Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
W.P.No.21920/2010 (LB-BMP) c/w
W.P.Nos.14665-675/2012 & 20631-796/2012 (LB-BMP)
W.P.No.21920/2010
BETWEEN :
1. M/S REMCO (BHEL) HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.364, 5TH MAIN, R.P.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, II STAGE BANGALORE-40.
2. G RAVISHANKAR S/O V.K.GOPAL,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, NO.295, FM CARIAPPA ROAD, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE NORTH, BANGALORE-98.
3. N L MANJUNATAH SHETTY
S/O ANANTARAMA GUPTA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS NO.17, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 12TH CROSS, MTS LAYOUT KENGERI UPANAGARA BANGALORE-60
4. C VINAYAK
S/O CHANNASWAMY MUDALIAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, NO.28A, 3RD BLOCK, 7TH CROSS, GRAPE GARDEN, THYARAGARAJANAGAR, BANGALORE-28.
5. L PETER D SOUZA
S/O LATE LALLIS D SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
2
NO.437, BAPUJINAGAR, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-26.
6. EJAZ PASHA S/O SHEIK MUSTAFA,
NO.344, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS, GANGONDANAHALLI, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-39. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI M.R. NAIK, Sr. COUNSEL FOR SRI D R RAVISHANKAR FOR M/S. LEX NEXUS) AND :
1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE
2. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER
RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR SUB-DIVISIN, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BANGALORE.
3. P S MAHALINGAPPA S/O LT.SIDDARAMAIAH, MAJOR, R/AT PATTANAGERE VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE-98
4. SMT K B SHANTAMMA
W/O P.S.MAHALINGAPPA, MAJOR, R/O PATTANAGERE VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE-98
5. SRI M R KANTHARAJU
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, C/O VIJAYAKUMAR, R/AT NO.17, SIDDHARAMAIAH BUILDING, PATTANAGERE VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE-98
6. SRI P B VIJAYASHANKAR
S/O.LT.BASAPPA, R/O BASAPPA BUILDING, PATTANAGERE VILLAGE,
3
KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE-98 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI I G GACHCHINAMATH, ADV. FOR R1 & 2 SRI P V CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R3 & 4 SRI H T JAGANATHA, ADV. FOR R5 SRI R S RAVI, ADV. FOR SRI B ROOPESHA FOR R6 ARI P N MANMOHAN, ADV. FOR R3 & 4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE R2 IN PROCEEDINGS DTD 19.4.10 PRODUCED AS PER ANNEX-J.
W.P.Nos.14665-675/12 & 20631-796/12 BETWEEN: 1. M/S REMCO (BHEL) HOUSE
BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.364, 5TH MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR II STAGE BANGALORE-560 040 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI SHANKAR G BELLERY
2. RAJU N. MORE S/O NARAYAN MORE AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS NO.506, BHEL II STAGE PATTANAGERE SOUTH RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE-560 098
3. K BALACHANDRAN
S/O KUNJUNNI NAIR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS NO.29, BHEL II STAGE PATTANAGERE SOUTH RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE-560 098
4. NARAGINGA RAO S/O KESHAWA RAO AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS NO.433/3, BHEL II STAGE PATTANAGERE SOUTH RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE-560 098
4
5. ANWER ALI KHAN S/O KHADHAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS NO.529, BHEL II STAGE PATTANAGERE SOUTH RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 098
6. ASHOK MALLAPPA MODI S/O MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS NO.433/4, BHEL II STAGE PATTANAGERE SOUTH RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 098
7. T P MANOHAR S/O LATE T S PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS NO.456, BHEL II STAGE PATTANAGERE SOUTH RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 098
8. MAHARUDRA KAMMAR S/O DEVENDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS NO.502, BHEL II STAGE, PATTANAGERE SOUTH RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 098
9. G SUDHA W/O SRI S. GURURAJA RAO AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS NO.204, BHEL II STAGE, PATTANAGERE NORTH RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 098
10. R KALAVATHY KUMAR W/O SRI K A KUMAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS NO.258, BHEL II STAGE, PATTANAGERE NORTH, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 098
11. K A KUMAR S/O M K ARMUGHAM
5
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS NO.259, BHEL II STAGE, PATTANAGERE NORTH, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE--560 098
12. KUBHER J AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O JAGANNATHA RAO RESIDING AT 479, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE- 560098
