YASHODA GOWDH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are before this Court assailing the Government Order dated 12.03.2013 impugned at Annexure -A to the petition. By the said order, the Government has approved the proposal of the fourth respondent to enter into Public Private Partnership (PPP) with the third respondent for construction of Cubbon Park Station. The petitioners are seeking consideration of their proposal as per Annexure -F to these petitions.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the third respondent is the owner of the property bearing Nos.6 to 14, Cubbon Road, Bangalore. The said property was notified for acquisition for the benefit of the fourth respondent. The third respondent has challenged the acquisition by filing W.P.No.4297/2010. The petitioners herein claiming to have certain leasehold rights in respect of the said property have also challenged the acquisition in W.P.Nos.7756 -58/2010. The said petitions filed by the petitioners herein and the third respondent herein challenging the acquisition are pending consideration. In the meanwhile, the third respondent who is the owner of the property has put forth a proposal to the fourth respondent to develop the property through a developer whereby the fourth respondent would be entitled to use the required extent of property without acquisition and payment of compensation, while the third respondent would also be benefited. The said proposal after consideration has crystallised in the issue of the impugned Government Order. The petitioners herein claim to be aggrieved as they have been excluded from the said process. They contend that by filing an interlocutory application in their petition in W.P.Nos.7756 -58/2010 challenging the acquisition, they have also put forth their proposal to develop the land.

(3.) THE third respondent through their objection statement have at the outset questioned the locus standi of the petitioners. Their claim of having inherited leasehold rights is denied. Though the lease agreement dated 31.07.1974 with the predecessor is admitted, it is contended that it has been terminated. The civil suit filed against BSNL who were in possession and the same attaining finality before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is referred. Further the suit in O.S.No.15507/2000 filed against the petitioners and the same being decreed in favour of the third respondent herein is also referred and it is contended that the petitioners have no right whatsoever. With regard to the procedure followed in passing the Government Order, the third respondent have sought to contend that the same is in accordance with law. On that aspect, the other respondents have also filed their separate objection statement and have averred with regard to the procedure followed and the permissibility in entering into such PPP agreement for mutual benefit. Hence, the impugned Government Order is sought to be justified by all the respondents.