IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO.50664 OF 2016 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN:
SMT.SHEETHAL MADDODI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, W/O SRI SHIVAKUMAR HOSANGADI RESIDING AT NO.SB-205 SAPTHAGIRI NIVAS APARTMENTS A.R.LAYOUT, 28TH ‘A’ MAIN, 18TH CROSS, 6TH PHASE, J.P.NAGAR BENGALURU-560 078. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI P.P.HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BDA), CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU-560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. SMT.LAKSHMI @ NEELA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, W/O SRI KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VADDARAPALYA KOTHNUR, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU-560 061 ...RESPONDENTS (By Sri S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1; Sri B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R2; Sri K.DIWAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.04.2016 PASSED IN W.P.NO.42522 OF 2014 AT ANNEXURE-‘A’ AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO IMPLEAD AS A RESPONDENT IN W.P.NO. 42522 OF 2014 AND THEREAFTER RE-HEAR W.P.NO.42522 OF 2014.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The writ petitioner herein had purchased a site bearing No.344, II Block, Jayaprakashnarayan Nagar 8th Phase Layout, Bengaluru by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated 30.07.2014 from one Sri.N.Muninarayana. The said site was originally allotted to Sri.N.Muninarayana by the Bengaluru Development Authority (B.D.A.). The B.D.A. had carved out this site along with many other sites from the lands it had acquired in the year 1994 under a Notification issued under the B.D.A. Act. The lands of the third respondent being acquired for the purpose, the third respondent had approached this Court by filing writ petition in W.P.No.42522 of 2014 on 03.09.2014 for setting aside the acquisition proceedings. By the impugned order dated 21.04.2016, this Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the acquisition. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is one of the purchaser from the allottees. She has become the owner of the lands in question after the sale effected in her name. The sites are formed out of the lands said to be belonging to the third respondent. Since she has not been made as a party to the proceedings before the learned single Judge, she has filed the instant writ petition seeking to set aside the order of the learned single Judge.
3. In view of the fact that the petitioner herein is one of the purchasers from the allottees of the sites in question, no order could have been passed without hearing the petitioner. The contention that she has a right, title and interest would necessarily have to be decided by the learned single Judge. Under these circumstances, we pass the following:
ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The order dated 21.04.2016 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.42552 of 2014 is set aside.
iii) The Writ Petition No.42552 of 2014 is restored to file.
iv) Petitioner is permitted to file an application seeking to implead herself in the writ petition and on such application being made, the learned single Judge shall proceed in accordance with law.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE DH