IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT APPEAL NO.6757 OF 2017 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN:
C.HEMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS SON OF LATE C. NARASIMAIAH @ CHIKKA NARASIMAIAH RESIDING AT No.7, 5TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN KALYANI NAGAR, VASANTHPURA SUBRAMNYAPURA POST BENGALURU-560 061 … APPELLANT (BY SRI AMBAJI RAO NAJARE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1.THE COMMISSIONER BBMP, N.R. SQUARE BENGALURU-560 002 2.THE JOINT COMMISSIONER SOUTH ZONE, BBMP ZONAL OFFICE 9TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN II BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 002.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER – LAND ACQUISITION, BBMP N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002.
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE (RR NAGAR) BBMP, N.R SQUARE, NEW ANNEXURE BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR, ROOM NO.408 BENGALURU-560002. … RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.10.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.46451/2016 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION NO.46451/2016 (LB-BMP) AS PRAYED FOR.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH.,J DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No.46451 of 2016, dated 11.10.2017 in dismissing the writ petition, the petitioner therein has filed the instant writ appeal.
2. The plea of the petitioner is that his land has been taken away by the Corporation and therefore he is entitled for compensation.
3. On notice, the respondent-BBMP has filed the statement of objections denying the contentions. It was also contended that the alleged property does not belong to the petitioner. It belongs to the respondent-BBMP and it is a road, wherein public are parking two wheelers, autos etc. Based on these facts the petition was dismissed on the ground that, the stand of BBMP has not been controverted by the petitioner. There is a serious dispute regarding title. The same cannot be agitated in a writ court.
Under these circumstances, we do not find any good ground to entertain this appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to peruse such remedy as available in law.
In view of the dismissal of the appeal, we do not find any reasons to issue notice seeking condonation of delay.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE HR