Sri Sivakumar R vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 2100 Kant

                               1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2021

                         PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                           AND

 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

            W.A. NO.1598 OF 2015 (LA-BDA)
                         IN
         W.P. NOS.57428-430 OF 2013 (LA-BDA)

BETWEEN:

SRI. SIVAKUMAR R
S/O S. RAMANATHAN
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.242, 2ND FLOOR
5TH 'B' MAIN, 16TH CROSS
4TH PHASE, J P NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 078.
                                          ... APPELLANT
(BY MR. SUDHAKAR G.V. ADV.,)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
       DEPARTMENT OF URBAN
       DEVELOPMENT, 4TH FLOOR
       VIKAS SOUDHA
       DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
       BANGALORE-560001.

2.     BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
       KUMARA PARK WEST
       BANGALORE-560 020
       REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
                             2




3.   THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
     BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
     KUMARA PARK WEST
     BANGALORE - 560020.

4.   SRI. RAVINDRA REDDY
     S/O SRI THIMMA REDDY
     AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

5.   SRI. V. NAGARAJ
     S/O SRI VENKATAPPA @ MUNISWAMPAPPA REDDY
     AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.

     R4 & R5 ARE RESIDING AT
     HULIMAVU VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI
     BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
     BANGALORE-560 076.

6.   SMT. GULLAMMA
     W/O LATE SRI. ERAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
     RESIDING AT ARAKERE VILLAGE
     BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
     BANGALORE- 560076.
                                        ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1
    MR. M.V. CHARATI, ADV., FOR R2 & R3
        R4, R5 & R6 SERVED)
                             ---

     THIS W.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN
THE WRIT PETITION NOS.57428-57430/2013 DATED 06.03.2014.

     THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING,           THIS   DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                3




                         JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal under Section 4 of the

Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 has been filed by the

appellant who is a purchaser of the plot in question

against the order dated 06.03.2014 passed by the

learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.57428-30/2013.

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly

stated are that the respondents were the owners of land

bearing Sy.No.49/1, Sy.No.49/2, Sy.No.50, Sy.No.52/1,

Sy.No.52/2, Sy.No.52/3 and Sy.No.53/1 measuring 13

guntas, 1 acre 38 guntas, 31 guntas, 11 guntas, 11

guntas, 21 guntas and 13 guntas respectively. The

aforesaid land was needed by the Bangalore

Development Authority for the purposes of

implementation of the scheme viz., Byrasandra

Tavarekere, Madivala-Phase VI layout. The process of

acquisition of the land was set in motion and a

preliminary Notification dated 08.09.1987 was issued

under Section 17(1) of the Bangalore Development

Authority Act, 1976. The objections were filed to the

aforesaid Notification by respondents No.4 to 6. The

Land Acquisition Officer of the Bangalore Development

Authority passed an award on 21.12.1990 and took

possession of the land in question on 02.02.1991.

3. Thereafter a Notification under Section 16(2)

of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on

08.07.1991. Thereafter, the authority on 22.08.2007

published 10 corner sites for auction and the auction

was fixed for 05.09.2007. The bid of Mr.S.Harish Kumar

was accepted in respect of the site bearing No.676, 3rd

Block, II Phase 6th Stage of BTM Layout as he was the

highest bidder and a sale deed was executed in his

favour on 28.08.2009. The appellant by a registered sale

deed dated 02.11.2012 purchased the site from the

aforesaid S.Harish Kumar.

4. The respondent 4 to 6 filed a writ petition in

which challenge was made to the validity of the

acquisition proceedings. However, in the aforesaid writ

petition viz., W.P.Nos.57428-30/2013, in which

challenge was made to the validity of the land

acquisition proceedings initiated by the authority, the

appellant who had the right, title and interest in respect

of site site bearing No.676, 3rd Block, II Phase 6th

Stage of BTM Layout was not impleaded as respondents.

The learned Single Judge by an order dated

06.03..2015, inter alia, held that the scheme framed by

the Authority has not been implemented for a period of

five years from the date of final declaration and the

acquisition proceedings in respect of land in question

includes the land purchased by the present appellant as

well were quashed. Being aggrieved, the appellant has

filed this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that the appellant had purchased the site bearing

No.676, 3rd Block, II Phase 6th Stage of BTM Layout by

a registered sale deed on 02.11.2011 for a valuable

consideration of Rs.23 Lakhs and the appellant was a

necessary party to the lis as his right, title and interest

was involved. However, the impugned order has been

passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to

the appellant who was vitally interested in the result of

the litigation. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has not

been disputed by the learned counsel for the Bangalore

Development Authority.

6. We have considered the submissions made

by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the

record. Admittedly, the site in question was auctioned

by the Bangalore Development Authority on 22.08.2007,

which was purchased by the vendor of the appellant

viz., S.Harish Kumar and the Bangalore Development

Authority had executed the sale deed in favour of the

vendor of the appellant on 22.08.2009 who in turn by a

registered sale deed dated 02.11.2011 sold the same to

the appellant. The appellant, therefore, was vitally

interested in the result of the litigation and is a

necessary party to the lis. However, respondents 4 to 6

did not implead the appellant in the writ petition and the

aforesaid aspect of the matter was not taken note of by

the learned Single Judge and the writ petition was

allowed. The impugned order has been passed by the

learned Single Judge without affording an opportunity of

hearing to the appellant who is the necessary party to

the lis. The impugned order has been passed in violation

of principles of natural justice and therefore, the same

cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is accordingly

quashed. The respondent Nos.4 to 6 are directed to

implead the appellant as respondent in the writ petition

and the matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge

for decision afresh in accordance with law after affording

an opportunity of hearing to the parties.

In the result, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

SS