S.S.M. Quadri and; S.N. Phukan, JJ.
1. This appeal, by special leave, is from the order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dismissing Writ Appeal No. 727 of 1989 in limine on 19-4-1989.
2. The appellant filed Writ Petition No. 15487 of 1987 seeking direction to Bangalore Development Authority, the respondents herein, to reconvey to him an extent of 6 acres 21 guntas 42 sq yards situated in Surveys Nos. 26/1, 30, 32/4, 32/5, 32/6, 32/7, 32/8, 32/9, 32/10, 32/11, 32/12, 32/17 and 33/11 of Jakkasandra village, Kormangala Bangalore South taluk pursuant to resolutions of the City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore dated 26-6-1969 and 19-4-1972. The learned Single Judge referred to two judgments of learned Single Judges of the same High Court in B.N. Sathyanarayana Rao v. State of Karnataka1 and B. Venkataswamy Reddy v. State of Karnataka2 and without going into the merit of the claim of the appellant, dismissed the writ petition on 3-4-1989. On appeal, the Division Bench passed the following order on 19-4-1989:
“Heard. No ground for interference is made out. Consequently the appeal is dismissed in limine.” which is under challenge in this appeal.
3. Mr Shanti Bhushan, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contends, inter alia, that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of the same High Court in Muniyappa v. Bangalore Development Authority3 the two judgments followed by the learned Single Judge will not be good law and that as many questions of law arise in the case, dismissal of the writ appeal by the Division Bench in limine, was unjustified and is liable to be set aside.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties for some time and on perusing the impugned order, we are of the view that the said contention of Mr Shanti Bhushan has force.
5. In the view we have taken, we do not propose to express any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the judgment of the Division Bench in Muniyappa case3. Suffice it to mention that we are unable to sustain the impugned order of the Division Bench dismissing the writ appeal in limine when the appeal admittedly raises various questions of fact and law which need adjudication. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we consider it appropriate to remit the case to the Division Bench of the High Court to dispose of the writ appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law.
6. It is needless to mention that all the contentions available to the parties are left open to be urged before the High Court.
7. The interim order passed by this Court on 31-8-1989 restraining Respondents 4 to 15 from making any construction on the land in question, shall remain in force till the disposal of the writ appeal by the High Court.
8. Having regard to the fact that the writ petition was filed as long back as in the year 1987, we hope that the High Court will dispose of the writ appeal expeditiously, preferably within six months of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. The appeal is allowed as indicated above; no order as to costs.