MADHU G. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 has been filed against the order dated 03.01.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed.

(2.) Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the father of the appellant viz., late G. Gopal Reddy was the owner of the lands bearing Sy.Nos.47, 49 and 66/1 measuring 36 1/2 guntas, 31 guntas and 39 guntas respectively situated at Banaswadi, Krishnarajapuram, Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. The aforesaid land was required by the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority' for short) under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) for formation of 'East of NGEF layout'. Accordingly, the proceedings under the Act were set in motion and a preliminary Notification dated 28.05.1984 was issued and subsequently, a final Notification dated 23.10.1986 was issued. It appears that the father of the appellant had made a representation for allotment of sites under the Bangalore Development Authority (Incentive Scheme for Voluntary Surrender of Land) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short). The application submitted by the father of the appellant was considered by the Sub-committee of the Authority in its meeting held on 28.12.2005 and the father of the appellant was held entitled to one site measuring 40x60 feet and one site measuring 30x40 feet. However, the aforesaid recommendation of the Sub-committee were not implemented by the Authority. By a communication dated 20.10.2008, the father of the appellant was informed that since, he had not handed over the land in question to the authority on his own as per the Rules and had challenged the proceedings of land acquisition before this court and is therefore, not entitled to allotment of the land. In the meanwhile, the father of the appellant expired on 2012. The appellant thereafter, filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge, in which a writ of certiorari was sought for quashment of the impugned endorsement dated 20.10.2008 and a direction was sought to the Authority to extend the benefit of the Rules to the petitioner as per the recommendation made by the Sub-committee in its proceedings dated 28.12.2005. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 03.01.2013, dismissed the writ petition inter alia on the ground that the appellant had sought the same relief in writ petition viz., W.P.No.6262/2012, however, the aforesaid fact was suppressed. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed and the writ petition viz., W.P.No.6262/2012, which was disposed of on 30.08.2012, however, suppressing the aforesaid fact, writ petition viz., W.P.No.33915/2012 was filed. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed for suppression of material facts. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the appellant is guilty of suppression of material facts is factually incorrect. It is further submitted that the writ petition W.P.No.6262/2012 was filed by the uncle of the appellant and the uncle of the appellant was held entitled to allotment of one site of 40x60 feet and one site of 30x40 feet and the cause of action for filing the writ petition viz., W.P.No.6262/2012 was separate and distinct. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Authority could not dispute the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the appellant.