Bangalore Development Authority vs State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 1180 Kant

                                             -1-
                                                      WA No. 398 of 2021




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                       DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                           PRESENT
                          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                             AND
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
                          WRIT APPEAL NO. 398 OF 2021 (LA-BDA)
               BETWEEN:
               1.   BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
                    AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD
                    KUMARA PARK WEST
                    BANGALORE - 560 020
                    REPRESENTED BY ITS
                    COMMISSIONER.
               2.   THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
                    OFFICER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
                    AUTHORITY, KUMAA PARK WEST
                    BANGALORE - 560 020.
Digitally
signed by B                                                   ...APPELLANTS
A KRISHNA
KUMAR          (BY SRI B. VACHAN., ADV.)
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka   AND:
               1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
                    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN
                    DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA
                    BANGALORE - 560 001
                    REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

               2.   SMT. SHANTHAMMA D/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH
                    AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS.

               3.   SMT. SUSHEELAMMA D/O LAT VENKATARAMAIAH
                    AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS.

               4.   SRI C.V. GOPALA KRISHNA S/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH
                    AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS.

               5.   SRI SATHYANARAYANA V S/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH
                    AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS.

               6.   SRI V. SRINIVASA RAO S/O LATE VENKATARAMAIHA
                    AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
                               -2-
                                           WA No. 398 of 2021




7.   SMT. RAJALAKSHMI D/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.

     2 TO 7 ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.77
     3RD MAIN ROAD, DAVARACHIKKANAHALLI
     BANGALORE - 560 068.

8.   SMT. SHARADHAMMA W/O LATE C.K.RAMAKRISHNA
     AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS.

9.   SRI R.V. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE C.K. RAMAKRISHNA
     AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

10. SRI R. SURESH S/O LATE C.K. RAMAKRISHNA
    AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

11. SRI R. HARISHA S/O LATE C.K. RAMAKRISHNA
    AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

     RESPONDENTS 8 TO 11 ARE THE
     RESIDENTS OF NO.89/1
     BANNERGHATTA ROAD
     PARIVARA PALACE APARTMENTS
     BANGALORE - 560 076.
                                                ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHAMANTH NAIK, ADV., FOR R-2 TO R-11;
SRI B. RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP FOR R-1)

      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER             DATED
24.09.2019 PASSED BY THE HON BLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
W.P. NO. 41386-395/2017, AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION.

      THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal has been filed against an order

dated 24.09.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge which

has been disposed of with consent of parties.

WA No. 398 of 2021

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the

appellant at length and have perused the records.

3. Paragraph No.2 of the order passed by the learned

Single Judge reads as under:

"2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the present writ petitions are identical to that of W.P.No.804/2016 decided on 05.08.2019 pursuant to earlier order dated 15.09.2017 passed in W.P.No.21831/2016 which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents."

4. Thus, it is evident that order has been passed by

the learned Single Judge with the consent of the parties. It is

trite law that after the order is passed with the consent of the

parties, the intra court appeal does not lie.

5. The appeal is misconceived and therefore,

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

NMS