V4.14':
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED TI-IIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010
BEFORE
THE I-IONBLE MR. JUSTICE s ABDUL 1-
BETWEEN:
M. SOMASHEKHAR RAO
S/O LATE MRAGHUVEER RAQ.
AGED ABOUT 80 YEAR
R/AT NO.11 V V
18TH CROSS. MALLESHWARAM. . " "
BANGALORE 560 055 " ' =
SINCE V"
1. SMT. sHUBHA,s1--1E1«:HAR--
W./O LATE" sO1v1As1-IEKHAR RAO
MAJOR, ' RR'/-A"1' N"Q_.
8TH CROSS,
. BANGALORE'560 055
. 1- SHRIKEDARANATH
3/'O LATE M. SOMASHEKHAR RAO
L'1\.{{A-._JOF€;~.vR]/AT N011
- 18'?H.'»c:ROOss. MALLESRWARAM,
BAN_("3ALORE 560 055
3. MATHURANATH
._ S/O LATE M. SOMASI-IEKHAR RAO
MAJOR, R/AT NO. 1 1
' 18TH CROSS. MALLESHWARABVI.
BANGALORE 560 055
6%. SHRI DW ATH
S / O LATE M. SOMASHEKHAR RAO
MAJOR
R/AT NO. 1 1
18'?" CROSS, MALLESHWARAM.
BANGALORE 560 055
WRIT PETITEON NUMBER:25505~Of 42005"
5.
6.
SMT NIVEDITHA IVLALLYA
D/O LATE M. SOMASHEKHAR RAO
MAJOR, R/AT NO.68.
3RD MAIN, M.L.A. LAYOUT
R.T.NAGAR.
BANGALORE 560 055
SHRI SUNDINDRANATH
S/O LATE M. SOMASHEKHAR
MAJOR, R/AT No.11 A - A '
18TH CROSS, MALLESHW.
BANGALORE 560 055
. _ V . , .PETIT.I«ONERS
{ SR1 s V G1RIDHAR,AO3:-'OciA "
AND:
1.
THE BANGALORE.D1EVELOPMEI€T'AUTHORI'I'Y.
W-E,'S_T',~~_ ' »
A ..
R'a:PTp'.'1;BY {?Q'MM1SSI.O1\IER
SR1 R -JARKREVAPPAA I
QT" MAIN, P.-._ISION
3 'DAVANGERE
'A $21»: RRASAO """
R/AT NO.-48, 4TH MAIN
I ' GANGANAGAR EX.'I'N.,
' BE;;.LARY ROAD,
BANGALORE. ..RESPONDENTS
(BY s'RI__EB V SHANKARANARAYAN RAO, AOV. FOR R1,
' SR1 B K MANJUNATH, ADV. FOR R2 AND
= SR1 M s BHAGWAT. ADV. FOR R3)
I "AND
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
OF INDIA WITH A
PRAYER TO QUASI-I THE LETTER OF ALLOTMENT DATED
7.11.1997 ISSUED BY R-1
22'? OF THE CONSTITUTION
RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY.
IN FAVOUR OF R~2
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 13 GROUP THIS DAY THE COURT MADE
FOLLOWING: , V _ "
ORDER
The subject matter of this writ peti.’t’io1’1~–.: ”
bearing Municipal No.26/4 [o1d’A:4sit_je..
formed out Of land bea:ring:_Sy.,..No.fl5’/ of _
Village, R.T.Nagar, Bangalore_._(here’inafter”refergied to as
the ‘petition schedule 1i?i’VsI.S-oniashekhar Rao,
the original petitiO_ner:_’fi1ed’:the’Writ vpetdition contending
that had .p.etition schedule property
from R. a Deed of Sale dated
8.1151989. VTheH””first respondent had issued a
preliminary’notification proposing to acquire the said
by the final notification issued by the
V –V State Goyernment. Arun R Rawal chailenged the said
0′ 0jI1otifi_cation in W.P.2311’7/1982 before this Court. This
‘ by its order dated 18.10.1990 quashed the final
notification dated 30.11.1977 only in so far as the
petition schedule land is concerned. Thereafter, the
State Government issued a notification under
1
‘2
Sec.48[1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 25.5.1994
withdrawing the said land from acquisition,”-.I»t is
contended that the petition schedule
allotted by the BDA in favour of the 211?’
