Dismissed

Sri. v. Gopalappa v the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Aug 2024WP/2231/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought enquiry, Goonda Act registration, quo warranto and damages relating to Kodigehalli land acquired for a co-operative society, after his earlier challenge to the acquisition failed. Court called the petition an abuse of process and dismissed it with Rs.25,000 cost.

What did the court decide?

None granted; petition dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000 payable to the Advocates Welfare Fund.

Sri. v. Gopalappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:30972 WP No. 2231 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2231 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. V. GOPALAPPA, S/O. LATE DYAVANANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/AT NO. 604, 2^ND C CROSS, 6^TH MAIN, 2^ND BLOCK, H.R.B.R. LAYOUT, KALYANANAGAR, BANASAWADI, BENGALURU-560 043. (PETITIONER IS NOT CLAIMED AND SENIOR CITIZENSHIP BENEFITS)

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI G M CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPT. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

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

¶14

THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶15

THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶16

THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶17

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:30972 WP No. 2231 of 2021

¶20

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶21

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE NORTH EAST DIVISION,AMRUTH NAGAR MAIN ROAD, SECTOR-B, AMRUTHANAGAR, BYATARAYANAPURA, BANGALORE-560 092.

¶22

NATIONAL TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTIONS (N.T.I.) HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, NO.G-5, PALACE ORCHARD, APARTMENTS, NO.51, 9^TH MAIN, 6^TH CROSS, RMV EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560 080, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. R. PRAKASH S/O. N. S. RAMASWAMY IYER, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.

¶23

SMT. SHUBHA LAXMI, W/O. VIJAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, NO.12, 1^ST FLOOR, NAGAPPA STREET, P.G. HALLI, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003.

¶24

SRI. DAYANANDA KUMARA, S/O. NANDEESHA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.24/3, KODIGEHALLI OLD VILLAGE, NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE, SAHAKARANAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560 092.

¶25

MR. G. NARAYANA, S/O. LATE GOPALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT NO. 291, SRI LAKSHMI NILAYA, 60 FEET ROAD, TALAKAVERI LAYOUT, AMRUTHAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 092.

¶26

SMT. SUBBAMMA, W/O. KRISHNAMRAJU, AGED ABOUT MAJOR,

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:30972 WP No. 2231 of 2021

¶28

MR. SUBBA RAJU, S/O. KRISHNAMRAJU AND SUBBAMMA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶29

RESPONDENT NO.12 & 13 ARE R/AT NO.12, BALAJI LAYOUT, KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD, RMV 2^ND STAGE, NAGASHETTIHALLI, BANGALORE-560 094.

¶30

SMT. SHAMALA RAJ, W/O. V. RAVI RAJ, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO. 154, SOUKHYA, 6^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003.

¶31

SMT. INDIRA. G D/O. B. R. GANGADHARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT JAYA NILAYA, NES LAYOUT, GANDHINAGAR, MAGADI TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 120.

¶32

SRI. G. SRINIVAS GOWDA S/O. LATE GIRIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1834, 3^RD A CROSS, 2^ND STAGE, 2^ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010.

¶33

SRI. RANGANATH. R, S/O. LATE RANGADASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT 181/C, N.T.I. LAYOUT, 1^ST PHASE, KODIGEHALLI, BANGALORE-560 92.

¶34

SRI. CHAKRAVARTHI @ CHAKRI S/O. JAYARAMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO. 2375, 1^ST CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, C BLOCK, SAHAKARANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 097.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:30972 WP No. 2231 of 2021

¶37

SRI RAJESH. G S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.113, RAJEEVGANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 097.

¶38

…RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N HCGP FOR R1 TO R7, SRI CHETHAN B, ADVOCATE FOR R10, R15 TO R17. R11, R12, R14 AND R19 ARE SERVED)

¶40

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-3 TO CONDUCT THE ENQUIRY ON THE STRENGTH OF COMPLAINTS MADE BY THE PETITIONERS AND OTHER LOCAL RESIDENTS AGAINST THE R-8 TO 19 VIDE ANNX-A TO A-5 AND ETC.

¶41

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶42

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶43

ORAL ORDER

¶44

This petition is clear case of gross abuse and misuse of the due process of law. Besides, petitioner showing scant regard to the judicial process. Reliefs sought in the present petition given the history of the case indicate that petition be dismissed with exemplary cost for the reasons recorded hereunder.

¶45

Petitioner claiming to be the owner of the property bearing No.6/1A Kodigehalli Village, has made bold to file this petition as a means to overcome the orders which have already

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:30972 WP No. 2231 of 2021

¶48

passed by this Court and which have attained finality in respect

¶49

of the acquisition process initiated by the

¶50

respondent/authorities.

