Smt. B Jayanthi vs Jayaprakash Madhiraju
2022 Latest Caselaw 12732 Kant

                             1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                        PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                          AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

         WRIT APPEAL NO.759/2020(LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

1.     SMT. B. JAYANTHI
       W/O SRI M.C. MOHAN
       AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
       R/AT NO.892, 3RD CROSS
       M.C. LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR
       BENGALURU -560 040.

2.     SRI P. MURALI
       S/O SRI G.V. PANISHAIAH
       AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
       R/AT NO.2632, 11TH MAIN
       2ND STAGE E BLOCK
       RAJAJINAGAR
       BENGALURU - 560 010.          ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI S. SARAVANA, ADV.)

AND:

1.     JAYAPRAKASH MADHIRAJU
       S/O SRI M. GOVINDARAJ
       R/AT NO.9 IST, SAS LANE
       17TH CROSS, 35TH MAIN
       J.P. NAGAR 6TH PHASE
       BENGALURU - 560 078.

2.     BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA
       PALIKE, REPRESENTED BY ITS
       ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN
       PLANNING, EAST 22ND FLOOR
                             2

     SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE
     BUILDING M G ROAD
     BENGALURU - 560 001.

3.   BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
     REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
     KUMARA PARK WEST
     BENGALURU - 560 020.

4.   SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER
     V.V. TOWER PODIUM BLOCK
     DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
     BENGALURU - 560 001.            ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K.N. PHANINDRA SR. COUNSEL FOR
    SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADV., FOR C/R-1;
    SRI ANANDA THEERTHA D., ADV. FOR R-2;
    BBMP-SERVED)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO        SET
ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE MADE IN
W.P. NO. 9161/2020 DATED 10/11/2020, AND PASS SUCH
OTHER ORDER AS MAY BE DEEMED APPROPRIATE.

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

                    JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal has been filed by the

unsuccessful petitioners challenging the order dated

10.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this

Court in W.P.No.9161/2020.

2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the

parties and also perused the material on record.

3. The appellants herein had filed

W.P.No.9161/2020 seeking for the following reliefs:-

a) Issue a writ of certiorari or order or direction, in the nature of a writ, quashing the impugned order dated 26.07.2017 and also that of the order dated 30.08.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.47441-47442/2016 (LB-BMP) vide Annexure-T & T1 respectively to the writ petition;

b) Issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents no.3 and 4-Bangalore Development Authority not to include the land bearing Sy. No.34/1, measuring 1 acre 8 guntas, situated at Nagavara village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, in the proposed approved layout plan, in the interest of justice and equity.

c) Issue a writ of mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent-Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike to cancel the sanctioned plan and license, if already issued in favour of 1st respondent, by virtue of the order dated 26.07.2017 and 30.08.2017 in W.P.No.47441- 47442/2016 passed by the learned Single

Judge of this Hon'ble Court, produced at Annexure-T & T1, respectively.

d) Pass such other orders, as the petitioners are entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the costs of the proceedings in the interest of justice and equity.

4. The learned Single Judge, having found that the

appellants had earlier approached this Court seeking for

the very same reliefs in W.P.No.22881/2019 and the said

fact was suppressed in the subsequent writ petition, has

refused to entertain the writ petition filed by the

appellants herein and has dismissed the same with costs

of Rs.10,000/-. Being aggrieved by the same, the

appellants have preferred this appeal.

5. Undisputedly, the appellants herein have

suppressed the fact of they earlier filing

W.P.No.22881/2019 before this Court seeking similar

reliefs and the said petition was disposed of. The

appellants had not sought any liberty in the said petition

to file a separate writ petition. It is also not in dispute

that the pursuant to the order passed by the learned

Single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.47441-47442/2016

which was sought to be reviewed in W.P.No.9161/2020,

the sanction plan has been already issued to respondent

no.4 and the construction has been put up in the

disputed land by respondent no.4. Therefore, the prayers

made in the writ petition would also not survive for

consideration and they have been virtually rendered

infructuous. Under the circumstances, we do not find any

ground to entertain this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal

is dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE

SD/-

JUDGE KK