Full Judgment Text
NonReportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6492 OF 2008
Bangalore Development Authority …..Appellant(s)
VERSUS
B.N. Ramalingaswamy & Ors. …..Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment
and order dated 05.09.2007 of the High Court of
Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No. 3390 of
2005(LA) whereby the Division Bench of the High
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2018.09.20
16:51:10 IST
Reason:
Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by the appellant
1
herein and affirmed the order dated 06.07.2005 of
the Single Judge in Writ Petition No.28293 of 1991.
2.
Few facts need to be mentioned infra for the
disposal of this appeal, which involves a short point.
3. The dispute, which is the subject matter of this
appeal, relates to land bearing No. 15/4, 16/4 and
16/8 situated in Jedahalli Village, Bangalore North
Taluk, Bangalore measuring around 6 acres 3
guntas. The dispute is between the appellant herein,
which is a statutory body calledBangalore
Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “the
Authority”) on the one hand and the private
respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and two others on the other
hand.
4. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and two others filed a
writ petition (No.28293 of 1991) before the High
Court of Karnataka (Bangalore) against the Authority,
some private respondents, State of Karnataka and
2
the Bangalore City Corporation. The writ petition was
filed challenging the entire acquisition proceedings
initiated by the Authority by issuance of the
Notification dated 19.02.1976 by which the
aforementioned land in question was acquired by the
Authority and also Resolution No. 1051 dated
16.01.1976 passed by the Authority as being illegal,
void and bad in law. The Authority contested the writ
petition and supported the acquisition proceedings.
5. By order dated 06.07.2005, the writ Court
(Single Judge), in substance, allowed the writ petition
and, therefore, the Authority felt aggrieved and filed
an intra Court appeal before the Division Bench. By
impugned order, the Division Bench dismissed the
appeal and affirmed the order of the writ Court.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellantAuthority
has filed the present appeal by way of special leave in
this Court.
3
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the record of the case, we are
constrained to allow the appeal and while setting
aside the impugned order remand the intra court
appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court for its
disposal afresh on merits in accordance with law.
7. In our considered view, the need to remand the
appeal to the Division Bench for its decision afresh
on merits has occasioned inter alia for the reason
that it did not deal with any of the issues arising in
the case and nor it seemed to have dealt with any of
the submissions urged by the parties and, especially,
the submissions urged by the Authority as an
appellant in the said intra court appeal except to
discuss the issue in Para 5 of the order which
resulted in dismissal of the Authority’s appeal.
8. In our considered opinion, the intra court
appeal did involve factual and legal issues, which
4
were decided by the Single Judge, therefore, once
they were carried in intra court appeal by an
aggrieved party and pressed in service while assailing
the order of the Single Judge, it was incumbent upon
the Division Bench to deal with all such issues urged
and then record its findings one way or the other
keeping in view the submissions urged and legal
provisions applicable to the issues.
9. It was, however, not done by the Division Bench
and in a cursory manner, the Division Bench
disposed of the appeal.
10. We find ourselves unable to concur with such
disposal and feel inclined to set aside the impugned
order and remand the case to the Division Bench of
the High Court with a request to decide the appeal
afresh on merits in accordance with law.
11. Having formed an opinion to remand the case in
the light of our reasoning mentioned above, we do not
5
consider it proper to go into the merits of the case
and, therefore, leave all the issues to be dealt with by
the Division Bench for its decision on merits.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal
succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Impugned order
is set aside. The case (intra court appeal) is
remanded to the Division Bench of the High Court for
its decision on merits uninfluenced by any of our
observations in this order. We request the High Court
to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible
preferably within 6 months.
……...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
.……...................................J.
[S. ABDUL NAZEER]
New Delhi,
September 20, 2018.
6