Dismissed

M/S v. S L Srinidhi Realities v Sri M Narasimha Swamy

Karnataka HC5 Oct 2023WA/243/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed an intra-court writ appeal filed by a real estate developer seeking to set aside a Single Judge's order. That order directed respondent authorities to consider representations from a citizen petitioner within eight weeks. The Bench held the appeal was devoid of merit, misconceived, and like an order to pass order involving stakeholder participation.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with costs made easy. The direction to consider representations within eight weeks was upheld.

M/S v S L Srinidhi Realities Vs Sri M Narasimha Swamy — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:36101-DB WA No. 243 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO. 243 OF 2023 (LA-BDA)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

M/S V S L SRINIDHI REALITIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS, SRI. DINESH KUMAR SINGH, SRI. LAKSHMIPATHI DUDERIA, SRI. SANKA SRINIVS, HAVING OFFICE AT NO. 32, BENAKA LAYOUT, KEMPALINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BENGLAURU 562 123. …APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. SAMPATH A.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI. M NARASIMHA SWAMY, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT SY.NO.164/1, SRI LAKSHMI NRSERY FARM 4^TH STAGE, SIR M.VISHVESHWARAIAH LAYOUT, ULALU, BENGALURU 560 056.

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:36101-DB WA No. 243 of 2023

¶17

NO. 85/A, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, SAMPANGIRAMANAGARA, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶18

THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE 560 020.

¶19

THE TOWN PLANNING COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU 560 020.

¶20

THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 5^TH MAIN ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU 560 020.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR., AGA FOR R2; SMT. ARCHANA T V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T N VISHWANATHA., ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE WP No-22169/2021 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONBLE COURT AND B) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2022 IN WP No22169/2021 DISPOSED WITH MAIN WP No-3366/2022 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE ON THE FILE OF THIS HONBLE COURT SO FAR IT RELATES TO THE RELIEFS SOUGHT IN WP No22169/2021.

¶23

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDRES THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:36101-DB WA No. 243 of 2023

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This intra court appeal by the respondent in W.P.No.22169/2021 seeks to call in question a learned Single Judge's order dated 19.09.2022 whereby the said writ petition having been disposed off a direction has been given to consider the representations of the first respondent herein who had presented the said writ petition. The operative portion of the order at para 7 reads as under:-

¶27

“7. In view of the submission made by Sri. A.Sampath, learned counsel that time frame be fixed for the respondent-Authorities to consider the representations made by the petitioner at Annexure ‘L’, ‘M’ and ‘N’, I am of the view that the respondent-BDA shall consider the same within eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and to convey the outcome of the same to the petitioner as well as to the respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No.22169 of 2021.”

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently

¶29

argues that although he has no much objection for the direction of the learned Single Judge for considering subject representation of the first respondent’s, the consideration of the appellant’s application for the

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:36101-DB WA No. 243 of 2023

¶31

issuance of provisional sanction plan could not have been directed to be deferred. He hastens to add that such a deferring would have several implications on the construction activity in terms of costs, time and exertion, more particularly, when the matter involve time bound compliances and accomplishment of the project. Learned private advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.2 oppose the appeal contending that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge cannot be faltered and that no prejudice is caused to the appellant thereby.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter inasmuch as we are in agreement with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. Learned advocates appearing for the contesting respondents is more than justified in contending that the impugned order is like “an order to pass order” on the subject representations more particularly with the

¶33

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:36101-DB WA No. 243 of 2023

¶34

participation of the stakeholders and therefore, the very appeal is misconceived. What heavens would be falling down should a reasonable time is taken is causing consideration of subject representations of the first respondent herein, is not demonstrated before us despite vociferous arguments. In matters like this, arguably some prejudice may be caused and the same is inevitable in the fitness of things more particularly, when the request for the grant of sanction plan would be considered immediately after the outcome of the representations of the first respondent.

¶35

In the above circumstances, this appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed, costs having been made easy.

¶36

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Snb/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

M/S v. S L Srinidhi Realities v Sri M Narasimha Swamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S v. S L Srinidhi Realities v Sri M Narasimha Swamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M B Chethana Vs Mr Rajkumar Khatri

Sri Hanumantha Vs Sri M R Manohar

Sri.Venktaeshaiaih R.V. Vs Union of India

Arpee Electrical Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

Sri N S Kantharaju Vs Sri Lohitheshwar Reddy

Rajanna Vs the State of Karnataka