IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.31057/2014 (LB-RES) BETWEEN:
Sri Byrappa @ Byregowda S/o Jogaiahna Siddegowda Aged about 66 years Residing at No.371, 4th Cross Water Tank Road Hootagalli Village Post: Belavadi Mysore Taluk Mysore-570001.
(By Sri. Sangamesh R.B, Advocate) AND:
1. Sri Rachegowda S/o late Javaregowda Aged about 62 years R/at No.289, Janatha Street Hootagalli, Belawadi Post Mysore-570001.
2. Special Land Acquisition Officer Karnataka Housing Board Kaveri Bhavan Bengaluru-560009.
…Petitioner 3. The Commissioner Karnataka Housing Board Kaveri Bhavan Bengaluru-560009.
4. The Assistant Executive Engineer Karnataka Housing Board Kaveri Bhavan Bengaluru-560009.
5. The Managing Director Karnataka Housing Board Kaveri Bhavan Bengaluru-560009.
...Respondents (By Sri.Sharath S.Gowda, Advocate for R1, Sri Raghavendra A.Kulkarni, Advocate for R2 to R5) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order of allotment dated 13.03.2014 passed by the R3 vide Annexure-K and etc., This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner claiming to be the owner of the land measuring an extent of 4 acres 36 guntas in Sy.No.70/1 has filed the present petition challenging the order of allotment dated 13.03.2014 at Annexure-K whereby an extent of 0.1 acre 84 guntas has been allotted to respondent No.1.
2. It is the contention of the petitioner that he had filed an application in respect of land in Sy.No.70/1 situated in an around the property MIG No.4, house No.94. It is stated that the said application was made to the respondent on 24.07.2012. The copy of the said document is produced along with the application filed for production of additional document as Annexure-L. The said fact of the petitioner having made, the application is accepted by respondent Nos.3 to 5. As is evident from the affidavit dated 16.09.2019, these facts are not in dispute.
3. However, it is the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that he has paid an amount of Rs.20,04,260/- and the petitioner does not have any locus-standi to seek for allotment of marginal land insofar as the petitioner has accepted the compensation for the land that has been acquired by the Housing Board and the petitioner’s request is with respect to the land other than the acquired land, which cannot be considered. The question as to the grant of land that is claimed by the petitioner as per the application at Annexure-L and as to the contention raised by respondent No.1 that the property in dispute be transferred to the said respondent it is a matter best left to be considered by respondent No.3, moreso when disputed questions of facts are asserted by both the sides.
4. It is clear from the records that the allotment made to respondent No.1 is without the reference or any order as regards to the application/request of the petitioner. At this stage entering to the merits of the contention or making any observation as regards to the contention raised would prejudice consideration of respondent No.3 who is required to take an appropriate decision. It is the settled position of law that where there are two rival claims by the petitioner and respondent No.1 seeking grant of the same parcel of land the said applications have to be considered together. There is no material forthcoming regarding consideration of the request of the petitioner while making of the grant to respondent No.1. Needless to state that consideration of both the applications is to be made by respondent No.3 after hearing both the parties and affording an opportunity of hearing. Various contentions have been raised as regards to the eligibility of the applicant with respect to the allotment. Without expressing any opinion on the merits only on the ground that the petitioner’s application has not been rejected or considered while making an allotment to respondent No.1, the allotment made at Annexure-K is set-aside.
Subject to the above observation regarding reconsideration, it is made clear that amount paid by respondent No.1 shall be kept in any Nationalized Bank and be appropriated depending on eventual out come of the reconsideration. Reconsideration to be completed by respondent No.3 within the period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE ssb