13. MANOHAR B KULKARNI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O BIDNU RAO RESIDING AT 504, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
14. KARUNAGARAN AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O NARASIMHAN RESIDING AT 411, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
15. MANJUNATH KAMATH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O NARAYANA KAMATH RESIDING AT 349, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
16. DILIP KUMAR JADHAV AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O APPASAHEB RESIDING AT 549, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
17. DODDAMANI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O KASHAPPA RESIDING AT 619, BHEL LAYOUT
6
PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
18. ANTHONY DAS AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O CHINNAPPA Y RESIDING AT 643, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
19. MAHADEVAPPA V TOTAD AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O VEERANA GOWDA RESIDING AT 600, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
20. VIJAYABASKAR K R AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O RAMU RESIDING AT 518, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
21. PRAKESH DESAI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O DESAI K B RESIDING AT 213, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
22. NEELAKANTAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O BASALINGAPPA RESIDING AT 433/5, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
23. NAGARAJA R AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O RAMALINGACHAR RESIDING AT 247, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
7
RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
24. DINNI N L AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O LAXMAN RESIDING AT 92, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
25. MUKTAR SHARIEF AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O SHARIEF M D RESIDING AT 543, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
26. JAGADEESH K AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O KRISHNAMURTHY S RESIDING AT 547, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
27. BASAVARAJ C PYATI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O CHANNAPPA RESIDING AT 244, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
28. BALASUBRAMANYA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O RAMASWAMY RESIDING AT 9A, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
29. NAVAVEETHAM T AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS W/O THALASINGAM K RESIDING AT 488, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
8
RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
30. MANJUNATH K G AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O GURUMURTHY K RESIDING AT 448, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
31. RAJANNA K Y AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O KRISHNAPPA RESIDING AT 505, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
32. SANKARA SUBBU M AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O MAYAK KOOTHAN S RESIDING AT 174, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
33. RAMANATHAN B V AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS S/O VASATH S N RESIDING AT 72, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
34. JAYARAMAIAH M AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O MALARAYAPPA J S RESIDING AT 498, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
35. SUDHAKARA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O KORAGA C SHETTY RESIDING AT 326, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
9
RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
36. SOMAIAH C M AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O MADAIAH C S RESIDING AT 500, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
37. VASANTHA K AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O RADAKRISHNA K RESIDING AT 21, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
38. BASKER RAO S AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O SATHYANARAYANA RAO A RESIDING AT 485, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
39. RANGARAO B M AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O MANJUNATH D S RESIDING AT 433/3, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
40. MANJULADEVI G AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/O GAGADHAR RAO D N RESIDING AT 45, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
41. SUNDER RAJU S AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O SUBRAMANI RESIDING AT 534, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
10
RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
42. RANGASWAMY A R AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O RANGUDHAIAH RESIDING NO.336, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
