Sri K N Basavaradhya vs The Joint Director
2022 Latest Caselaw 11347 Kant

                              1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

                           PRESENT

              THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
                  ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

                            AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

          WRIT APPEAL NO.582/2022(KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI K.N. BASAVARADHYA
S/O K.N. NANJUNDARADHYA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT NO.1189/C, 4TH MAIN
14TH CROSS, M.C. LAYOUT
VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 040.                   ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI H.R. ANANTHA KRISHNA MURTHY, ADV.)

AND:

1.     THE JOINT DIRECTOR
       DEPARTMENT OF SURVEY
       OF LAND RECORDS
       BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
       BENGALURU.

2.     THE LAND ACQUSITION OFFICER
       BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
       T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU.

3.     THE DEPUTY TECHNICAL
       ASSISTANT AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR
       SURVEY DEPARTMENT
       SITUATED AT DEPUTY
       COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE
       BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.    ...RESPONDENTS
                                2



(BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR A PATIL, A.G.A. FOR R-1 & R-3)


     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.16/2022
DATED 02.06.2022 IN DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AND TO
ALLOW THE APPEAL.

    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS                      DAY,
VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                            JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal has been filed by the

unsuccessful petitioner challenging the order dated

02.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court

in W.P.No.16/2022.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and also

perused the material available on record.

3. Facts leading to the filing of this writ appeal narrated

in brief are, land bearing Sy. No.39 of Ramasandra village,

Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, totally measuring 23

acres 38 guntas was notified for the purpose of forming "Sir

M.Visveswaraiah" Layout by the Bengaluru Development

Authority (BDA), and accordingly, the notifications under

Sections 4(1) & 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued

on 15.04.2022 and 31.04.2022, respectively.

4. At the instance of the appellant herein, the phodi of

the aforesaid land bearing Sy. No.39 was done by the

Assistant Director of Land Records, Bengaluru South Taluk,

and by his order dated 01.07.2007, he assigned new Sy.

No.177 in respect of an extent of 5 acres of land which

allegedly belonged to the appellant herein in the aforesaid Sy.

No.39. The said order was questioned by respondent no.2

herein before respondent no.3 in appeal, which was allowed

by respondent no.3 vide order dated 04.10.2021 and being

aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein had preferred

W.P.No.16/2022 before this Court, which was dismissed by

the learned Single Judge vide the order impugned. Hence,

this appeal.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in

view of the earlier orders passed by this Court in

W.P.Nos.28494-495/1998 and W.P.No.3845/2007,

respondent no.3 was not justified in entertaining the appeal

of respondent no.2. He submits that the earlier orders passed

by this Court have attained finality, and therefore, respondent

no.3 had no jurisdiction to re-open the case.

6. Respondent no.2 had preferred the appeal before

respondent no.3 under Section 49(f) of the Karnataka Land

Revenue Act, 1964, principally contending that the Assistant

Director of Land Records had passed the order dated

01.07.2007 without notice to it.

7. Respondent no.3 having appreciated the fact that the

land bearing Sy. No.39 was the subject matter of acquisition

by the BDA and also considering the fact that the Assistant

Director of Land Records has passed the order dated

01.07.2007 without hearing the BDA, had set aside the said

order and remitted the same for fresh consideration.

8. The learned Single Judge having appreciated the

aforesaid aspect of the matter, in his order dated 02.06.2022

has observed as under:

"By the impugned order, the third respondent - Deputy Commissioner has set aside the phodi conducted in respect of Sy.No.39 and assignment of a new Sy.No.177 on the ground that it was in contravention of certain Government circulars.

2. The third respondent has directed his subordinates to ensure that the matter is reconsidered in accordance with the directions issued by the Government from time to time. The third respondent has also directed that both the parties shall be heard in the matter before fresh orders are passed.

3. In my view, since the third respondent has merely directed that the matter to be reconsidered, as the phodi had been done in the absence of the revision petitioner, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the third respondent.

4. I find no reason to entertain this writ petition and the same is dismissed."

9. We find no illegality or irregularity in the said order

passed by the learned Single Judge.

10. Respondent no.3 has directed that both the parties

shall be heard in the matter afresh. Therefore, it is always

open for the appellant to bring to the notice of the Assistant

Director of Land Records about the orders passed by this

Court in W.P.Nos.28494-495/1998 and W.P.No.3845/2007,

which according to the appellant, have attained finality.

11. Under the circumstances, we are not inclined to

entertain this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

KK