Disposed¶31

Mr. Mangilal @ Mongilal v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC17 Jan 2025WP/55401/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BDA allotment of developed land; beneficial scheme; Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout; Sy.No.49/1 Kommaghatta Village, Kengeri Hobli; deed of sale 05.09.2005; subsisting decree in O.S.No.3008/2005 dated 07.01.2010 (II Addl. Civil Judge Sr.Dn Bengaluru Rural); no right over property while decree subsists; pending miscellaneous petition to recall decree; liberty reserved; writ petition disposed, not allowed.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue such remedy as may be available after disposal of the pending miscellaneous petition seeking recall of the O.S.No.3008/2005 judgment and decree. ¶31

Mr. Mangilal @ Mongilal Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:1951 WP No. 55401 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 55401 OF 2018 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. MANGILAL @ MONGILAL AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O DEWARRAM, RESIDING AT NO.41, 7^TH CROSS, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAJAGOPALA NAIDU, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶13

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

¶14

THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WES T, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. MURUGESH V CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO IGNORE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.01.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.3008/2005 BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) BENGALURU RURAL VIDE ANNEXURE-F AS THE SAME IS AGAINST THE LAW AND DIRECT

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:1951 WP No. 55401 of 2018

¶20

THE RESPONDENTS TO GIVE BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER AS PER THE CONSENT AWARD ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Petitioner is before this Court seeking allotment of developed land under the beneficial scheme on the premise that he is a purchaser of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.49/1 of Kommaghatta Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District in terms of deed of sale dated 05.09.2005 which has been acquired by respondent -BDA for the purpose of formation of Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout.

¶25

On perusal of the records, it is seen that there was a suit in O.S.No.3008/2005 filed by one Anjanappa against the vendor of the petitioner. The said suit was for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 04.06.1997 and to declare the sale deed dated 05.09.2005 executed in favour of the defendants therein as not binding on the plaintiffs. Said suit has been decreed vide Judgment and decree dated 07.01.2010. The relief as originally sought in this petition is for a direction to direct the respondent-BDA to ignore the said

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1951 WP No. 55401 of 2018

¶27

Judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.3008/2005 and to allot the developed land to the petitioner. Though learned counsel for petitioner has filed an application seeking to amend the said

¶28

prayer, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent -BDA as long as the said decree which is passed in O.S.No.3008/2005 is subsisting, neither the petitioner nor his vendor can claim any right over the property.

¶29

At this juncture learned counsel for petitioner submits that a miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner herein seeking to recall the said Judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.3008/2005 and the same is pending consideration, and seeks for liberty to seek such remedy as may be available after disposal of said writ petition.

¶30

Reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek such

¶31

remedy as may be available after disposal of the said miscellaneous petition, the petition is disposed of.

¶32

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

¶33

SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Mr. Mangilal @ Mongilal v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Mangilal @ Mongilal v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Vijayamma Vs the Speical Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority

Sri. N. Ramesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. a. Ramasubbaiah Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Sri T B Ramu, Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri C Byrappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. S N Somashekara Vs the State of Karnataka