IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.6340 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN:
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, NO.14/3, RASTROTHANA PARISHATH BUILDING, WEST WING, 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
(BY SRI B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MR. B. HARINDRANATH SINGH SON OF B.K. SHYAM SINGH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT SINGAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL) TALUK, BENGALURU-560 064.
2. THE TAHASILDHAR BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL) TALUK, YALAHANKA SATALLITE TOWN, BENGALURU-560 064.
(BY SRI S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R-2) ... APPELLANT ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.07.2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.30053 OF 2014.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No.30053 of 2014 dated 20-7-2015, allowing the petition based on the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 therein, the appellant-respondent No.1 has filed this appeal.
2. There is a delay 790 days in filing the appeal.
However, we have considered the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has recorded the submission of the respondent-appellant’s counsel that if time is extended by four weeks, a reference under section 30 and 31 of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act, would be made to the jurisdictional Civil Court together with a deposit of the amount of compensation in terms of the award. Based on this submission, the petition was disposed off. The said order is sought to be challenged in this appeal. When a submission has been made by the respondent, and an order has been passed consequently we fail to understand as to how that very respondent could file this appeal. In our considered view, it is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court. We do not think that such an appeal should be entertained by this Court. Consequently the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE rsk/-