43. SREENIVAS MURTHY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O RAMACHANDRAIAH RESIDING AT 274, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
44. MUNIRAJ V AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O VENKATARAYAPPA RESIDING AT 484, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
45. MEENAKSHI S AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS W/O SHARANAPPA K S RESIDING AT 515, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
46. SYAM RESORIYA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O LOUS MARTIN RESIDING AT 67, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
47. NARENDRA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O SRINIVASMURTHY H R RESIDING AT 489, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
11
RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
48. SREESHA B N AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O NARAYANA B N RESIDING AT 138, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
49. RAGHU K AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O KALIDASAPPA RESIDING AT 621, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
50. LAXMAN BADIGER AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O VEERAPPA RESIDING AT 571, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
51. SHANKAR G BELERI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O GURAPPA RESIDING AT 353, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
52. BHARATH KUMAR K AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O KODANDA RAMA RESIDING AT 615, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
53. MUTTAGI S A AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O AVVANAPPA RESIDING AT 25 , BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
12
RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
54. LAKSHMIPATHI AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS S/O VENKATESAN RESIDING AT 24, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
55. ANJANEYA S/O NAGAPPA AGED 70 YEARS R/AT 14, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
56. RATHNAMMA B W/O MURTHY M S AGED 69 YEARS R/AT 4, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR BANGALORE 98
57. NAGARAJA DIKSHIT S S/O SHAMANNA DIXITH AGED 60 YEARS R/AT 1B, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE 98
58. JAYANTHI R W/O RANGANATHAN AGED 36 YEARS R/AT 75, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE 98
59. SHANKARI M. KAMATH S/O MANJUNATH KAMATH AGED 57 YEARS R/AT 39, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE 98
60. ASHOKA D S/O DASAPPA AGED 64 YEARS R/AT 65, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
13
RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE 98
61. CHETTY K.C. S/O CHANDRASHEKAR CHETTY R/AT 483, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 098
62. THERESA MARTIN A W/O MARTIN AGED 62 YEARS R/AT NO 433/6, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560 098
63. SURESH G J S/O GOPAL PILLAI AGED 63 YEARS R/AT 495, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR BANGALORE 98
64. NARAYANA M S/O MARIYAPPA AGED 57 YEARS R/AT 468, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE 560098
65. SUDHINDRA A S/O APPAJAPPA AGED 55 YEARS R/AT 554, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 98
66. MANJUNATH V.S. S/O SHASTRY V.S.S. AGED 57 YEARS R/AT 618, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 98
67. VIJAYAPRAKASH B S/O BASAVARAJAPPA AGED 55 YEARS R/AT 624, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560 098
68. PATIL T Y S/O PATIL Y K AGED 46 YEARS R/AT 628, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
14
RAJARAJESHWARI ANGAR BANGALORE 98
69. NATARAJ H L S/O SHASTRY H L N AGED 53 YEARS R/AT 558, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 98
70. BASAVARU A S/O ANDANAPPA AGED 62 YEARS R/AT 433/16, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 98
71. SHIVSHANKAR V S/O VEERASETTAPPA AGED 68 YEARS R/AT 433/13, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE 98
72. NARASIMIAH S/O NARASIMIAH AGED 61 YEARS R/AT 603, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560 098
73. VIRGINEA ROBERTS W/O JAYATHEERTHA R A AGED 61 YEARS R/AT 627, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE, RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
74. RADHA K N W/O NANJAPPA K A
AGED 62 YEARS R/AT 519, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
75. NAGARAJU V S/O VENKATARAM S AGED 47 YEARS R/AT 522, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
76. SATHYA MURTHY H B S/O BINDHU MADAV SASTRY AGED 65 YEARS
15
R/AT 591, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
77. SHANKAR H R S/O RAMASWAMY H R AGED 62 YEARS R/AT 508, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
78. TIMMAIAH B S/O BYRATHIMAIAH AGED 61 YEARS R/AT 573, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
