Lalitha Devi vs. The State Of Karnataka

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 6811of 2023)

LALITHA DEVI & ORS. APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date: 2023.07.13 17:33:18 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2. The question that arises for consideration is whether a portion of the property owned by the appellants was acquired and utilized for construction of public road?

3. The case of the appellants appears to be that a big chunk of land including their property was acquired on 07.02.2012 for a Group House Building Co-operative Society but the said acquisition was quashed upto this Court. The appellants' acquired property was consequently returned to them but a portion thereof has been allegedly utilized for construction of a public road.

1

4. The appellants initially filed a civil suit but without awaiting its final outcome, they also filed a writ petition, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 21.10.2021 after holding that the writ petition involved disputed question of facts and since the appellants have already filed a civil suit, parallel writ proceedings were not maintainable.

5. Instead of pursuing the civil suit, the appellants withdrew the same on 21.04.2022 and filed a writ appeal which came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 27.10.2022. The appellants then filed a review petition, which also met with the same fate on 30.11.2022.

6. Since the appellants withdrew the civil suit, and the writ petition has been dismissed by the High Court as it involved disputed question of facts, there is no determination on merits of the question as to whether or not any portion of the appellants' land has been actually utilized for construction of public road. It goes without saying that if the appellants' property has been utilized for construction of a road, they are entitled to compensation to that extent, in accordance with law. Unfortunately, the Bangalore Development Authority for whom the land was allegedly acquired or the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), to whom the constructed road was subsequently handed over, have

2

not come up before the High Court with any specific stand as to whether or not the appellants' property was utilized for construction of public road. In fact, the Bangalore Development Authority was not even impleaded as a party respondent by the appellants.

7. In this view of the matter, it appears to us, in the interest of justice, to provide at least one Forum to the appellants to pursue their remedy and establish whether any part of their property has been utilized for construction of the road and if so whether they are entitled to fair and just compensation in lieu thereof.

8. Since the above-stated question can be determined only on appreciation of evidence to be led by the parties, we deem it appropriate to invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and modify the order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the Civil Court dismissing the suit of the appellants as withdrawn, to the extent that the appellants are permitted to file a fresh civil suit on the same cause of action within a period of two months. It is made clear that in case the suit is filed within the stipulated period of two months, the Civil Court shall decide the same on merits and the objection of limitation shall not be entertained. The appellants shall be obligated to implead the necessary parties.

3

9. The learned Civil Court shall decide the matter expeditiously.

10. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

11. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

...................J. (SURYA KANT)

...................J. (DIPANKAR DATTA)

New Delhi; July 07, 2023

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).6811/2023

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27-10-2022 in WA No.1417/2021 passed by the High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru)

LALITHA DEVI & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Respondent(s)

Date : 07-07-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA

• For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajesh Mahale, AOR Mr. Shanth Kumar Mahale, Adv. Mr. Amith J., Adv.
• For Respondent(s) Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR Mr. Ashish Yadav, Adv. Ms. Rajeshawari Shankar, Adv. Mr. Niroop Sukrithy, Adv. Mr. Jay Nirupam, Adv. Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Adv. Mr. Dharm Singh, Adv.
  • Mr. Shiva Swaroop, Adv. M/s. Nuli & Nuli, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(ARJUN BISHT) (PREETHI T.C.) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH) (signed order is placed on the file)