Dismissed

Sri K N Shivashankar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Oct 2023WP/16320/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, allotted sites by a society that formed part of a civic amenity area, sought a direction from BDA to release sites for implementing a Consumer Forum order. The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding it to be an abuse of process as the petitioners should have executed the existing Consumer Forum order granting relief for alternate sites or refunds.

What did the court decide?

Relief sought was dismissed; dismissal does not bar petitioners from seeking execution of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum order.

Sri K N Shivashankar Vs State of Karnataka — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:36636 WP No. 16320 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 16320 OF 2017 (BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. K.N. SHIVASHANKAR S/O LATE K. NARSIMHA SHASTHRI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.

¶9

1(a) SMT. V.S. RAJESHWARI W/O LATE K.N. SHIVASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS

¶10

1(b) SMT. NAGALATHA W/O V.K. SRIRAMA D/O LATE K.N. SHIVASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

1(C) SRI. KARTHIK KUMAR GURU K.S., S/O LATE K.N. SHIVASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶13

ALL ARE R/AT NO.11 7TH CROSS, PRASHANTH NAGAR AISHWARAYA BEKARY BASAWESHAWARANAGAR BANGALORE-560 079.

¶14

SRI A G MANJUNATH S/O LATE A S GANAPATH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT C/O NO.4, 4TH CROSS

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:36636 WP No. 16320 of 2017

¶16

PAPAREDDY PALYA ARUNACHALAM LAYOUT NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BANGALORE-560 072.

¶17

AND ALSO WORKING AT C/O DELTA CONTROL SYSTEMS NO.63/3, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE 5TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN ASHWATHNAGARA SUNKADAKATTE BANGALORE-560 091.

¶18

SRI K G VIJAYA KUMAR S/O GOPALAKRISHNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.58, 2ND MAIN ROAD N.T. PET, BANGALORE-560 002

¶19

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶20

3(a) SMT. BHARATHI K.V., W/O LATE K.G. VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶21

3(b) SMT. SUCHITHA K.V D/O LATE K.G. VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶22

3(c) KUM. K.V. VAIBHAVI D/O LATE K.G. VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.22, 1ST MAIN ROAD 1ST CROSS, 1ST FLOOR VIVEKANANDANAGAR BSK III STAGE BENGALURU - 560 085.

¶23

SRI G DAYASHANKAR S/O LATE G C OBAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT C/O SMT K ROHINI

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:36636 WP No. 16320 of 2017

¶25

NO.34, 14TH CROSS 5TH MAIN, SRINIDHI LAYOUT CHUNCHGHATTA BANGALORE-560 062.

¶26

REP BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI KETA SURENDRANATH

¶27

S/O K RAVINDRANATH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS NO.34, 14TH CORSS 5HT MAIN, SRINIDHI LAYOUT CHUNCHAGHATTA BANGALORE-560 062.

¶28

SMT SUNITHA SHILLY W/O SHILLY JOSEPH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.33, 5TH MAIN 6TH PHASE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD 1ST STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560 010.

¶29

SRI NAGASHAYANA S/O K VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.1063 GENERAL HOSPITAL ROAD VIDYRANYAPURA 1ST MAIN, MYSORE-560 008.

¶30

REP BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI C V CHANDRA MOULI S/O K VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 58 YE4ARS R/AT NO.845, 23RD MAIN 2ND PHASE, J P NAGAR BANGALORE-506 078.

¶31

SMT C L ANUSUYA W/O V RAJASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:36636 WP No. 16320 of 2017

¶34

R/AT NO.456, 13TH CORSS 5TH MAIN, D GROUP LAYOUT SRIGANDADAKAVAL BANGALORE-560 091.

¶35

SRI G H HANUMANTHAIAH S/O HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.1001, 2ND C CROSS 3RD BLOCK, 3RD STAGE BASAVESHWARA NAGAR BANGALORE-560 079.