79. HUCHAIAH S/O NANJE GOWDA AGED 60 YEARS R/AT 433/15, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
80. SUMA B T D/O THAMMAIAH B R AGED 48 YEARS R/AT 252, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
81. SREENIVAS M S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED 50 YEARS R/AT 77, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
82. PANKAJAM O W/O ACHUTHAN NAIR AGED 58 YEARS R/AT 93, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
83. RAVINDRA L S/O LINGARADHYA AGED 49 YEARS R/AT 510, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
84. PRABHAKARA M V S/O RAO M V V S AGED 51 YEARS R/AT 6, BHEL LAYOUT
16
PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
85. LAKCHMAN A S/O AMBIRATHNAM T V AGED 59 YEARS R/AT 524, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
86. NAGALAKSHMI W/O VENKATARAMAPPA AGED 59 YEARS R/AT 270, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
87. JAYARAM N S/O NAGARAJ SETTY AGED 51 YEARS R/AT 306, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
88. MAHALINGAPPA N S/O NANJAIAH AGED 58 YEARS R/AT 501, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
89. BHAGYALAKSHMI K W/O GOPALAN T AGED 49 YEARS R/AT 551, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
90. SRIRAM T V S/O VAMANAN T R AGED 48 YEARS R/AT 612, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
91. SURESH N S/O NARAYANAN A AGED 46 YEARS R/AT 352, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
92. RAJESHWARI K N W/O BHATTA K G N AGED 56 YEARS R/AT 533, BHEL LAYOUT
17
PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
93. RAGHURAM G S S/O KRISHNAN GDS AGED 51 YEARS R/AT 562, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
94. BALAKRISHNAN A S/O ANAMALAI M AGED 49 YEARS R/AT 475, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
95. PREMKUMARI G.S. W/O ARUNACHALAMURTHY, AGED 59 YEARS, R/AT 85, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
96. RAMESH BABU C S S/O SIDDALINGA RAO, AGED 56 YEARS, R/AT 310, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
97. JAGANATHA RAO S/O NARAYANA RAO N.S. AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT 419, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
98. GAUTHAM SARKAR S/O KALACHAND SARKAR AGED 54 YEARS, R/AT 340, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
99. GANAPATHY K R S/O RAMAN K.R. AGED 58 YEARS, R/AT 635, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
18
100. DWARAKANATH S/O KRISHNA IYER, AGED 54 YEARS, R/AT 60, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
101. GOPAL KRISHNA K S/O KAPINIPATHAIAH , AGED 57 YEARS, R/AT 563, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
102. VENKATESHALU K S/O KRISHNAN S AGED 50 YEARS, R/AT 37, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
103. KAMALA DEVI M A D/O ASHWATHNARAYANA SETTY, AGED 52 YEARS, R/AT 433/7, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
104. HARISHKUMAR S/O RAJANNA P.N. AGED 52 YEARS, R/AT 136, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
105. KHALEEL KHAN S/O MOOSA KHAN AGED 50 YEARS, R/AT 98, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
106. NAGARAJA A S/O VENKATARANGAPPA, AGED 56 YEARS, R/AT 597, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
107. GIRISH T J S/O JAGADEESHA MURTHY T.S. AGED 44 YEARS,
19
R/AT 523, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
108. MAHESH S/O VISHWANATH M.N. AGED 42 YEARS, R/AT 583, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
109. KESHAV S/O CHINNAIAH,
AGED 60 YEARS, R/AT 599, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
110. SAMPATH KUMAR S/O SUBAIAH SHETTY, AGED 49 YEARS, R/AT 577, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
111. SANTHOSH S/O BALACHANDAR Y N, AGED 39 YEARS, R/AT 622, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
112. DODDAIAH N S/O NAGAPPA, AGED 55 YEARS, R/AT 426, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
113. MOHAN RAJ M S/O MUNISWAMY , AGED 53 YEARS, R/AT 8, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
114. CHANDRAMMA W/O GANESH KULLAN, AGED 55 YEARS, R/AT 237, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
115. SATEESH B.S. S/O SUBRAYA BHAT K , AGED 45 YEARS,
20
R/AT 580, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
116. ARUN R MUSHIGRI S/O RAMACHANDRAIAH, AGED 52 YEARS, R/AT 212, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
117. JAYARAMA R S/O RAMU K, AGED 55 YEARS, R/AT 570, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
118. RAGHUNATH H N S/O NARASIMHA MURTHY BHAT, AGED 52 YEARS, R/AT 74/1, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
119. SHIVAKUMAR H C S/O CHENAPPA H V, AGED 56 YEARS, R/AT 491, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
120. BAGALI Y P S/O DASTAGEER PATEL, AGED 51 YEARS, R/AT 241, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
121. SATYAVATHI T R W/O RAMAMURTHY T G, AGED 47 YEARS, R/AT 62/1, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
