A writ of certiorari cannot be issued by one Bench of a High Court to another, requiring parties to pursue review instead in original proceedings.

ORDER :

D.K. SINGH, J.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner who claims Sy.Nos.7/1A, 7/1B, 7/1C and 7/1D situated at Gangenahalli village were acquired under the notification dated 30.11.1977 by the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘BDA’).

2. The petitioner in this petition has challenged the judgment dated 20.03.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.36025/2013.

3. Before dealing with the question of maintainability of the petition in challenging the judgment dated 20.03.2014 passed in the Writ petition No.36025/2013 and two other connected petitions, it would be apt to take note of the relevant facts which are stated thereunder:

i. The land in Sy.No.7/1A measuring 1 acre 34 guntas situated in Gangenahalli village, now called R.T.Nagar. K.H.Muniswamappa Block, Bangalore was claimed to have been acquired by one P. Munireddy, the husband of Smt.Kamalamma and the father of Sri.Kondappa, Sri Somshekara, Smt.Radhamma and Smt. Sarala Upendra in the year 1970 and his name stood in the revenue records as the owner of the said land. As a result of the partition between Sri. Late. Munireddy and his brothers, the extent of property in Sy.No.7/1A fell to the share of Sri. P.Munireddy, the husband of Smt. Kamalamma, one of the petitioner in the W.P.No.36025/2013 while lands in Sy.Nos.7/1B, 7/1C and 7/1D each to the extent of 17 guntas fell to the share of the other brothers, the total extent, in all measuring 8,278 Sq.mts. ii. Under the exemption order passed by the State Government under Section 2(1)(A) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Act, 1976 dated 19.03.1983 the said land was reflected. The betterment charges of Rs.79,100/- was paid to the local authorities and the land was also assessed to the land tax in terms of Section 145 , Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976.

iii. The lands in Sy.Nos.7/1A, 7/1B, 7/1C and 7/1D along with the other lands were the subject matter of notification for acquisition under the provisions of the BDA Act, 1976, for the purpose of extension of Matadahalli Layout dated 30.11.1977, which was followed by the final notification dated 08.12.1977. The land bearing Sy.No.7/2 measuring 2 acres 14 guntas was withdrawn from the acquisition under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 by the order dated 15.11.1978.

iv. A survey report was submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer on 01.01.1981 recommending deletion of certain lands, which was subject matter of acquisition notifications. The recommendation included several items of lands in Sy.Nos.7/2, 10/1, 10/2 and 13/2 of Gangenahalli Village apart from other lands, which were withdrawn by issuance of notifications under Section 48 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT .

v. It transpires that Munireddy had sought for approval for a housing scheme in respect of his land in question and the State Government had recommended to the respondent No.2 - BDA permitting the scheme, whereby 70% of the land would remain with the land owner and 30% would be available to the authority for development, free of cost. When the matter stood thus, the work order was issued by the BDA to the third party for the purpose of development of the land, which was the subject matter of acquisition including the land in Sy.No.7/1A, as per the order dated 19.05.2005. Therefore, Sri. Munireddy who was then in possession of the land, had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.15201/2025 praying that work order dated 19.05.2025 may be quashed and a further direction was sought to the respondents to take further action pursuant to the housing scheme which he had proposed.

vi. An interim order was granted in the said petition which was later vacated. As against the order vacating the interim order, a Wr