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

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