M. Devaraj vs Bengaluru Development Authority, Bengaluru

Subhro Kamal Mukherjee Actg. C.J. :- This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated September 5, 2014, passed by the Hon'' ble single Judge disposing of the Writ Petition No. 11531 of 2014, inter alia, granting liberty to the writ petitioner-appellant to file a civil suit for declaration of his right and for permanent injunction.

It is contended by the writ petitioner, who is the appellant before us, that the Bengaluru Development Authority (for short ''the BDA''), allotted the site in dispute in favour of the mother of the respondent No. 4.

On the death of the mother of the respondent No. 4, the said property devolved upon the respondent No. 4. He executed a deed of mortgage in favour of the writ petitioner-appellant, mortgaging the property that was allotted in favour of his mother.

In 2013, the BDA found that the respondent No. 4 has no right in relation to the property in dispute. There is nothing on record to establish that the BDA in the year 1992 ever allotted the site in dispute in favour of the mother of the respondent No. 4.

In the meantime, the site was allotted to the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 could not take possession of the site, as the appellant is holding the property.

The appellant claims that he is the tenant in respect of the property in dispute. He is the mortagee and the agreement holder.

Therefore, the Hon''ble single Judge disposed of the writ petition and relegated the parties to civil court.

Unless the appellant establishes that the respondent No. 4 had a valid title in respect of the said site, he cannot obtain any order, which requires factual investigation.

We feel that the Hon''ble single Judge was right in holding that the parties should settle their dispute before the Civil Court.

We are informed by Mr. Srinivasa K.N, that a suit has, already, been filed and an application for injunction was moved in connection with the said suit. He, candidly, submits that the application for injunction was dismissed and he has preferred an appeal.

We do not find any fault in the order of the Hon''ble single Judge requiring interference.

Therefore, the writ appeal is dismissed.

We make no order as to costs.