Karnataka High Court
Smt Najeeb Unnisa vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42806-DB
WA No. 1240 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1240 OF 2022 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NAJEEB UNNISA
W/O LATE ATEEULLA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
2. SRI. AIJAZULLA KHAN
S/O LATE SADATHULLA KHAN
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
No.87, 1ST FLOOR, 5TH MAIN
AECS 2ND STAGE, (RMV 2ND STAGE)
SANJAYNAGAR, OPP. TO BANK OF INDIA
BENGALURU-560 079
...APPELLANTS
Digitally signed
by (BY SRI. M. SREENIVASA, ADVOCATE)
MADHUSHREE
H
Location: High AND:
Court of
Karnataka
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M.S. BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42806-DB
WA No. 1240 of 2022
M.S. BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDA
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD
BENGALURU-560 009
4. THE TAHASILDAR
DEVANAHALLI TALUK, DEVANAHALLI TOWN
BENGALURU DISTRICT
5. THE BENGALURU METROPOLITAN
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ALI ASKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001
6. THE BENGALURU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
PLANNING AUTHORITY, DEVANAHALLI
BENGALURU DISTRICT
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR
7. THE EXECUTIVE MEMBER
THE BENGALURU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY
DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU DISTRICT
8. SMT. VASUNDARAMMA
W/O CHIKKA VEERABHADRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
RESIDING AT No.228, OM SHIVASHAKTHI
KUMARA KRUPA, PRASHANTH NAGAR
DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU DISTRICT
9. SMT. VIJAYA NAIR
W/O LATE PADMANABHA NAIR
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RESIDING AT No.567, 2ND CROSS
2ND BLOCK, R.T. NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 032
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:42806-DB
WA No. 1240 of 2022
10. SMT. MILI GANDHI
D/O. SRI. VIJAYA NAIR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESIDING AT No.567, 2ND CROSS
2ND BLOCK, R.T. NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 032
11. A.S. MURALIDHAR
S/O A. SATHYANARAYANA SETTY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESIDING AT No.347, 12TH CROSS
8TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 011
12. K.M. KIRAN KUMAR
S/O K.L. MYLARALINGA SETTY
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RESIDING AT No.52
'PUNEETH NIVAS', 1ST MAIN
NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD
MARUTHI NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 072
13. K. RAVIKUMAR
S/O K. ADINARAYANA SETTY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESIDING AT 2ND CROSS
VIDYANAGAR, TUMAKURU-572 103
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. YOGESH D NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R7;
R8 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
SRI. L.M. CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R9 & R10;
V/O DATED 09.09.2024, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R11 TO
R13 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
28.10.2022 DISMISSING THE W.P. No.30045/2018 PASSED BY
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:42806-DB
WA No. 1240 of 2022
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants,
learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents
No.1 to 4, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.5
to 7 as well as learned counsel appearing for respondents
No.9 and 10.
Notice to respondent No.8 is served but is
unrepresented and notice to respondents No.11 to 13 has
been dispensed with.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
submits that the appellants were before the learned Single
Judge challenging the development plan sanctioned by the
NC: 2024:KHC:42806-DB
respondents No.6 and 7 and that the dismissal of the writ
petition has resulted in a situation where the sole access
to the appellants' property has been blocked by putting up
of a compound wall, which was not authorized by the plan.
It is further submitted that learned Single Judge had
directed the conduct of inspection by the BDA and the
report had been obtained which showed that there was no
other access to the appellants' property. It is therefore
contended that in view of the dismissal of writ petition, the
appellants' valuable right for access to their properties is
now lost.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents,
on the other hand, contends that learned Single Judge had
only found that in the light of the hotly disputed questions
of fact, this Court exercising extraordinary original
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
would not be the proper forum to consider the contentions
of fact as raised by the appellants. It is submitted that the
learned Single Judge had specifically granted liberty to the
NC: 2024:KHC:42806-DB
appellants to avail of the alternative remedies, as available
to them under law. It is submitted that learned Single
Judge had also specifically adverted to Sections 96 and
103 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1965 and had
found that even in case the contentions urged by the
appellants are totally found to be correct, the appellants
had alternative remedies available to them.
4. Having considered the contentions advanced
before us, we are of the opinion that the questions raised
before us in the writ appeal also are essentially in the
realm of factual disputes, which this Court could not have
considered in writ proceedings.
5. In the above view of the matter, we are of the
opinion that since the learned Single Judge has specifically
granted liberty to the appellants to avail of the alternative
remedies available to them, there is no scope for
interference in the judgment of the learned Single Judge in
this intra-Court appeal. The appeal therefore fails and
NC: 2024:KHC:42806-DB
accordingly disposed of with liberty to the appellants to
avail all alternate remedies as available to them in law.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
MH/-
