Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 485 (KAR)

Bangalore Development Authority v. Kum Manjula

2023-03-21

ASHOK S.KINAGI, PRASANNA B.VARALE

body2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. The present appeal filed by the appellant - BDA is at a very belated stage. As such, an application for condonation of delay is filed on behalf of the appellant. It is interesting to note the grounds submitted in the application to justify the delay. 2. Admittedly, the petition was decided by the learned Single Judge way back in the year 2014 and in paragraph No.3 of the application, it is stated that the learned Single Judge passed the order in W.P.No.16383- 16387/2014 on 25/4/2014 and the certified copy of the order of the above writ petition delivered to the appellants counsel on 5/6/2014. Thereafter, the appellant counsel sent the certified copy of the order to the Law Sec. of the BDA on 18/7/2014 which was received by the Law Sec. of the BDA and thereafter placed the file before the Law Officer and the Law Officer after going through the order directed the office to put of the concerned file. Thereafter, on going through the records on 28/7/2014 opined to file appeal against the above order and forwarded the file for the approval of the Commissioner, BDA. The Commissioner, BDA accorded approval for filing appeal on 4/8/2014 and forwarded the file to the Law Sec. for further process." Then, in paragraph No.4 of the application it is stated that as per the records, the Commissioner, BDA, on the instructions received from the Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department, for not to file writ appeal against the impugned order herein, instructed the Law Officer on 10/10/2014 to recall the file from the panel advocate. Accordingly, the panel advocate returned the file to the Law Sec. BDA on 27/10/2014. In view of the above, the Addl. Land Acquisition Officer has issued Endorsement to the first respondent stating that in view of the order passed in the above writ petition No.16383- 387/2014, the land in question was deleted from the acquisition. In the meantime, the 5th respondent herein filed writ petition in W.P.No.18525/2014 contending that he is the owner of the entire 4 acres 28 guntas of land in Sy.No.13 of Hulimavu Village (land in question) and sought for declaration that the acquisition proceedings lapsed as per Sec. 27 of the BDA Act and under Sec. 24(2) of the Act, 2013. In the meantime, the 5th respondent herein filed writ petition in W.P.No.18525/2014 contending that he is the owner of the entire 4 acres 28 guntas of land in Sy.No.13 of Hulimavu Village (land in question) and sought for declaration that the acquisition proceedings lapsed as per Sec. 27 of the BDA Act and under Sec. 24(2) of the Act, 2013. In the said writ petition Hon'ble Court has granted interim order of Status quo in respect of the land in question. Then, in paragraph No.5 it is submitted that during third week of March, 2022, a representative of one Sri Tulasiram approached the present Commissioner, BDA and made some grievance. Then, the present Commissioner called upon the concerned area Engineer and it was found that the BDA after acquisition of the land in question, BDA has formed roads and sites and some of the sites were allotted to the public and some of the allottees were obtained alternative sites in view of the litigations. Considering the above developments made by the BDA in the land in question, the present Commissioner, BDA taking decision to file the above appeal and instructed the Law Officer to take immediate steps to file the above appeal. Accordingly, Law Sec. collected the writ petition papers and taken steps to file the above appeal. Then it is stated that due to these facts, the delay of 2868 days in filing the appeal be condoned. 3. The reasons assigned, as referred to by us in the above mentioned paragraphs, only show the casual approach of the appellant. When there was an opinion expressed by the Law Officer, at the first instance, way back in the year 2014, the appellants could have certainly proceeded further and could have filed appeal in this Court. Then it seems that some officer of the Government in the Urban Development Department directed the Commissioner not to file the writ appeal against the order and also sought recall of the files from the panel advocate and then, in the matter, the entire machinery stopped at that stage. Then, after six years, in the year 2022, some private party apprise the Commissioner. Then, the Commissioner called for the records and thought it fit to instruct the Law Officer to file an appeal. Then, after six years, in the year 2022, some private party apprise the Commissioner. Then, the Commissioner called for the records and thought it fit to instruct the Law Officer to file an appeal. It is stated in the application that after acquisition of the land, the BDA has formed the roads and sites and some of the sites were allotted to the public and some allottees were obtained alternative sites in view of the litigations. Now, these facts cannot take place overnight the formation of roads, the allotment of alternate sites. All these acts require some time and it cannot be presumed that the authorities of the BDA were unaware of all these facts and suddenly, by waking up from deep slumber, the authorities got knowledge of the facts. Thus, these facts only show that some of the officers of the BDA act promptly and some of the officers, on instruction from the Urban Development Department, are in the process of filing the appeal that was initiated in the year 2014. 4. As such, these grounds stated in the application are, in our opinion, not at all justified, whether the inordinate delay caused in filing the appeal was caused by unintentional or bonafide reason. 5. In similar circumstances, this Court, in order dtd. 2/12/2022 in W.A.No.2100/2022 placing reliance on the judgments of the Hob'ble Apex Court in the matter of CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD & OTHERS VS. T.T. MURALI BABU as well as in the matter of MAJJI SANNEMMA @ SANYASIRAO VS. REDDY SRIDEVI & ORS., in CIVIL APPEAL NO.7696/2021, disposed of on 16/12/2021 in which relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of BASAVARAJ AND ANOTHER VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER REPORTED in (2013)14 SCC 81 as well as in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court the case of LINGESWARAN ETC. VS. THIRUNAGALINGAM IN SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NOS.2054-2055/2022. By observing that the application is devoid of any merit and rejected the application. Resultantly, the appeal was also accordingly dismissed.