, the present review petitions are filed by respondent No.17 in the writ petitions.

3. Learned counsel for the review petitioner has drawn our attention to paragraph No.5 of the order impugned and he contends that the observation that respondent No.17 in the writ petitions has no locus standi to challenge government

order in respect of the land in question as it is coming in the

way of the said party prosecuting the proceeding in a writ

petition pursuant to the order passed by the State

Government on remand made by this Court in WP Nos.22880-

22881 of 2015. He has also drawn our attention to the fact

that it has been observed at paragraph No.5 that respondent

No.17’s vendor has violated the order of allotment. The said

observation may also be modified.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.18

herein, which is M/s.Joy Ice Creams, respondent No.15 in the

writ petition, has also drawn our attention to the fact that the

- 6 - observations of this Court that his client has violated the order of allotment would come in the way of the said party establishing its case in the proceeding pending before the

Hon’ble Single Judge which is pursuant to the order to be passed by the State Government after remand from this Court in the earlier writ petitions. He submits that if M/s. Joy Ice

Creams is permitted to be transposed as a petitioner in the pending proceeding, then it must have a right to establish its case. Therefore, he also submits that the contents of paragraph No.5 may be suitably modified.

5. We have heard other counsel appearing for the parties including learned counsel for the original petitioners and also learned Government Advocate appearing for the State.

6. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel and subsequent developments namely, filing of writ petition by the petitioner herein subsequent to the order passed by the State

Government on remand of the matter being made by this

Court in WP Nos.22880-22881 of 2015 and having regard to the fact that we now permit respondent No.18 to be transposed as petitioner in the pending proceeding, we feel

- 7 -

that our observations in paragraph No.5 would require a slight

modification. We think that M/s. Joy Ice Creams if transposed

as a petitioner, must have an opportunity to establish its case

before this Court. In the circumstances, the observations

made in paragraph No.5 would not come in the way of M/s.

Joy Ice Creams seeking transposition as a petitioner in the

pending writ petitions before the Hon’ble Single Judge and

also making submissions as a petitioner in the pending

proceeding.

7. The review petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid

terms.

Sd/- ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- JUDGE

mv