122. BHEEMAPPA DASHYAL S/O PARAPPA, AGED 50 YEARS, R/AT 511, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
21
123. NANJAPPA S/O MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED 60 YEARS, R/AT 631, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
124. JAGADISH G S/O GIRIYAPPA, AGED 48 YEARS, R/AT 587, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
125. SHAKUNTHALA W/O SEETHARAMA IYER, AGED 54 YEARS, R/AT 474, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE 560098
126. SHAMKUMAR S B S/O BHAGWAN S, AGED 34 YEARS, R/AT 626, BHEL LAYOUT,PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
127. VEERENDRA BHANU PRATAP S/O CHINNAPPA T L AGED 51 YEARS, R/AT 134, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
128. MALLU P S/O PUTAMALLAPPA, AGED 62 YEARS, R/AT 557, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
129. RAGHURAMA REDDY N S/O NARASIMIAH, AGED 43 YEARS, R/AT 560, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
130. SADAT U K S/O KHAN A B, AGED 49 YEARS, R/AT 4338, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
22
131. NAGARAJ RAO S/O NARAYANA RAO N S,
AGED 75 YEARS, R/AT 639, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
132. BHASKAR S/O SEETHARAMAIAH, AGED 69 YEARS, R/AT 548, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
133. JAYAMMA W/O CHIKKA VARAM, AGED 63 YEARS, R/AT 649, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
134. MANJUNATH H S/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED 54 YEARS, R/AT 598, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
135. ANATHA RAMU C G AGED 52 YEARS, R/AT 499, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
136. MAHADEVAPPA V TOTAD S/O SHETTY C AGED 53 YEARS, R/AT 109, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098
137. RAMA MURTHY N S/O NARASIMHALU NAIDU AGED 58 YEARS, R/AT 589, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE-560098
138. SUBRAMANI M AGED 62 YEARS, R/AT 647, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
23
139. PRAMILA M W/O SUBRAMANI,
AGED 57 YEARS, R/AT 648, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
140. GOPALARAJU V R S/O RAJU N V AGED 56 YEARS, R/AT 527, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
141. KRISHNA PRASAD B R S/O RAJAGOPAL, AGED 50 YEARS, R/AT 559, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
142. RAJANNA N S/O NAGAIAH, AGED 58 YEARS, R/AT 410, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
143. RAVI M R RAMASWAMIAH, AGED 51 YEARS, R/AT 7, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
144. FLORINE ANDRADE S/O FELIDX MENEZES, AGED 47 YEARS, R/AT 175, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
145. KOMALA BASAVARAJU W/O BASAVARAJU, AGED 53 YEARS, R/AT 10, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
146. SRINIVASA B S S/O SANJEEVAIAH B V AGED 59 YEARS, R/AT 273, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
24
RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
147. GIRISH T J S/O JAGADESHA MURTHY T S AGED 44 YEARS, R/AT 523, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
148. RAVEENDRA K A S/O ANANTHA RAO K, AGED 50 YEARS, R/AT 95, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
149. SHANTHAMMA B N W/O PRABHU S, AGED 48 YEARS, R/AT 542, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
150. UDAYAKUMARI K W/O AJITH K VASUDEVAN, AGED 51 YEARS, R/AT 486, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
151. PRABHAKAR K S S/O SUBRAMANYA IYER K B AGED 52 YEARS, R/AT 83, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
152. RAMU M V S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED 64 YEARS, R/AT 82, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
153. RAVINDRANATH C M S/O SHARMA C V M,
AGED 54 YEARS, R/AT 280, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
25
154. PARADKAR G V S/O VASUDEV PARADKAR V AGED 66 YEARS, R/AT 260, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
155. SUBRATHA KUMAR MANDAL S/O GURU PADA MANDAL, AGED 49 YEARS, R/AT 305, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
156. HALDAR A S/O SIHURANJAN HALDAR AGED 56 YEARS, R/AT 270, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
157. DIWWAKAR M L S/O RAJU N V AGED 54 YEARS, R/AT 125, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
158. NAGARAJ K S/O KAPPINAIAH, AGED 54 YEARS, R/AT 26, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
159. ASHOK D S/O TATAIAH, AGED 60 YEARS, R/AT 9, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE-560098
160. M N KOWSTHABHA W/O NANDAKUMAR AGED 55 YEARS, R/AT 73, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
161. SHIVASHANKARAYYA S/O BASAIAH, AGED 69 YEARS, R/AT 74, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
26
162. SHIVEGOWDA S/O LAXMAN GOWDA
AGED 67 YEARS, R/AT 71, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
