IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO.9816/2019(BDA) BETWEEN:
Vistara Ventures, Represented by its partner, William.M.Pinto, Aged about 48 years, Office at No.191, 2nd floor, 16th Main, 36th Cross, 4th T Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru – 560 054. …Petitioner (By Sri. Shashi Kiran V., Advocate) AND:
1. Bangalore Development Authority, T. Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru – 560 020.
Represented by its Commissioner.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer Bangalore Development Authority, 3rd South Sub-Division, Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bengaluru ...Respondents (By Sri. Narendra Gowda, Advocate) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash all further proceedings pursuant to direction dated 01.02.2019 vide Annexure – A in so far as Sy. No.48/04 belonging to petitioners.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner has assailed the notice dated 01.02.2019 issued by the respondent No.2.
2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent – BDA had initially issued a notification dated 07.12.2002 under section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (‘Act’ for short) seeking to acquire various lands and one among the said lands was Sy.No.48/4, Turuhalli Village, Bangalore South Taluk, totally measuring 6 acres for the formation of Banashankari 6th stage BDA Layout, and final notification dated 10.09.2003 under Section 19 of the Act was issued only to an extent of 1 acre 10 guntas as far as Sy.No.48/4 is concerned and the rest 4 acres 30 guntas was dropped from acquisition proceedings. Pursuant to the same, the BDA had issued two notifications dated 12.09.2003 and 19.09.2003, wherein the lands dropped from acquisition proceedings were brought under the purview of payment of betterment charges under Section 20 of the Act so that the betterment charges can be paid on those lands and can be developed to suit their needs.
3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the notice by the BDA calling upon Sri Prakash, to stop the construction activities in the said land as Bangalore Development Authority is intending to realign the already existing well developed 80 feet road which according to the respondents would pass through the petitioner’s land is illegal. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that Sri. C.D. Javare Gowda, Sri. M.M. Swamy and Sri. K.R.M. Reddy, along with one Sri. R. Jayanna, who are the absolute owners have amalgamated their khatha as joint owners of the property measuring various dimensions totalling to about 47,830.75 square feet. The petitioner was approached by the above parties seeking for development of their composite extent of the properties and the parties have entered into a Joint Development Agreement followed by a General Power of Attorney executed in favour of the petitioner, authorising the petitioner to proceed further in the matter. Under these circumstances, without any sanction of law, the respondents have issued the notice on Sri. Prakash, who is none other than the son of Sri.
C.D. Javare Gowda.
4. Learned counsel would further contend that the land to the extent of 1 acre 10 guntas acquired, has been duly compensated by passing an award and road has been formed in the said acquired land. That being the position, in the guise of forming the road in the present property owned by the petitioner, the respondent – BDA is interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the property in question by the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent – BDA has filed objections primarily asserting that the writ petition is pre-mature and the petitioner has no locus to challenge the notice impugned herein.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
7. It is not in dispute that the notice impugned herein is issued to one Sri. Prakash. The petitioner though made an endeavour to contend, by virtue of the Joint Development Agreement (JDA), a right has been accrued on the petitioner to develop the property in question, the same shall not be suffice to maintain the writ petition by the petitioner since Sri Prakash is not a party to the JDA. It is for the person to whom the notice has been issued to challenge the same, if aggrieved.
Thus, it is ex facie apparent that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the notice impugned herein. Further more, the contention that the petitioner has some rights relating to the property in question has to be substantiated before the respondents and the petitioner is at liberty to file reply/objections to the notice impugned herein.
8. The petition being pre-mature at this stage, deserves to be dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to proceed in accordance with law, if aggrieved by the notice impugned herein.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of Sd/- JUDGE mgn/-