¶36

SRI H S SIDDAGANGAPPA S/O LATE H C SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.53/1, SHIVA KRUPA 1ST MAINR ROAD, KAVERY LAYOUT NAGARABHAVI ROAD BANGALORE-560 040.

¶37

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MANGALA NILAYA F-565, 12TH CROSS 2ND "D" MAIN, BEL LAYOUT BHARATH NAGAR BANGLAORE-560 091.

¶38

SMT G S LAKSHMI W/O JALARNARASIMHA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.69, 5TH CROSS BASAVESHWARA LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560 040.

¶39

SRI H K KRISHNA S/O KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO.B-162, 1ST FLOOR 5TH MAIN, KEB LAYOUT BTM LAYOUT, (KUVEMPU NAGAR)

¶40

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:36636 WP No. 16320 of 2017

¶41

BANGALORE-506 029.

¶42

SMT K M RUKHMINI W/O DR K L PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.3, ESI HOSPITAL QUARTERS HUVALLI ROAD, NIDUVALLI DAVANAGERE.

¶43

V SHASHIKALA W/O K VARADARAJU AGEDA BOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.351, 8TH CORSS B C C LAYOUT,

¶44

BANGALORE-560 040.

¶45

SRI G.S. SANTHOSH KUMAR S/O G.K. GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.58, 2ND CROSS 12TH MAIN, BSK 2ND STAGE RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK, SRINAGAR BANGALORE-560 050.

¶46

SMT PONNAMMA W/O P RAVI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT C/O GAYATHRI NO.52, 10TH CROSS A CROSS PRASHANTHNAGAR BANGALORE-560 083.

¶47

…PETITIONERS

¶48

(BY SRI. LEELADHAR H P.,ADVOCATE)

¶49

AND:

¶50

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

¶51

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:36636 WP No. 16320 of 2017

¶52

M S BUILDING DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.

¶53

KARNATAKA STATE D-GROUP EMPLOYEES CENTRAL ASSOCIATION REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT M S BUILDING, 4TH STAGE DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.

¶54

THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T DCHOUDAIAH ROAD KUMARA KRUPA WEST BENGALURU-560 020.

¶55

…RESPONDENTS

¶56

(BY SRI. LAGALI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGA FOR R1; NOTICE IN R/2 OF R2 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED SMT. POONAM PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶57

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS FROM 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF ALLOTMENT AND RELEASING SITES OF VARIOUS SURVEY NUMBERS OF SRIGANDHADHAKAVAL TO 2ND RESPONDENT CONCERNED SO FOR AS MADE REPRESENTATIONS CONCERNED UNDER ANNEXURE-H TO H4 AND R; AND ETC.

¶58

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶59

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:36636 WP No. 16320 of 2017

¶60

ORDER

¶61

Heard Sri.Leeladhar H.P, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Lagali Hanumantharayappa, learned AGA for respondent No.1, Smt. Poonam Patil, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. Notice to respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented.

¶62

It is the case of the petitioners that they being the members of respondent No.2-Society were allotted certain sites and deeds of sale were also executed in their favour. However the sites which were allotted in their favour formed part of an area which had been earmarked as civic amenity site. As such they could neither occupy

¶63

the sites allotted to them nor could enjoy the said sites.

¶64

Sri. Leeladhar H.P, learned counsel for the

¶65

petitioners taking through the documents enclosed to the petition, more particularly, several orders passed by the Coordinate Benches as well as by the Division Bench of this Court in writ petitions in the nature of public interest

¶66

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:36636 WP No. 16320 of 2017

¶67

litigation wherein successive directions were issued to the respondent-BDA to consider the representation, submits

¶68

that directions issued by this Court have not been complied by the respondent-BDA. He further submits that non-consideration of the representation in terms of the direction issued by this Court in its earlier orders constrained the petitioners to file /initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent-BDA in CCC No.956/2016 and CCC Nos. 971-982/2016.

¶69

On perusal of the order passed in the said

¶70

contempt proceedings produced at Annexure-L it is seen that the contempt proceedings were dropped as the complainants therein (petitioners herein) had not made any representation.

