IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.35616/2018 (LA - BDA) BETWEEN:
Sri Urval N Ramanand s/o late U Ramakrishna aged about 76 years r/a No.13, R.B.I Colony 2nd Main Road, Anandanagar Bengaluru-560 024. ... Petitioner (By Sri P N Rajeswara, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka Urban Development Department M S Building, Bengaluru-560001 Represented by its Principal Secretary.
2. The Bangalore Development Authority, T Chowdaiah Road Kumara Park West Bengaluru-560 020 Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Development Authority, T Chowdiah Road Kumara Park West Bengaluru-560 020. …Respondents [By Sri K R Nityananda, HCGP for R1, Sri K N Puttegowda, Advocate for R2 & R3, Sri B S Sachin, Advocate for R3] This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the final notification/re-modified scheme as per notification dtd:18.6.2014 (Annexure-W) in so far as petitioners site No.24 measuring 40 x 60 carved out in Sy.No.46/1 (now situated at Sri Renuka Yellamma Temple Road) of Amruthhalli village is concerned and put him in possession of the same or in their alternative and etc.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at this stage itself.
2. The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
(i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the final notification/Re- modified Scheme as per Notification bearing No.UDD 426 MNJ 2011 dated 18.6.2014 (Annexure-W) in so far as petitioner’s site No.24 measuring 40’x60’ carved out in Sy.No.46/1 (now situated at Sri Renuka Yellamma Temple Road) of Amruthhalli village is concerned and put him in possession of the same or in the alternative;
Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to allot an alternative site in favour of the petitioner within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court in view of the earlier Order, dated 17.12.2013 in WP No.50046/2013 (Annexure-V);
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents – Bangalore Development Authority in not considering his request for allotment of site as directed by this Court in WP No.50046/2013 disposed of on 17.12.2013.
4. The original owner of the site in question bearing site No.24 measuring 40’ x 60’ carved out in Sy.No.46/1 of Amruthahalli village, Bengaluru North Taluk was before this Court in WP No.50046/2013 seeking a direction to the Bangalore Development Authority to allot an alternative site in terms of the scheme, which had been notified for acquisition for Arkavathi Layout vide preliminary notification dated 3.2.2003. It was specifically contended that the said original owner has executed a power of attorney in favour of the petitioner herein, Sri Urval N Ramanand, to an extent of 30’ x 40’. This Court having considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties has observed as follows:
“Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the writ petition record, in view of the memo filed enclosing the list of persons found eligible for allotment of site/s on alternate basis and the orders passed by this Court, to allot site/s in favour of the land losers/review site holders i.e., on incentive basis in terms of the scheme formulated by the BDA pursuant to the decision in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy (supra), writ petition is disposed of. 2nd respondent shall allot a site in favour of the petitioner’s power of attorney holder Sri Urval N Ramanand, as per his seniority.”
5. Placing reliance on the aforesaid order, the petitioner is now before this Court seeking for implementation of the said order.
6. Learned counsel appearing for BDA, placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy and others – vs- Bangalore Development Authority reported in (2010) 7 SCC 129, submitted that in terms of the guidelines issued by the Division Bench of this Court, petitioner being the GPA Holder is not entitled for allotment of site.
7. Learned counsel for the BDA admits, at the time of the order of the learned Single Judge passed in WP No.50046/2013 on 17.12.2013, the judgment of the Division Bench in Bondu Ramaswamy (supra) was available. However, the said ruling of the Division Bench was not brought to notice of the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, no efforts have been made by the BDA to seek for modification of the order dated 17.12.2013 passed in WP No.50046/2013 or any appeal has been preferred against the order passed in WP No.50046/2013. The said order having reached finality, the respondent – BDA is bound to implement the same. Now at this stage, the ground urged by the learned counsel for the BDA to reject the claim of the petitioner inasmuch as allotting the site in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the direction of this Court issued in WP No.50046/2013 cannot be countenanced. In view of specific direction issued by this Court in WP No.50046/2013, the respondent – BDA is bound to implement the same.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents - BDA to implement the order passed by this Court in WP No.50046/2013 disposed of on 17.12.2013 in an expedite manner, in any event, not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
Writ petition stands disposed of in terms of above.
Bkm Sd/- JUDGE