Smt Rekha Mahesh vs The State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 5801 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Smt Rekha Mahesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 August, 2025

                                               -1-
                                                      WP No. 40367 of 2014



                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

                                           PRESENT
                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
                                              AND
                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
                          WRIT PETITION NO. 40367 OF 2014 (LA-BDA)


                   BETWEEN:

                   1 . SMT REKHA MAHESH
                       AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
                       W/O. B.M MAHESH KUMAR,
                       R/A HOSATHOTA ESTATE,
                       P.B.NO.16, BALLUPET P.O.,
                       HASSAN DISTRICT-573214.
                                                              ...PETITIONER

                   (BY SRI. C.M.NAGABUSHANA, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed          REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
by VASANTHA
KUMARY B K                URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
Location:                 KARNATAKA GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
HIGH COURT
OF                        VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
KARNATAKA
                   2.     THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
                          REPRESENTED BY:
                          THE COMMISSIONER,
                          T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
                          KUMARA PARK WEST,
                          BANGALORE-560 020.

                   3.     SMT. KAMALAMMA
                          W/O LATE P.MUNIREDDY,
                          AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
                          NO.3, 10TH CROSS,
                            -2-
                                  WP No. 40367 of 2014



     JAYMAHAL EXTENSION,
     BANGALORE-560 046.

4.   SRI KONDAPPA,
     S/O LATE P.MUNIREDDY,
     AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
     NO.3, 10TH CROSS,
     JAYMAHAL EXTENSION,
     BANGALORE-560 046.

5.   SRI SOMASHEKAR,
     S/O LATE P.MUNIREDDY,
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
     NO.3, 10TH CROSS,
     JAYMAHAL EXTENSION,
     BANGALORE-560 046.

6.   SMT. RADAMMA,
     W/O SURENDER REDDY,
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
     RESIDENT OF NO.48, FERNS CITY,
     RING ROAD, MARATHHALLI,
     BANGALORE-560 056.

7.   SMT. SARALA UPENDRA,
     W/O UPENDRA,
     AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
     NO.3, 10TH CROSS,
     JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION,
     BANGALORE-560 046.

8.    THE COTTONPET SILK HANDLOOM
      WEAVERS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,
      NO.19, 10TH CROSS, CUBBONPET,
      BANGALORE-560 002,
      REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. PRATHIBHA R.K., AGA FOR R-1;

SRI. K.KRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R-2;

SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R.GOULAY, ADVOCATE FOR R-3, R-5 TO R-7;

SRI. K.K.VASANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R-8;

VIDE ORDER DATED:03.02.2020, R-3 AND R-5 TO R-7 ARE THE LR's OF DECEASED R-4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO RECALL AND REVIEW THE ORDER DATED:20.03.2014 PASSED IN W.P.No.36025/2013 (ANNEXURE-A) BY THIS HON'BLE COURT AND CONSEQUENTLY TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION, ETC.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 05.08.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE D K SINGH J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
            and
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

                             CAV ORDER

             (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner who

claims Sy.Nos.7/1A, 7/1B, 7/1C and 7/1D situated at

Gangenahalli village were acquired under the notification dated

30.11.1977 by the Bangalore Development Authority

(hereinafter referred to as 'BDA').

2. The petitioner in this petition has challenged the

judgment dated 20.03.2014 passed in Writ Petition

No.36025/2013.

3. Before dealing with the question of maintainability

of the petition in challenging the judgment dated 20.03.2014

passed in the Writ petition No.36025/2013 and two other

connected petitions, it would be apt to take note of the relevant

facts which are stated thereunder:

i. The land in Sy.No.7/1A measuring 1 acre 34 guntas

situated in Gangenahalli village, now called R.T.Nagar.