¶51

The very same petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No.19765/2013 before this Court wherein the relief in the nature of declaration was sought claiming that the land in Sy.No.6/1A measuring 4 acres 12 guntas out of 6 acres 12 guntas were never acquired and the possession was never taken under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and further declaration was sought to declare that the notification dated 04.01.1985 issued by respondent No.2 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act as per Annexure - G and the notification dated 25.09.1986 issued under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in the said case were bad in law. The Division Bench of this Court on hearing the parties and taking note of the fact that the issue involved in the said writ petition was squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.17016/2011 and other connected matters and also taking note of the fact that the appeal filed by

¶52

the very same petitioner before the Apex Court having been dismissed on 17.09.2021 held that petitioner was not entitled

¶53

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:30972 WP No. 2231 of 2021

¶54

for the reliefs sought for in the said petition. Accordingly, dismissed the same.

¶55

Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed a review petition against the order passed by the Division Bench and the same is pending consideration. Counsel for the petitioner after arguing the matter at this juncture seeks disposal of the present petition with liberty to raise all contentions in the said review petition.

¶56

Necessary to note that the reliefs sought in the present petition is nothing but speculative and superfluous which are extracted hereunder for immediate reference:

¶57

i) Issue the writ of Mandamus or any other writ order, directing the respondent No.3 to conduct the enquiry on the strength of complaints made by the petitioners and other local residents against the respondent No.8 to 19 which are produced at Annexure-A to A5 and register the case against the respondent No.8 to 19 under the Goonda Act and also open the Rowdy sheet for their illegal activities in respect of creating of documents and trespassing in to the petitioner's property and similar activities in the locality made by them.

¶58

(ii) Issue the Wirt of Quo-Warrento, quashing the sanction order made on 28/12/1982 in No.RD 197 AQB 82 on the strength of representation made by the 8^th respondent requesting to acquire the lands at Kothihosahalli/Kodigehalli to formation of Layout of NTI Employees Housing Co-Operative Society Ltd., in Sy.No.26 to 39 for extent of 66 acres 05 guntas against which the Government had sanctioned 171.37 acres

¶59

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:30972 WP No. 2231 of 2021

¶60

which is against to the request made by the 8^th respondent which are produced at Annexure-'L.1'.

¶61

(iii) Restrain the respondent No.8 to 19 not to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and his purchasers in respect of converted land in Sy.No.6/1A at Kodigehalli village for the extent of 1 acre of land and layout formed by the petitioner.

¶62

(iv) Direct the respondent No8 to 19 to pay the damages to the Appaiah's family who are causing the death of appaiah and his mother for the extent of Rs.5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five crores only) who is the purchaser of site No.11 in Sy.No.6/1A of Kodigehalli village from the petitioner, since on the strength of fraudulent documents they were trespassed in to the Appaiah's site and thrown out his tenant and out of the shock he got admitted to the hospital and consequently he died in the hospital and due to the death of Appaiah, his mother also been died out of worries.

¶63

v) Direct the respondent No.1 to 7 to conduct the enquiry against the respondent No.8 for its irregularities committed by its office bearers as per the report submitted by G.V.K. Rao which is produced at Annexure-N and consequently set aside the committee of 8^th respondent and appoint the registrar of the CoOperative Societies as a liquidator to look after the affairs of the 8^th respondent Society to avoid further frauds and direct the liquidator to submit the report of the members of the society who are employees of NTI House Building Co-Operative Society.

¶64

vi) Grant such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶65

As noted above, in the light of the acquisition process

¶66

that were initiated by the respondent authorities having attained finality and petitioner having unsuccessfully challenged

¶67

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:30972 WP No. 2231 of 2021

¶68

the same could not have filed the present petition with the relief as sought herein above.

¶69

Learned counsel for the private respondents and learned HCGP submit that the subject land were acquired for the benefit of respondent No.8 - Society and a residential layout has already been formed and the sites have been allotted to the members who are the private respondents in this case and they are in possession and enjoyment of the said property.

¶70

In the light of the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter, this Court declines to show any indulgence in the present petition.

¶71

The present writ petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- payable to the "Advocates Welfare Fund".

¶72

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶73

BRN

¶74

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Sri. v. Gopalappa v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. v. Gopalappa v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri H Ananthakumar Vs Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Smt. Bramarambha Vs the State of Karnataka

Vijaya Diagnostic Centre Vs Karnataka Medical Council

R. Krishna Murthy Vs M Manohar

Smt Padma Vs the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Smt B Rani Vs the Assistant Commissioner and President