Dispute over allotment of site No.82/A by Karnataka Housing Board from land adjoining 09 guntas left out of acquisition of Sy.No.70/1, Hootagalli. The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's direction to reconsider rival claims and dismissed the writ appeal.
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
WA NO. 4041/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 4041 OF 2019(LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI RACHEGOWDA, S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.289, JANATHA STREET, HOOTAGALLI, BELAWADI POST, MYSORE-570 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHARATH S GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
WA NO. 4041/2019
1(c) KUMARA, S/O LATE BYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
R1(a) TO R1(c) ARE R/AT: MAURYA NILAYA, NEAR HALANJI KATTE, HOOTAGALLI INDUSTRIAL ROAD, HOOTAGALLI VILLAGE, BELAVADI POST MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE - 570 018.
1(d) SHOBA,
D/O LATE BYRAPPA, W/O JAGADISH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O BGS LAYOUT, NEAR KUMBAMMA TEMPLE, HOOTAGALLI VILLAGE, BELAVADI POST, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE - 570018.
1(e) MANJULA,
D/O LATE BYRAPPA, W/O JAYARAMU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.371, 4TH CROSS, WATER TANK ROAD, HOOTAGALLI VILLAGE, POST:BELAVADI, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE - 570 018.
1(f) SIDDARAJU,
S/O LATE BYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.98, 100, KHB COLONY, HOOTAGALLI VILLAGE, POST:BELAVADI, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE - 570 018.
3
WA NO. 4041/2019
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560 009.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANGAMESH R.B, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 (a to f); SRI RAGHAVENDRA A KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO 5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO a)SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 13/11/2019 PASSED IN WP NO.31057/2014 (LB-RES) BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT, CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION. b)GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 02.07.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
WA NO. 4041/2019
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
Aggrieved by the order dated 13-11-2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant/respondent No.1 in W.P.No.31057/2014, is before this Court in appeal.
be referred as per their rank in the writ petition.
5
WA NO. 4041/2019
remained with the writ petitioner. It was contended by the petitioner that claiming that 06 guntas of the land in the said survey number was in possession of respondent No.1/appellant herein, he filed a suit for declaration and possession in OS No.76/1996 and the said suit came to be decreed. Respondent No.1/appellant filed an appeal in RA No.51/2010 before the District Judge, and the said appeal also came to be dismissed. Against the said judgment, RSA No.1417/2011 was filed before this Court. It was contended that without disclosing the aforesaid suit and the appeals, respondent No.1/appellant herein had filed a Writ Petition in No.11831/2013 contending that he was in unauthorized occupation of 07 guntas in Sy.No.70/1 of Hootgalli Village he obtained a mandamus whereby the Karnataka Housing Board was directed to consider his representation for regularization of the land which was in his possession. Acting on the said representation, the Housing Board had issued an allotment order dated 13-3-2014 without considering the representation which was submitted by the
6
WA NO. 4041/2019
petitioner much prior to the representation of the appellant. Therefore, the writ petitioner contended that the allotment of the site measuring 1.86 guntas in site No.82/A was incorrect and before allotting the said site, the representation of the writ petitioner should have been considered by the Karnataka Housing Board. Based on the said contentions, the following reliefs were sought by the writ petitioner:
7
WA NO. 4041/2019
claimed by the writ petitioner in original suit in OS No.76/1996. Therefore, the writ petitioner had no locus standi to question the allotment of the site to the appellant, which was falling within the area acquired by the Karnataka Housing Board. It was contended that site No.82/A has nothing to do with 09 guntas of the land which was the subject matter of the suit and therefore, the claim of the petitioner is not sustainable in law. After receiving the compensation, the writ petitioner could not have objected for the allotment of the site No.82/A in favour of respondent No.1.
8
WA NO. 4041/2019
During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.1 herein died and his LRs were brought on record.
