IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.3833 OF 2017 AND WRIT APPEAL NOS.5105-5113 OF 2017 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN:
1. SRI MARAPPA SON OF LATE CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
2. SMT. BYRAMMA WIFE OF SRI MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
3. SRI M. CHANDRASHEKAR SON OF SRI MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
4. SMT. MANAGALA GOWRAMMA DAUGHTER OF SRI MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
5. SRI M. HANUMANTHA RAJU SON OF SRI MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.
6. SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY SON OF LATE CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
7. SMT. VARALAKSHMI WIFE OF SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
8. SRI N. GANGARAJU SON OF SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.
9. SMT. N. ANNAPOORNA DAUGHTER OF SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.
10. SMT. N. BHAGYALAKSHMI DAUGHTER OF SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF GONGTADIPURA VILLAGE, KODIGEHALLI DAKHALE, VISHWANEEDAM POST, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.
ALL ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER, SRI M.G. RAGHU SHANKAR, SON OF SRI N. KRISHNAMURTHY, RESIDING AT NO.288, 6TH CROSS, B.E.L. EXTENSION, BHARATHINAGAR, BYADARAHALLI, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU-560 091.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI B.A. BELLIAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY ITS COMMISSIONER, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020.
2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-2; SMT. N. ANITHA, HCGP FOR R-3) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2016 PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NOS.15508-15517 OF 2015.
***** THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT There is a delay for 362 days in filing the appeals.
However, we have heard the learned counsel on merits.
2. The learned Single Judge by following an earlier order dated 11.07.2014, passed in Writ Petition No.32186 of 2010 and connected matters, allowed the writ petition on the same premise. Presently, the appeals are filed by the writ petitioners on the ground that some of the contentions urged were not considered by the learned Single Judge.
3. On hearing learned counsels, we find no merit in these writ appeals. Firstly, it is not mandatory for the learned Single Judge to refer to each and every contention advanced. Secondly, since the writ petitions were already covered by an earlier order of this Court, there was no need to refer to the contentions. Therefore, we find no good ground to interfere.
4. Further, the apprehension of the appellants is that respondent No.1 has since filed an appeal challenging the very same impugned order herein. If that be so, the appellants are always entitled to defend themselves based on their pleadings before the learned Single Judge.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeals are dismissed. I.A. No.1 of 2017 stands rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ/- CT:SM