IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR WRIT APPEAL NOS.2485-2488 OF 2015 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN:
1. MRS.FAHMIDA W/O LATE SYED MOHIDEEN, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 2. SYED TANVEER AHMED S/O LATE SYED MOHIDEEN, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT #2832, 2ND STAGE, 2ND PHASE, NEAR WATER TANK, DEVANUR LAYOUT, RAJIVNAGARA, UDAYAGIRI, MYSORE - 570 019 3. SMT.SYEDA MUTAHARIN FATHIMA W/O SYED MUJAHID AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/A. DOOR NO.779, 17TH B MAIN ROAD, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE - 560 010 4. MRS.YASMEEN W/O MR.SYED RASHID HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.3/41, 10TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK EAST, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 004 ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.CHAITANYA HEGDE, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE - 560 020 BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.ANITA.R, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, ADV. FOR R2 & R3) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.8229-8232/2015 DATED 21/07/2015.
THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, NARAYANA SWAMY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The appellants are the petitioners before the learned single judge wherein the prayer made was to declare that the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondent has lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, on the ground of abandonment of the scheme. The writ petitions which came up for preliminary hearing was disposed of on 21st July 2015 rejecting the case of the petitioners. This appeal is against the said order of the learned Single Judge.
2. The grounds taken up by the appellants are that the order passed by the learned single judge is contrary to law and facts. The writ petition came to be disposed of permitting the petitioners to approach the competent court seeking declaration of status as legal representatives of owner of the land in question. The learned counsel submits that the said writ petitions came to be disposed of at preliminary hearing stage itself even without notice to Bangalore Development Authority.
It is submitted that the contesting party is the Bangalore Development Authority and if there is any objection with regard to the legal representatives, it should have been from the Bangalore Development Authority and in the instant case, even without issuing notice to the Authority, writ petitions were disposed of. It is the submission of the learned counsel that in similar circumstances, this Court in Writ Appeals No.3557 to 3574 of 2015 disposed of on 24th November 2015 wherein similar ground had been taken, the order of the learned single Judge has been set aside and the matter was remanded to the learned single Judge for fresh decision on merits and in accordance with law, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the dispute with regard to the status as legal representatives is for the contesting party whereas in this case, no opportunity was given to the Bangalore Development Authority and disposing of the petitions at the preliminary hearing stage itself is contrary to law.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the Bangalore Development Authority submits that they were not represented since no notice was issued and Government is not the contesting party.
4. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the opinion that the relief sought for by the appellants in these appeals is to declare that the acquisition proceedings initiated lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act on the ground of abandonment of the scheme. If that is the question raised, the only contesting party is Bangalore Development Authority to whom sufficient opportunity was to be provided. It is for the contesting party to raise dispute as to legal representative or otherwise. That having not been done, we hold that the order passed by the learned single Judge is contrary to law and the same is required to be set aside. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R The Order dated 21st July, 2015 passed in Writ petitions No.8229-8232 of 2015 by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned single Judge for fresh decision on merits and in accordance with law, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter.
Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to place IA.I of 2015 before the learned Single Judge for passing appropriate orders.
Appeals are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE lnn Sd/- JUDGE