Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, S. Rangachar and Usha Rachar, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, challenging notices dated 19.05.2020 (Annexure-A and A1) issued by the second respondent, the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). The petitioners claimed to be purchasers of site No.89 in a layout formed by the BDA. They contended that the original owner had applied for conversion of the land, and since the application was not considered, conversion was deemed to have been granted under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The impugned notices called upon them to vacate the land on the ground that the layout had been declared illegal by this court in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in W.P. No.50643/2016 (LB-BMP-PIL). The petitioners argued that they were not parties to the said PIL and were not heard before the issuance of the eviction notices. The court, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, observed that the petitioners were not parties to the earlier PIL and therefore could not be evicted without being afforded an opportunity of hearing. The court held that the principles of natural justice require that the petitioners be heard before any coercive action is taken against them. Accordingly, the court quashed the impugned notices insofar as they relate to site No.89, but granted liberty to the respondents to issue fresh notices after giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing. The court did not adjudicate on the merits of the petitioners' claim regarding deemed conversion, leaving it open for consideration in the fresh proceedings.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Right to be Heard - Natural Justice - Petitioners, purchasers of a site in a layout declared illegal in a PIL, were issued eviction notices without being heard - Court held that since petitioners were not parties to the PIL, they must be given an opportunity of hearing before any coercive action - Impugned notices quashed with liberty to respondents to issue fresh notices after hearing petitioners (Paras 1-5). B) Land Law - Deemed Conversion - Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Petitioners claimed that original owner had applied for conversion and due to non-consideration, conversion was deemed granted - Court did not adjudicate on this claim but noted it as a contention (Para 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners, who were not parties to the earlier PIL, are entitled to be heard before being evicted pursuant to a notice issued based on the declaration of the layout as illegal in that PIL.
Final Decision
The court quashed the impugned notices dated 19.05.2020 (Annexure-A and A1) insofar as they relate to site No.89, with liberty to the respondents to issue fresh notices after giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- right to be heard
- deemed conversion under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act
- 1964
- finality of judgment in rem
- distinction between parties and non-parties to a PIL
