IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL NO.271 OF 2012(LA-BDA) BETWEEN:
SRI N V SRIPATHI BHAT SON OF SRI N.V.VASUDEVA BHAT AGED 57 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.210/A-2 GODHAVARI BLOCK NATIONAL GAMES VILLAGE KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 047. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIVEK S REDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. K.N. SUBHA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDINGS DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU-560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 020. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LAKSHMINARAYAN, AGA FOR R1 SRI. M.B. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 &R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.25287/2010(LA-BDA) DATED 01/10/2010.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by the order dated 1.10.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ petition No.25287 of 2010 in dismissing the writ petition, the writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal.
2. Sri.Vivek Reddy, learned senior counsel for the appellant contends that the writ petition is bad in law and requires to be set aside. He primarily contends that in identical circumstances, the learned Single Judge in terms of the order dated 13.12.2005 passed in Writ petition No.5555 of 2004 and other batch of petitions had granted relief to the similarly placed persons. In terms whereof, the writ petitioners therein were directed to file an application before the Bengaluru Development Authority to consider their case for allotment or re-allotment etc. of the sites and the Bengaluru Development Authority to consider the same in terms of the directions issued by this Court in the case of Junjamma vs. Bangalore Development Authority as reported in ILR 2005 Kar 608.
3. The learned counsel for Bengaluru Development Authority disputes the same. He submits that there is a substantial delay in seeking the relief and that the endorsement is also issued rejecting the plea of the petitioners. Therefore, they are not entitled to the relief sought for.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that appropriate relief is called for. The right of the petitioner for consideration of his case in the same lines as that of the petitioners who have got relief in Writ petition No.5555 of 2004 and other batch of petitions cannot be ignored. The appellant being in the same position as that of the petitioners therein is necessarily entitled to a similar relief.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ appeal is allowed. The endorsement dated 13.04.2010 passed by Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bengaluru Development Authority, Bengaluru vide Annexure–A is set aside. The appellant is permitted to file an application before Bengaluru Development Authority within a period of 8 (eight) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The Bengaluru Development Authority to consider the same in accordance with law and in terms of the judgment in Junjamma, cited supra, Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE rs