¶71

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the meanwhile, petitioners herein had initiated proceedings before the District Consumer Disputes

¶72

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:36636 WP No. 16320 of 2017

¶73

Redressal Forum, Bangalore (Urban) by filing various complaints against the respondent No.2-society. He refers to order dated 28.01.2009 produced at Annexure-C passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal forum upon the complaints filed by the petitioners herein. In that the District Consumer forum while allowing the complaints filed by the petitioners had directed the respondent No.2society to allot the alternate sites or to refund the amount paid by the complainants towards sital value along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of their respective deeds of sale together with the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1000/-. However, he submits that the said order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal forum has not been executed till date.

¶74

It is further contention of the learned counsel

¶75

for the petitioners that since the respondent-BDA pursuant to the order passed in W.P.Nos.1029-1043/2013 had released certain sites, the petitioners being the

¶76

10 -

¶77

NC: 2023:KHC:36636 WP No. 16320 of 2017

¶78

allottees at the hand of respondent No.2-society were constrained to file the present petition seeking direction to the respondent-BDA to furnish the details of the sites which have been allotted to the respondent No.2-society for effective implementation of the order passed by the Consumer court. He further submits that to that extent the present petition filed by the petitioners is entertainable and the relief sought therein be granted.

¶79

Smt. Poonam Patil, learned counsel for the respondent-BDA submits that respondent-BDA has no obligation either under any contract or under statute. It has no obligation to allot the sites or to furnish the information as sought for by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3-BDA further submits that dispute being one between the petitioners and the respondent No.2-society, the respondent-BDA has been unnecessarily dragged into the matter. She insists that since petitioners have already obtained orders at the

¶80

11 -

¶81

NC: 2023:KHC:36636 WP No. 16320 of 2017

¶82

hands of District Consumer Disputes Redressal forum, the option available to the petitioners is to seek execution of the same. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition.

¶83

Though, notice were served on respondent

¶84

No.2-society, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent No.2-Society.

¶85

Heard. Perused the records.

¶86

Admittedly, the petitioners were allotted certain

¶87

sites and deeds of sale were also executed in their favor

¶88

by the respondent No.2-society. However, petitioners could not occupy and enjoy the said sites as apparently

¶89

the respondent No.2-society had carved out their sites from the area reserved for civic amenity site. That the dispute in this regard was carried by the petitioners before

¶90

the District Consumer Disputes Redressal forum, which by

¶91

its order dated 28.01.2009 produced at Annexure-C series

¶92

has allowed the complaints and granted relief as noted

¶93

12 -

¶94

NC: 2023:KHC:36636 WP No. 16320 of 2017

¶95

hereinabove. When the petitioners have already availed the remedy provided under law and having been favoured

¶96

by the competent forum there is no justification in petitioners re-agitating matter before this Court invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In other words, the petitioners having had fruits of the order passed by the competent forum ought to have initiated the proceedings for its realization. As already noted, petitioners have not only been granted relief for alternate sites but have also been granted relief of refund of amount together with interest and cost. It cannot therefore be contended by the petitioners that the said reliefs are inadequate or insufficient. Petition of this nature under the fact situation of the matter would amount to abuse of process of law.

¶97

In that view of the matter, petition is dismissed as the petitioners have not made out any legally tenable grounds entitling them for grant of relief as sought for. Needless to state that dismissal of this petition shall not

¶98

13 -

¶99

NC: 2023:KHC:36636 WP No. 16320 of 2017

¶100

come in the way of petitioners seeking execution of the

¶101

order passed by the Consumer forum as per Annexure-C.

¶102

Sd/JUDGE

¶103

Sri K N Shivashankar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K N Shivashankar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siddalingaiah @ Siddalinge Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mallesh Vs State of Karnataka

Ms H C Meena Rani Vs the Commissioner

Smt Gangalakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri I M Omkar Vs State of Karnataka

K Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka