IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL NO.2690 OF 2015 (BDA) BETWEEN:
SRI. B.S. HEMANTH KUMAR SON OF LATE B H SRINIVASA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO.5/6 KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD YELACHENAHALLI J P NAGAR VII PHASE BENGALURU-560 078.
(BY SRI. D R RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE PRESIDENT ….APPELLANT BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BENGALURU-560 020.
3. THE COMMISSIONER BBMP, N R CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 002.
4. THE PRESIDENT RBI STAFF CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED NO.770, 4TH MAIN ROAD, 10TH CROSS, J P NAGAR, 7TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078.
…..RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-1 SRI. A LOKANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 SRI. ASHWIN S HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 SRI. BASAVARAJAIAH N ADVOCATE FOR R-4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No. 50726 OF 2014 DATED: 03.08.2015.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 03.08.2015, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.50726 of 2014, rejecting the writ petition while granting liberty to the writ petitioner to institute a suit for declaration and consequential reliefs, the writ petitioner has filed the present appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the order of learned Single Judge is erroneous and interference is sought for. That there is no dispute that the property in question belongs to the appellant and therefore he is entitled for the reliefs sought for. That the lands have been wrongly included in the layout plan of respondent No.4. Therefore, the question of he approaching the civil court may not be appropriate.
3. Same is disputed by learned counsel for the respondents. They contend that there is a dispute on title.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this appeal.
5. The Learned Single Judge, on considering the plea, was of the view that the petitioner cannot be permitted to convert a writ court into a civil court and seek declaratory relief so as to conclude whether the land that belonged to the petitioner, was acquired or not. The answer to this question would necessarily have to be done through a civil court. During the course of this proceedings, affidavits were sought for by the respondents with regard to acquisition or otherwise. It is being pleaded that the affidavits indicate that the land has not been acquired.
6. Be that as it may, even if the affidavits are considered, a writ court cannot grant a declaration with regard to title. It is for the civil court alone to determine it. Therefore, the said statements cannot be taken into account. Hence, while dismissing the writ appeal, the liberty granted to the writ petitioner by learned Single Judge, stands sustained. The pleadings in this petition are only for the disposal of these matters.
7. Accordingly, writ appeal is dismissed.
Pending I.As. stand rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RD