Karnataka High Court
M/S vs L Srinidhi Realities V/S Sri M ... on 5 October, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:36101-DB
WA No. 243 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT APPEAL NO. 243 OF 2023 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
M/S V S L SRINIDHI REALITIES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS,
SRI. DINESH KUMAR SINGH,
SRI. LAKSHMIPATHI DUDERIA,
SRI. SANKA SRINIVS,
HAVING OFFICE AT NO. 32,
BENAKA LAYOUT,
KEMPALINGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGLAURU 562 123.
Digitally signed ...APPELLANT
by SHARADA (BY SRI. SAMPATH A.,ADVOCATE)
VANI B
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. SRI. M NARASIMHA SWAMY,
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT SY.NO.164/1,
SRI LAKSHMI NRSERY FARM 4TH STAGE,
SIR M.VISHVESHWARAIAH LAYOUT,
ULALU, BENGALURU 560 056.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:36101-DB
WA No. 243 of 2023
NO. 85/A, VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
SAMPANGIRAMANAGARA,
BENGALURU 560 001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
5TH MAIN ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE 560 020.
4. THE TOWN PLANNING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
5TH MAIN ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU 560 020.
5. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
5TH MAIN ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU 560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR., AGA FOR R2;
SMT. ARCHANA T V., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. T N VISHWANATHA., ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE WP
No-22169/2021 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONBLE COURT AND B)
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2022 IN WP No-
22169/2021 DISPOSED WITH MAIN WP No-3366/2022 BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE ON THE FILE OF THIS HONBLE COURT
SO FAR IT RELATES TO THE RELIEFS SOUGHT IN WP No-
22169/2021.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDRES THIS DAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:36101-DB
WA No. 243 of 2023
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal by the respondent in
W.P.No.22169/2021 seeks to call in question a learned
Single Judge's order dated 19.09.2022 whereby the said
writ petition having been disposed off a direction has been
given to consider the representations of the first
respondent herein who had presented the said writ
petition. The operative portion of the order at para 7 reads
as under:-
"7. In view of the submission made by
Sri. A.Sampath, learned counsel that time
frame be fixed for the respondent-Authorities
to consider the representations made by the
petitioner at Annexure 'L', 'M' and 'N', I am of
the view that the respondent-BDA shall
consider the same within eight weeks from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this order
and to convey the outcome of the same to the
petitioner as well as to the respondent No.4 in
Writ Petition No.22169 of 2021."
2. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently
argues that although he has no much objection for the
direction of the learned Single Judge for considering
subject representation of the first respondent's, the
consideration of the appellant's application for the
NC: 2023:KHC:36101-DB
WA No. 243 of 2023
issuance of provisional sanction plan could not have been
directed to be deferred. He hastens to add that such a
deferring would have several implications on the
construction activity in terms of costs, time and exertion,
more particularly, when the matter involve time bound
compliances and accomplishment of the project. Learned
private advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and
learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for
respondent No.2 oppose the appeal contending that the
impugned order of the learned Single Judge cannot be
faltered and that no prejudice is caused to the appellant
thereby.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the appeal papers, we decline
indulgence in the matter inasmuch as we are in
agreement with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge.
Learned advocates appearing for the contesting
respondents is more than justified in contending that the
impugned order is like "an order to pass order" on the
subject representations more particularly with the
NC: 2023:KHC:36101-DB
WA No. 243 of 2023
participation of the stakeholders and therefore, the very
appeal is misconceived. What heavens would be falling
down should a reasonable time is taken is causing
consideration of subject representations of the first
respondent herein, is not demonstrated before us despite
vociferous arguments. In matters like this, arguably some
prejudice may be caused and the same is inevitable in the
fitness of things more particularly, when the request for
the grant of sanction plan would be considered
immediately after the outcome of the representations of
the first respondent.
In the above circumstances, this appeal being devoid
of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed, costs
having been made easy.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
