SMT. GOPAMMA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. R.S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:48649 WP No. 21660 of 2024

2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUKMARAPARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020.

4. THE TOWN PLANNING MEMBER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, BANGALORE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH.K, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 17(1) OF THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976 IN NO. BDA/ALAO/LAQ/CR/LA8/17/89-90 DATED 09.07.1990 PUBLISHED IN KARNATAKA GAZETTE DATED 27.09.1990, ISSUED BY R-2 VIDE ANNX-G AND FINAL NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF BDA ACT, 1976 IN NO.UDD/711/MNX 94 DATED 18.01.1995 PUBLISHED IN KARNATAKA GAZETTE DATED 20.01.1995, ISSUED R-1 VIDE ANNX-H IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS SCHEDULE PROPERTY STOOD ABNDONED AND CONSEQUENTLY LAPSED AND ETC., - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:48649 WP No. 21660 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing the Preliminary Notification dated 27.09.1990 and the Final Notification issued on 18.01.1995 issued under Section 17(1) and Section 19(1) of the Bangalore Development Act, 1976 (for short 'BDA Act') and also sought for quashing the Endorsement dated 12.03.2024 (Annexure-A), inter alia sought for direction to the respondents to allow the application dated 08.01.2024 as produced at Annexure-F, to the writ petition.

2. It is the case of the petitioners, that the petitioners are the owners of the land bearing Sy.No.4/1 of Hebbal Amanikere Village, Bangalore North Taluk, to an extent of

37.08 guntas of land as per the Partition Deed dated

27.10.2006 and the revenue records stands in the name of the petitioners. It is stated that, husband of petitioner No.1 died on

26.03.2009 and the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased K.V.Jagadish Gowda. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:48649 WP No. 21660 of 2024

3. It is further contended in the writ petition that, the larger extent of the land bearing Sy.No.4/1 of Hebbal, Amanikere Village is fully developed and the remaining area is 8312 Sq.ft , approximately 7.6 guntas of vacant land is required for further development and therefore, the petitioners have stated that, as the property in question is within the jurisdiction of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and therefore, sought for quashing the impugned notifications in respect of the land in question.

4. Heard Sri.R.S.Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Manjunath.K, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State and Sri. K.Krishna, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

5. It is contended by Sri.R.S.Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, though the schedule in the petition is stated about 37.08 guntas in Sy.No.4/1, however, the petitioners restricted their prayers in respect of 07 guntas of the land in Sy.No.4/1 and he further contended that, the respondents have not taken possession of the land in question, - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:48649 WP No. 21660 of 2024 which is fully developed land and therefore, sought for interference of this Court.

6. Inviting the attention of this Court to Annexure-A to the writ petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, the Impugned Endorsement dated

12.03.2024 (Annexure-A) cannot be accepted on the sole ground as the respondent-BDA has not taken possession of the land in question and therefore, there is no impediment for the respondent-BDA to allow the petitioners to develop the land in question. Accordingly, he sought for allowing the writ petition. In this regard, he refers to the judgment of this Court, in the case of RUKKAMMA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in WP.No.35143-47/2019, disposed of 18.09.2019 and also case of SMT.HUCHAMMA Vs. STAE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in WP.No.21831/2016, disposed of on 15.09.2017 and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

7. Per contra, Sri.K.Krishna, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 invited the attention of this Court to the paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of the statement of objections and - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:48649 WP No. 21660 of 2024 contended that, the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have filed WP.No.30376-77/1995, challenging the very same notification passed by respondent-BDA and in the said writ petition, this Court has declined to interfere with the impugned notifications and the same has not been disclosed in the writ petition and accordingly, Sri.K.Krishna, learned counsel appearing respondent Nos.2 to 4 submitted that, the writ petition is to be dismissed not only on the ground of res judicata, but also on the ground of suppression of material facts by the petitioners herein and as such, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

8. Sri. Manjunath.K, learned High Court Government Pleader, appearing for respondent No.1 argued on the similar lines of learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

9. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the petitioners herein claim to be the owners of the land bearing Sy.No.4/1 to an extent of 37.08 guntas, as per the registered Partition Deed dated 27.10.2006. The petitioners herein have challenged the - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:48649 WP No. 21660 of 2024 impugned Notification issued by the respondent-BDA, under Section 17(1) and 19(1) of the BDA Act, respectively.

10. In the backdrop of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA that, the petitioners herein have not disclosed the filing of WP.No.30376- 77/1996, amounts to suppression of facts. On careful examination of the order dated 23.02.1996 passed by this Court in WP.No.30376-77/1995, wherein this Court has declined to interfere with the acquisition proceedings in terms of the order made there under.

11. On careful examination of the writ papers would indicate that, the petitioners herein, though have not whispered about the filing of aforementioned writ petitions filed by the husband of petitioner No.1 and as such, I am of the view that, this Court cannot entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners, also, suppressed the material facts before this Court and as such, the writ petition is required to be dismissed on the ground, as the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands and have suppressed the material facts, before this Court that the - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:48649 WP No. 21660 of 2024 husband of petitioner No.1 and father of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have challenged the very same notification before this Court in WP.No.30376-77/1995 in which, this Court declined to interfere with the acquisition proceedings. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merits in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47 CT: BHK