Bengaluru Development Authority petition questioned the validity of a reconveyance order, possession certificate, and sale deed due to alleged improper allocation of sites. The court dismissed the petition.
The writ petition failed and was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.30396 OF 2015 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
1 . SMT. ANASUYAMMA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, D/O LAKSHMINARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, D/O LAKSHMINARASIMHAIAH
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.126, 14TH MAIN ROAD, 9TH 'B' CROSS, SRINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 050.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. Y.R.SADASHIVA REDDY, SR. ADVOCATE A/W SRI. RAHUL REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
BENGALURU - 560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
3 . SMT. HANUMAKKA DAUGHTER OF LATE HUTCHAMMA, WIFE OF NARASIMHAIAH, RESIDING AT NO.649, 3RD MAIN, PIPELINE, SRINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 050.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KIRAN C.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; NOTICE TO R3-HANUMAKKA IS H/S (V/O DT: 13/11/15))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHTHE ANNEXURE-N DATED: 1.5.1982 BEING RECONVEYANCE ORDER, ANNEXURE-P BEARING NO.141/82-83 DATED 21.08.1982 BEING POSSESSION CERTIFICATE AND ANNEXURE-Q DATED 24.02.2003 BEING SALE DEED ISSUED BY THE BDA IN FAVOUR OF THE MOTHER OF THE R-3; AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners seek to lay a challenge to the BDA
Reconveyance Order dated 01.05.1982 at Annexure-N, the Possession Certificate dated 21.08.1982 at Annexure-P and
the Sale Deed dated 24.02.2003 at Annexure-Q. Learned
Sr. Advocate appearing for the Petitioners argues that there
3
are two sites of which one is allotted to the mother of third Respondent herein and the other site still remains large for Reconveyance and therefore, the BDA should be directed to grant Reconveyance; if there be only one site, the impugned orders should be set at naught and the said site in question should be reconveyed to the Petitioners. He draws attention of the Court to the suit proceedings of his client and also the appeal in MFA which is disposed off.
2. After service of notice, the Respondent – BDA
has entered appearance through its Panel Counsel and has filed the Statement of Objections on 03.12.2015 resisting the Writ Petition. The Panel Counsel vehemently opposes the Petition making submission in justification of the impugned orders. However, the third Respondent despite service of notice has chosen to remain unrepresented and that would not deter the Court from deciding this cause in accordance with law.
4
and having perused the Petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
a) Writ Jurisdiction is an equitable jurisdiction although it is constitutionally conferred. The aggrieved should approach the Writ Court within a reasonable time if not at the earliest. This Writ Petition is filed on 22.07.2015 for laying a challenge to the Reconveyance Order dated 01.05.1982, the Possession Certificate dated 21.08.1982 & the Sale Deed dated 24.08.2003. Reckoned from the date of Reconveyance Order, there is a delay of more than three decades; reckoned from the date of Sale Deed, there is a delay of about 12 years. Thus, apparently, there is enormous delay & latches that would come in the way of any relief being granted to the Petitioners. The Petitioners were fighting a civil suit and therefore, the delay should be ignored, is a poor explanation inasmuch as, they have
5
chosen to withdraw the suit only before the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the RFA.
b) The BDA had asked the Petitioners to approach the
Civil Court on the premise that the site allotted to respondent No.3 herein was the site in respect of which the claim was made by them. The Petitioners accordingly had filed the civil suit in O.S.No. 3559/1982 which was decreed in part. Therefore, they took the matter in appeal in RFA No.866/2011 and the said appeal came to be disposed off by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 29.06.2015 which reads as under:
“ The learned counsel for the appellants seeks to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.3559/1982. He is permitted to withdraw the suit, with liberty to exercise such other remedy that may be available. Consequently the appeal stands disposed off.”
It is strange that whatever little relief that was granted by the trial Court in partly decreeing the suit has also been given up by the Petitioners by withdrawing the suit itself. If
6
that be so, the Writ Court cannot come to their aid merely because liberty was reserved to them to agitate the matter elsewhere. Absolutely, there is no justification for the Petitioners for seeking invalidation of the impugned reconveyance and the consequent Sale Deed, that too at this length of time.
c) The BDA had asked the Petitioners to go for a civil suit inasmuch as, the dispute was essentially between them on the one hand and the third Respondent’s mother on the other, inasmuch as, there was only one site which is the subject matter of such a dispute. Petitioners as already mentioned above had litigated before the civil Court for more than three decades and all of a sudden they turn around and withdrew the suit itself. Now, they cannot launch one more legal battle on the same set of facts on the basis of which the suit and appeals were fought. Granting the relief to the Petitioners virtually amounts to
7
causing enormous injustice to the third Respondent herein, which the Writ Court cannot do.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition being devoid of merits, fails. However, liberty is reserved to the Petitioners to work out their grievance in appropriate proceedings elsewhere, as was observed by the RFA Court. Any observations made hereinabove being confined to disposal of the Writ Petition, shall not influence contemplated proceedings at the hands of the Petitioners.
Costs made easy.
Sd/JUDGE
DS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition filed after an enormous delay arising from an earlier withdrawn civil suit.
Whether the Writ Court can grant relief to petitioners who have given up the matter in coordinate bench proceedings.
Anasuyamma
Jayamma
Bengaluru Development Authority
Hanumakka
Krishna S Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