K.H.Muniswamappa Block, Bangalore was claimed to have been

acquired by one P. Munireddy, the husband of

Smt.Kamalamma and the father of Sri.Kondappa, Sri

Somshekara, Smt.Radhamma and Smt. Sarala Upendra in the

year 1970 and his name stood in the revenue records as the

owner of the said land. As a result of the partition between

Sri. Late. Munireddy and his brothers, the extent of property in

Sy.No.7/1A fell to the share of Sri. P.Munireddy, the husband of

Smt. Kamalamma, one of the petitioner in the

W.P.No.36025/2013 while lands in Sy.Nos.7/1B, 7/1C and 7/1D

each to the extent of 17 guntas fell to the share of the other

brothers, the total extent, in all measuring 8,278 Sq.mts.

ii. Under the exemption order passed by the State

Government under Section 2(1)(A) of the Urban Land (Ceiling

and Regulation)Act, 1976 dated 19.03.1983 the said land was

reflected. The betterment charges of Rs.79,100/- was paid to

the local authorities and the land was also assessed to the land

tax in terms of Section 145, Karnataka Municipal Corporations

Act, 1976.

iii. The lands in Sy.Nos.7/1A, 7/1B, 7/1C and 7/1D

along with the other lands were the subject matter of

notification for acquisition under the provisions of the BDA Act,

1976, for the purpose of extension of Matadahalli Layout dated

30.11.1977, which was followed by the final notification dated

08.12.1977. The land bearing Sy.No.7/2 measuring 2 acres 14

guntas was withdrawn from the acquisition under the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 by the order dated 15.11.1978.

iv. A survey report was submitted by the Land

Acquisition Officer on 01.01.1981 recommending deletion of

certain lands, which was subject matter of acquisition

notifications. The recommendation included several items of

lands in Sy.Nos.7/2, 10/1, 10/2 and 13/2 of Gangenahalli

Village apart from other lands, which were withdrawn by

issuance of notifications under Section 48 of the Land

Acquisition Act.

v. It transpires that Munireddy had sought for

approval for a housing scheme in respect of his land in question

and the State Government had recommended to the

respondent No.2 - BDA permitting the scheme, whereby 70%

of the land would remain with the land owner and 30% would

be available to the authority for development, free of cost.

When the matter stood thus, the work order was issued by the

BDA to the third party for the purpose of development of the

land, which was the subject matter of acquisition including the

land in Sy.No.7/1A, as per the order dated 19.05.2005.

Therefore, Sri. Munireddy who was then in possession of the

land, had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.15201/2025

praying that work order dated 19.05.2025 may be quashed and

a further direction was sought to the respondents to take

further action pursuant to the housing scheme which he had

proposed.

vi. An interim order was granted in the said petition

which was later vacated. As against the order vacating the

interim order, a Writ Appeal was filed in Writ Appeal

No.3560/2005. The said writ appeal was disposed of vide order

dated 21.02.2006 with a direction that the plots, if any, formed

on the land bearing Sy.No.7/1A would not be allotted to the

third parties pending disposal of the writ petition. Writ Petition

No.15201/2005 in turn was disposed of with a direction to the

State Government to consider the case of the petitioner-

Munireddy to withdraw the notification in view of the other

lands, namely Sy.Nos.7/1B, 7/1C and 7/1D having been

withdrawn from the acquisition proceedings. The said

representation filed by Sri.Munireddy stood disposed of by the

order dated 06.09.2011. The said order of rejecting the

representation by the Munireddy, for releasing the land in

Sy No.7/1A from the acquisition proceedings, was the subject

matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.36025/2013.

4. The learned Single Judge by judgment dated

20.03.2014 held that Matadahalli layout is a large portion of

area in Sy. Nos. 5/1 to 5/4, 7/3 as well as 12, 13 and 11, a

large extent of land around the land bearing Sy. No. 7/1A had

been withdrawn from the acquisition proceedings and the land

in Sy. No.7/1A remained an isolated pocket which would no

longer be available for integration with the layout. It was also

held that the petitioner's contention that the possession of the

land was with the petitioner could not be disbelieved. It was

further held that the lands in Sy.Nos.7/1B and 7/1C have been

withdrawn from acquisition proceedings, which would render it

impossible to conveniently form a layout insofar as the isolated

item of land in Sy.No.7/1A was concerned. Therefore, the

scheme would lapse in view of the language of Section 27 of

the BDA Act, 1976 and accordingly, it was held that the scheme

insofar as the land in Sy. No.7/1A was concerned, had lapsed

and the order passed by the State Government declining the

request of the petitioner to withdraw the acquisition

proceedings in respect of the land in Sy No.7/1A vide the order

dated 20.03.2014 was quashed.

5. According to the petitioner, the land bearing

Sy.Nos.7/1A, 7/1B 7/1C and 7/1D situated at Gangenahalli

Village were acquired by the notification dated 30.11.1977 by

the BDA. After forming the sites in the land in Sy.No.7/1A, the

BDA had alloted 25 sites in favour of the respondent No.8 -

Cotton Pet Silk Handloom Weavers' Co-operative Society

Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society'), vide order

dated 09.12.2005, and the respondent No.2- BDA vide

communication dated 18.01.2006 intimated about physical

possession of 25 sites. The Society allotted these 25 sites in

favour of its members. So one such site bearing Site No.39 was

allotted in favour of one Smt.Vimala and the Society executed a

sale deed on 21.01.2006 in favour of Smt.Vimala, who was put

in possession of the said site.

6. Subsequently, by the sale deed dated 28.04.2006,

Smt. Vimala had sold the said property in favour of the

petitioner - Smt. Rekha Mahesh who was put in possession and

since then the property has remained in her possession. It is

further submitted that the revenue records would suggest that

Smt.Vimala was the owner of the property in Site No.39 which

was part of the land in Sy.No.7/1A, out of the 25 sites created

of the land in Sy.No.7/1A.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

case of the petitioner is that the Writ Petition No.36025/2013

was filed by respondent Nos.3 to 7 who are the legal

representatives of Lt. P. Munireddy, challenging the

Government Order dated 22.07.2013 where their request for

the release of the land in Sy.No.7/1A was rejected by the

Government, with a direction to the respondents to de-notify

the land in Sy.No.7/1A, measuring 1 acre 34 guntas, situated

at Gangenahalli village, Bangalore without impleading the

present petitioner as a party to the petition.

8. The petitioner was necessary and proper party to

the said writ petition, being a beneficiary, inasmuch as the

petitioner had purchased the property from the allottee of Site

- 10 -

No.39, which formed part of the 25 sites in the land bearing

Sy.No.7/1A.

9. It is stated that the petitioner does not have any

alternative and efficacious remedy other than approaching this

Court by filing the present petition.

10. The question which requires for consideration

before us is whether the writ petition is maintainable against

the judgment dated 20.03.2014 passed in W.P.No.36025/2013,

by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

11. The Supreme Court in the Constitution Bench

decision in Rupa Ashok Hurra Vs. Ashok Hurra and others,

reported in (2002) 4 SCC 388 has held that a writ of certiorari

cannot be issued to a Coordinate Courts or Superior Courts.

Hence, the High Court cannot issue a writ to another Bench of

the same High Court, nor can one Bench of the High Court

issue a writ to a different Bench of the same High Court.

12. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment, which is relevant

is extracted hereunder:

7. Having carefully examined the historical background and the very nature of writ jurisdiction, which is a supervisory jurisdiction over inferior courts/tribunals, in

- 11 -

our view, on principle a writ of certiorari cannot be issued to coordinate courts and a fortiori to superior courts. Thus, it follows that a High Court cannot issue a writ to another High Court, nor can one Bench of a High Court issue a writ to a different Bench of the same High Court; much less can writ jurisdiction of a High Court be invoked to seek issuance of a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. Though, the judgments/orders of High Courts are liable to be corrected by the Supreme Court in its appellate jurisdiction under Articles 132, 133 and 134 as well as under Article 136 of the Constitution, the High Courts are not constituted as inferior courts in our constitutional scheme. Therefore, the Supreme Court would not issue a writ under Article 32 to a High Court. Further, neither a smaller Bench nor a larger Bench of the Supreme Court can issue a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution to any other Bench of the Supreme Court. It is pointed out above that Article 32 can be invoked only for the purpose of enforcing the fundamental rights conferred in Part III and it is a settled position in law that no judicial order passed by any superior court in judicial proceedings can be said to violate any of the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III. It may further be noted that the superior courts of justice do not also fall within the ambit of State or other authorities under Article 12 of the Constitution.

13. The petitioner has placed reliance on some

judgments. However, we are bound by the constitution Bench

judgment in Rupa Ashok Hurra (supra). As no writ of

certiorari can be issued by one Bench to another Bench, we are

of the view that the present petition challenging the judgment

- 12 -