High Court Karnataka High Court

The Commissioner Bangalore … vs Mrs Stella Monteiro W/O Dennis … on 10 December, 2009

Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Bangalore … vs Mrs Stella Monteiro W/O Dennis … on 10 December, 2009
Author: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA AT_.§§ANvC3';-5.__l;Q.RE

DATED THIS THE 10"' DAY HC»)if"' I)ECEM'f§'f;R"§{)_f)9  ' '

BEF01é:-;_;  = *1

THE. HON' BLE MR. .1usT TCT:f AN'}'TND.VB3{R;ATF{E'D:DY  A

WRIT PETITION NnT).'13'3§i*z~T0'T?T:>,007t(GM;CPC>

BETWEEN:

The Cr=éT,':'.  1:   "

Bangaiore D¢V,eiCep"m__cz;1T jA'i,1'Eh_()I'i1:_fy.:" . V

Kumara Pafk Vfesjtwf  .     -
B21nga1E()_r€;--v5E;{)Vé02@i___ _   ~  ,..F'ETITIONER
("B y S. V..Sa1zavji'iy':'Af{,_1:'i;~; h  '\/Ocatc)

AND:

 V.  I .   _fVS.S%:eI1z1 ANi'(_mt-ei'1'(.),

_ V'  _m'.'.Den1Ti.s Mont;eir0.
'* TAgg§:ti .am_>u-z.55 Years.

2. '  V Ms..}L:d-}.t'h Heethaishi M.M(mteiro,
 Daughter of l)€:nnE.<; Mmteiro,
A.ged about 27 Years.

H  f.n5Bc)th1"esi.cEing2-:tN0.34/02.

Shamdu Apztrtment,
Colts Road.
Ba:nge1i<m:--56(_) U05. ... R_ESP()NI)ENTS

(By Shri.E.Th:'rt}1uppa. Ac:1te tbt" Rcsp0ndent.N0.])

6



2

 

This W1fi.t Petition i_s filed underArtieles"2v2i3'_tandt.2'27 of the 
Constitution of India praying to quzisli the order'-:da_t'e<:!': jZ_39;3.2(?07,'.__

passed by the learned E61" Aciditii~mz1lt'"Cityi'Civil.i'and.i"S§§is:§.it)1is
Judge. Bangalore in O.S.No.2097i"--.l997, isT,.-".p.1'oduceCi "under
Annexu_re--F and etc.. '   U    

This Writ Petition .eoni_ing--o_.n"f0i'*p1'eliinina-xy..he.aririg in 'B'
group this day, the C0u'r.t_ i'nade--i_ the .followi"ng_: --

The petitinner'ihe,re'iii--'the;de*fendaiit before the Triai Court
in a Still _i'o1""n21re ii'ij{1iiictitf)*i.i;' The petitioner is a statutory authority
constituted "unde.1f  iBt1_ii"ga"l(.)i'e Development Authority Act,

1.

976.’ =T_l1e pe’titi<_ii'1eii* herein had filed a written statement and had

ieoiiiteiitiieiéi thatthe. iarid was nornotified for any of its schemes and

that.__the'i'e"w_as'ho cause of action for the suit. It is only at a later

stage w'hen"t"he plaintift'~1'espoiident herein ha.d tendered evidence

il5;y'i'-s§i2},yiii()f ai'fidavi_t. that the petitioner came forward with an

.':'tppliC£iti()l'} seeking amendment to add a pleading that the iand in

(]t}C$;li(.)11 wars government land and hence, was not notified for

any scheme. This statement that the land in question had always

5

remained governinent land was not made in the;fii*stf.Vi~n$:tztz:.Ce« by

O\r’€I”Slf-gllt and inadvertenee. The Trial. C(fUlif.~..l:i:E}.§biVTf3_leCtC{7i the

application on the grouncl that it w»ou.l<:_E"ehzmge 'the' 2

set up by the petitioner and thz1t"':§;.;ieli tin amieiidment'"could not 'be

allowed.

2. Having i”egvfoIAIfrEl_it(:;_ lbetitioner herein
would property without
1’ee()urse_to is in fact a government
land, establish this as at feet at the trial

and thei”et’oifei; to li1t)lcl’.tha{_ii.-t’he defenclaiit should be shut out from

see’k’i:ng.__’st1_cla 21ii’vuir2>.erad11ie;it would result in the plaintiff

Li ~31 lapse on the part of an officer of the defendant.

Since it fist :1″ :~L§T}Lli3liC body. it is E1pp1″0p1’lE1t6 that the amendment be

atlltiwetfliziid the burden, in any event. will be placed on the

A’ -.p’et;iL.ione1″ to estatblish that the land was government land all along

a ….&}l’ld hence, was not not.il”ied under any of the s::c:he:ne.xi_

5

3. Accordingly, the writ pcstition is 21}}<)\A*eqi{ .'Anf1e.xim:_{'S.Wis

quashed. Consequently. I11te:fi()cVup;”y A’;5p’}ic–;§_pE:)Vii’V r’::;).i\{‘

allowed. The petitioner shall be p:t’%.1′”1″:1_E_t’tT<:d t(3'~-;11§1::'in':1AVtE_é'A§J::9–i::ten '

statement and it is 0 en for (i»:r:.':?e.s ofidents' E0"filé'~ éiu'I'6"diI1d8r',V'if
any, to the w1'itten.statement. -.

LDGE

UV