IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO. 1827/2019 (BDA) BETWEEN:
SRI A MUNESH S/O LATE ANANTHA B N AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO. 2383, 7TH MAIN 20TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE K.R.ROAD, BSK II STAGE BANGALORE - 560 070 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI SANDESH C R, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU - 560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER 2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU - 560 020 REP BY ITS DEPUTY SECRETARY -II 3. SRI MOHAMED IBRAHIM S/O HUSSAIN SAHEB AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/AT NO.312, 4AC, 3RD BLOCK 3RD MAIN, HRBR LAYOUT KALYAN NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 043 ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29/05/2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.21496/2019 [BDA] AND ALLOW THE APPEAL ACCORDINGLY.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
2. The challenge in this appeal is to the impugned order dated 29th May 2019. The appellant applied for allotment of a site to the first respondent. It appears that even the third respondent also applied for allotment of the same site. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge directed the first respondent to consider the representation made by the appellant and to take a decision after providing an opportunity of being heard to the appellant as well as the third respondent.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant has purchased a site from the original allottee and as the said site is not suitable, he has applied for allotment of the subject site. He submits that the third respondent, being an influential person, may succeed in getting the site allotted to him.
4. We have considered the submissions. The appellant is claiming allotment of the site. The appellant cannot claim allotment of the site which is a public property as a matter of right. The learned Single Judge has directed the first respondent to consider the representation of the appellant and as the third respondent has also applied for allotment, the learned Single Judge directed the first respondent to give an opportunity of being heard to the third respondent as well.
5. We find no error in the direction issued in the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
6. Needless to add that if the order passed by the first respondent in terms of the impugned order be adverse to the appellant, he will be entitled to challenge the same in accordance with law.
The pending interlocutory application does not survive and is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE bkv