163. MANJULA K C W/O MUDDARAJU K M AGED 42 YEARS, R/AT 78, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
164. JALAJA S W/O SHESHADRI, AGED 54 YEARS, R/AT 586, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
165. JANAKAMMA M C W/O MUKUND, AGED 50 YEARS, R/AT 588, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
166. GURUSHANTHAPPA S/O APPANAPPA, AGED 62 YEARS, R/AT 31, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
167. KRISHNA S/O PUTTASWAMY, AGED 46 YEARS, R/AT 3, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
168. SANGAPPA B G S/O BASAVALINGAPPA, AGED 52 YEARS, R/AT 414, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
169. KUSUMAKAR SHETTY V S/O MANJAIAH V AGED 55 YEARS, R/AT 601, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
27
170. PADMANABHA PUNJA S/O P S PUNJA,
AGED 57 YEARS, R/AT 602, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
171. SHAKILA S SHETTY W/O SUNIL SHETTY, AGED 60 YEARS, R/AT 606, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
172. KANCHANA RAO W/O ANUP RAO, AGED 58 YEARS, R/AT 613, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
173. DAYANANDA SHETTY S/O KUSHALA SHETTY, AGED 52 YEARS, R/AT 107, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
174. SHEKAR SHETTY B S/O MANJAIAH SHETTY, AGED 54 YEARS, R/AT 393, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
175. NIRMALA SHETTY D/O MUTHAIAH SHETTY, AGED 46 YEARS, R/AT 394, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
176. LAKSHMI B W/O MANJAIAH SHETTY AGED 75 YEARS, R/AT 395, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098
177. CHARLOTTE MATHEW W/O MATHEW, AGED 48 YEARS,
28
R/AT 397, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI M.R. NAIK, Sr. COUNSEL FOR SRI D R RAVISHANKAR FOR M/S. LEX NEXUS)
AND :
1. THE BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR SUB DIVISION BBMP, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR BANGALORE
3. ASST. COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) BBMP, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE
4. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE PENTAGAPPA PATTANAGERE VILLAGE RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE-560 098
5. C NIRAJAN MURTHY S/O LATE CHANDRANNA PATTANAGERE VILLAGE RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE-560 098
6. R S GANGADHARAIAH S/O LATE PATEL NANJUNDAPPA PATTANAGERE VILLAGE RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE-560 098
7. K V RAMAIAH S/O LATE SEENAPPA NO.34, PANCHAVATI, 13TH CROSS KETHMARANEHALLI, I BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010
29
8. BASARAJAPPA S/O LATE PATEL NANJUNDAPPA OPP: DODDANNA VIDYA SAMSTHE SHILPA KRUPA, SUNKADA KATTE VISWANEEDAM POST, BANGALORE-560 091
9. CHANDRAKALA W/O HEMANTH KUMAR NO.382, 9F MAIN ROAD VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 040
10. VENKATESH S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA PATTANAGERE VILLAGE, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE-560 098
11. MIRLE VARDARA NO. 544, 5TH MAIN KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN BANGALORE-560 060
12. N R NAGARAJ S/O LATE RAME GOWDA HANUMANTH NAGAR NELAMANE POST SRIRANGAPATTANA MANDYA DISTRICT
13. R MANJUNATH NO.1174, PADUVANA ROAD I CROSS ROAD IV STAGE TK LAYOUT, KUVEMPU NAGAR MYSORE-570 022
14. GIRIJA V RAJ D/O LATE RAME GOWDA HANUMANTH NAGAR NELAMANE POST SRIRANGAPATTANA MANDYA DIST
15. ANJANAPPA S/O LATE GALAPPA PATTANAGERE VILLAGE RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE-560 098
30
16. NOORULLA SHARIEFF
ALIAS MASTAN SHARIEFF 19/D, JP NAGAR, UMARBAGH LAYOUT BANGALORE-560 078
17. V NAGARAJ
NO.4, VADARAPALYA KENGERI POST BANGALORE-560 060
18. T B JAYACHANDRA
MLA, SIRA CONSTITUENCY TUMKUR
19. SMT. VIMALA GOWDA
DEPUTY CHAIR PERSON M L C, BANGALORE ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, Sr. COUNSEL FOR SRI D L JAGADEESH, ADV. FOR R4,5,6,7,8,10-17 SRI SUBRAMANYA R, ADV. FOR M/S. ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSOCIATES FOR R1-3 SRI R THARESHA, ADV. FOR R18 R9 & R19 ARE SERVED)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO FILE NO.DC(R) PR-955/2011-12 AND PERTAINING TO THE PROCEEDINGS IN NO.BBMP/RaRaNaVa/05/2012-13 & QUASH ANNEXURE-P THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 5.4.2012 AND ALSO THE PROCEEDINGS LEADING TO THE ANNEXURE-P AS PER THE NOTE SHEET AT ANNEXURE-N.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
31
O R D E R
The petitioners in W.P.No.21920/2010 are
assailing the order dated 19.04.2010. The petitioners in
W.P.Nos.14665-14675 & 20631-20796/2012 are
assailing the order dated 05.04.2012. The orders which
are impugned in both these batch of writ petitions are
purported to have been passed under Section 114A of
the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act (‘the Act’ for
short) ordering revocation of Khatha standing in the
name of the petitioners in respect of the sites owned by
them.
