Bangalore Development Authority vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 12289 Kant

                           1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

                        PRESENT

             THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
                 ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

                          AND

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY

             W.A. NO.19 OF 2022 (LA-BDA)
                          IN
            W.P. NO.46592 OF 2019 (LA-BDA)

BETWEEN:

1.     BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
       T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
       BANGALORE -560020
       REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

2.     THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
       BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
       T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
       BANGALORE-560020.

                                        ... APPELLANTS

(BY MR. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADV.,)

AND:

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
      DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
      M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.
                             2



2.   SMT. N. DHANALAKSHMI
     W/O P. MUNIKRISHNA
     AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

3.   SRI. P. MUNIKRISHNA
     S/O LATE PILLAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

     RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE
     R/AT NO.670/3B
     NEAR SHANIMAHATMA TEMPLE
     KODIHALLI, HAL II STAGE
     BANGALORE-560008.

                                        ... RESPONDENTS

(BY MR. A. SAMPATH, ADV., FOR R2 & R3
    MR. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1)

                         ---

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN WP
NO.46592/2019 (LA-BDA) DATED 08.08.2021.


     THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
                               3




                           JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal has been filed against the

order dated 08.08.2021 passed in

W.P.No.46592/2019.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in

reserving liberty to the respondents to approach this

court for the same cause of action incase, their

application filed under Section 38D of the Bangalore

Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred

to as 'the Act' for short) is rejected.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the

respondents at length. A litigant cannot be permitted

to file a writ petition on the same cause of action.

Therefore, the learned Single Judge erred in reserving

liberty to the respondents to approach this court on

the same cause of action in case, their application

under Section 38D of the Act was rejected. The

direction reserving the liberty to the respondents is

therefore set aside. The order is modified to the extent

mentioned above. Needless to state that it will be open

for the respondents to seek review or to file an appeal

against the order dated 08.08.2021 passed by learned

Single Judge, if so advised.

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

SS