petitioner/respondent No. 1 herein had filed original suit in OS No.76/1996 claiming possession and declaration, and it came to be decreed and the first appeal also came to be
dismissed and the second appeal is pending before this Court. The said suit is in respect of 06 guntas of land which is allegedly in the possession and enjoyment of the appellant herein. It is also an undisputed fact that out 04 acres 36 guntas, an area measuring 04 acres 27 guntas was acquired by Karnataka Housing Board and the remaining 09 guntas of land remained with the writ petitioner, out of which 6 guntas is the subject matter of
9
WA NO. 4041/2019
the original suit between the parties. In the meanwhile, respondent No.1/appellant herein filed W.P.No. 11831/2013 seeking to regularize 07 guntas which was acquired, as he was in unauthorized occupation of the same. Pursuant to the order in W.P.No.11831/2018, site No.82/A measuring 1.86 guntas was allotted to respondent No.1. Accordingly, respondent No.1 has deposited the sale consideration amount in respect of the said land with the Karnataka Housing Board. The writ petitioner states that on 24-072012, he had made an application to allot the marginal land adjoining the 09 guntas of land in Sy.No.70/1 which was not the subject matter of the acquisition proceedings but left out of such acquisition proceedings. This application was not considered while allotting site No.82/A to appellant/respondent No.1, which in fact, is alleged to be adjoining the 09 guntas of land which is the subject matter of the original proceedings. The learned Single Judge sets aside the allotment of site No.82/A and directs to reconsider
10
WA NO. 4041/2019
the same in the light of the claim made by writ petitioner on 24-07-2012.
11
WA NO. 4041/2019
12
WA NO. 4041/2019
has better rights and advantages in seeking allotment of the same and without considering his claim, site No.82/A has been allotted to appellant/respondent No.1. Therefore, he defends the impugned order.
13
WA NO. 4041/2019
disclosed. If the appellant/respondent No.1 succeeds in regular second appeal, then he can again seek land/site adjoining unauthorized occupied land or the 06 guntas which was the subject matter of the said suit. The declaration of ownership of 06 guntas out of 09 guntas by the writ petitioner would be obviously advantageous to him since he claims to have constructed a house in it.
14
WA NO. 4041/2019
Karnataka Housing Board. It is this land, which he sought for regularization in W.P.No.11831/2013 and considering his claim, site No.82/A measuring 1.86 guntas was allotted to him.
15
WA NO. 4041/2019
the dispute in original proceedings succeeded, the claim of the writ petitioner could be considered, if at all the said land falls within unutilized portion of the acquired land. Respondent No.1/appellant being an unauthorized occupant in the land acquired, (which is adjacent to the 09 guntas left out from the acquisition, belonging to the writ petitioner) will be entitled to seek the allotment. There is nothing on record that the site No.82/A is in 07 (which the appellant is in unauthorised occupation) guntas which is acquired as per the report dated 24-3-2003. If site No.82/A allotted is in the marginal land as claimed by the writ petitioner in his representation to the Housing Board, his rights to claim over it vis-à-vis , the right of the unauthroised occupant i.e., respondent No.1/ appellant need to the considered by the Housing Board while allotting site or regularizing the unauthorized occupation. Therefore, the rival claims should have been considered by the Karnataka Housing Board by making the allotment of site No.82/A. There is no material on record to show as to
16
WA NO. 4041/2019
whether site No.82/A situate adjoining 09 guntas of land of the writ petitioner, thereby, it would be advantageous for him and it was the subject matter of the representation given by him is the matter to be ascertained by the Karnataka Housing Board. Therefore, the opinion of the learned Single Judge that the Karnataka Housing Board i.e., respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein must consider the said claim in the light of the representation submitted by the writ petitioner which was much prior to the mandamus issued by this Court in W.P.No.11831/2013 cannot be interfered with. Any how, the claim over the adjoining land of 09 guntas which is owned by the writ petitioner; and in the unauthorized occupation of appellant herein pertaining to 07 guntas in the acquired portion of the land are to be considered vis-a-vis the advantages of the parties and the rights they may have in the same. This aspect, regarding the situation of site No.82/A allotted to the appellant was not considered in the allotment letter dated 13-3-2014.
17
WA NO. 4041/2019
accept the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant that respondent No.1/writ petitioner had no locus-standi to question the allotment of the site No.82/A to the appellant.
as such, the same is hereby dismissed.
Interim application No.1/2019 stands disposed off.
Sd/-
(V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE
Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE
tsn*
2 issues framed by the court
Did the writ petitioner have locus standi to question the allotment of site No.82/A to the appellant?
Whether the Karnataka Housing Board should have considered the writ petitioner's prior representation before allotting site No.82/A?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rachegowda
Byrappa @ Byregowda (since dead, rep. by LRs - Honamma, Padma, Kumara, Shoba, Manjula, Siddaraju)
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Housing Board
Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board
Assistant Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board
Managing Director, Karnataka Housing Board
V Kameswar Rao
C M Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