7.11.1997. The BDA executedlvailsiale«.Vd’eed”i–n_.:i*eVspect.o«f
the said land in favoureof the~-A.l2fl–d
6.8.2002. The 2nd respondentllin_turnsoldl property
in favour of 3″? aiddeed sale dated
31.8.2005. Thereforeathhe ;§§;tit1c’;r1ért7has filed this writ
petiton rel’lefs:”:
“”[i}__issue».Va’ “of”certiorari, similar Writ, order or
_ _directio’n._f. the letter of allotment dated
_7_:Lll_.199”?”».. ….. bearing No. BDA/UK /4/
ttNAM*osA/395/97-98 issued by the 1st
1 in favour of the 2nd respondent in
of the schedule property as at Annexure
,. $3: .}_
. ~ ‘
(ii) issue a writ of certiorari, similar Writ, order or
direction, and quash the possession certificate
dated 27.11.1997 issued by the 1st respondent –
Bangalore Development Authority in favour of the
R
2nd respondent in respect of the schedule property
as at Annexure ‘M’ ;
(iii) issue a writ of certiorari, similar w;”i’t-,..ordeli’_.__or
direction, and quash the sale 2′
6.8.2002 executed by 221′-2esponidei:.t 22
Bangalore Development A’z.ith2ority in the
2nd respondent in V’22respect’~..of Vthe”
property and consequ22en,tly_ qa2asli2’tthe222’sale deed
dated 31.8.0052 by th’e222Ifi{2;esponde2n2t”‘ infavour of
the 3rd respondent’ ‘N’ and ‘ P’
res13eeti7′.e1}T; ” 22 2 2
V’i[i”\2z2*2)2i’iss22ue a:?writ’*.,of prolrihition, similar writ, order ‘
or * 2 v222restraining the 1st respondent
Bangalore’ H 2D:eve2lop2rnent Authority from allotting
‘the 22sehe’d22ule2’ property to any other person or
2 persons either2as site No.395 and site No.26/4 as
22 _ 2_ca,s’e.may be;
‘pass an order as to Costs of the present
22 petition; and
(vi) pass such other order/s as this Horfble Court
deems fit in the Circumstances of the case. in _
the interests ofjustiee and equity.”
la
1:.
3. During the pendency of the writ petition,
Msomashekhar Rao passed away. Therefore”vhispllegal
representatives have come on record in his .IJiaC’$}’~.’ ‘ .
4. I have heard Sri S V
for the petitioners and Sri B:’V._gShankaranarajfmia: Raolgil
learned Counsel Vfer’ resp0ndent._ No.1′,-. B K
Manjunath, learned i’or_.:re,spondent No.2 and
Sri M S Bha.gwat_’..– learnedflotirilselp forjrespondent No.3.
lira? the petitioners would
contend that ‘:.jS.om.ashekhara Rao purchased the
petition schedule ‘property from its previous owner
Rayval deed of sale dated 8.11.1989. It is
_oi__1ly he came to know that certain
ac-qui-sitiovh proceedings are pending in respect of the
~ land. Arun R Rawal had filed a Writ petition ‘before
court in W.P.23117/82 challenging the acquisition
proceeding. This Court quashed the final notification in
so far as the petition schedule property is concerned.
During the pendency of the writ petiton, Arun R Rawal
1:.
Is
sold the property in favour of M Somashekhar Rao. The
State Government issued a notification
Sec.48[1) of the Land Acquisition Act as ~
‘D’ dated 25.5.1994 withdrawing the iiigibin ”
acquisition. Thus, M.Somashekhar
absolute owner and in possessiofn __of
schedule property. Th.eref0r€-;——3d..i?.A”was .not»j,1.1svtified in
allotting the said site respondent
because the had Vporihivterest over the
petition schgedule 2116 respondent
has no:,:lrigh’tl;’ti_tIeAV inter.e_st_ over the petition schedule
property.”‘hVC4’couidnot “sold the same in favour of
3rd respondent;-. __Therefore, the allotment letter issued
‘=.__in fayour of 21%’ respondent and the
executed by the BDA in favour
of 2% re’sp’oiident and the sale deed executed by the
if ” < respondent in favour of 3" respondent in respect of
.l_j;pe't–ition schedule property requires to be quashed.
6. On the other hand, the learned Advocates
appearing for 23d and 3″ respondents would contend
it
that the petition schedule property did not belong to
Arun R Rawal. It was the property of the BDA. The'”BDA
allotted the site in question in favour
respondent. The 2nd respondent has sold d
favour of 3rd respondent. It is j;argL5;4ed.’:
property described in the notificatiori at fdinezgureg
and the sale deed at AnneXuree«.i:A’ different.
Neither boundaries V _tl9te ;_p1′”operty__ described in
Annexures ‘D’ and are rx1eas”urerrrents tally with
each 0ther74.The1€e_i.es ~serious title ‘dispute in respect of
the “Vibe adjudicated in this
petitionf It is that the writ petiton is
highly” belated .__aI11d requires to be dismissed on the
delay anfldwlaches alone.
7.”-ihaire carefully considered the arguments made
if”d’A44″‘V.Vt,:b}*~ttthefleamed Counsel at the Bar and perused the
— rnaterials laced on record.
3 P
8. The main contention of the petitioners is that
having regard to the quashing of the final notification as
2
merits and in accordance with law without being influenced
by the observations made in this order. Registry is
to return the original records to the learned Coufisei *
BDA forthwith. No costs. ._
Sgf¥ _.u