2. The petitioners in both these petitions are the
Housing Cooperative society and its members who have
been allotted sites from the first petitioner-society. The
private respondents are the erstwhile owners of the
property, whereon the layout is said to have been
formed. The official respondent is the authority who
has passed the orders which are impugned in these
petitions. The persons against whom malafides is
alleged are also made the respondents. Since the issues
32
which arise for consideration in these petitions is with
regard to the very similar order passed relating to
cancellation of khatha, the petitions have been heard
together and are being disposed of by this common
order.
3. These cases have a chequered history. The
first petitioner which is a House Building Cooperative
Society with the intention of forming a layout and
allotting sites to its members, had negotiated with the
owners of the property in respect of an extent of 58
acres in Pattanagere village. Pursuant thereto, the
owners of the property have entered into agreements
with the Society. Based on such agreements, the
Government has acquired the lands by issue of
notification as provided under the Land Acquisition Act.
When this was the position, similar acquisitions for
different Housing Co-operative Societies as also the
instant acquisition were questioned before this Court in
several writ petitions. This Court was of the opinion
that the acquisition made was not in accordance with
33
law and as such the acquisition was set aside.
Ultimately the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated
21.02.1995 upheld the order setting aside the
acquisition. The order included the acquisitions which
were made in favour of the first petitioner-society. It is
in that circumstance, keeping in view the directions
issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to revert back the
lands to the owners subject to the owners depositing the
amount received as compensation, the further action
was taken in the matter.
4. In the instant case, it is contended that in view
of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the process
of calling upon the erstwhile land owners to deposit the
amount in compliance with the order, had been
adhered. Thereafter the petitioner society is said to
have entered into a separate ratification agreement with
the land owners to ratify the earlier privately negotiated
transactions, dehors the process of acquisition. It is in
that circumstance, the first petitioner contends that the
transactions which have taken place thereafter is due to
34
the agreement between the land owners and the
petitioners and not in furtherance of acquisition of the
property. Pursuant to such agreements, the petitioner
has formed the layout and sites have been allotted to its
members. It is in that circumstance the members who
have been allotted with the sites have secured revenue
entries and in certain cases have also put up
construction after obtaining approval of the plan and
are in possession and enjoyment of the said property.
5. When this was the position, in respect of
certain of the sites owned by the members of the
society, proceedings was initiated for cancellation of the
khatha which was standing in their name. The said
action had been taken by publishing the notice in the
newspaper. The said site owners were before this Court
in W.P.No 13169/2006. This Court while disposing of
the said writ petition on 20.03.2007 was of the view that
the notice issued by paper publication was not sufficient
and therefore, reasonable opportunity be extended to
the petitioners and thereafter appropriate orders be
35
passed in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the
proceedings have been held and in the said proceedings
in respect of certain of the site owners, the khatha has
been allowed to be retained in their names. However,
with regard to the four owners the khatha had been set
aside.
6. In that circumstance, yet again further action
had been taken in a separate proceedings for change of
khatha. The society had assailed the same before this
Court in W.P.No.2045/2007. The said writ petition was
disposed of on 26.02.2007. Keeping in view the nature
of the consideration by the Statutory Authority based on
a direction issued by the Government, this Court had
set aside such direction and further directed the
Statutory Authority to reconsider the matter in
accordance with law. Once over again the parties were
before this Court in W.P.No.7364/2007 which was
disposed of by order dated 18.01.2012. The said
proceedings also ended in a similar fashion and the
orders were set aside and the Statutory Authority was
36
directed to reconsider the matter. It is in that
circumstance, the matter has been reconsidered and the
present impugned order dated 05.04.2012 has been
passed, the correctness of which is to be considered.
The said situation would apply to the facts arising in the
connected writ petition as well except that the order
assailed therein was passed on 19.04.2010.
7. It is in the above circumstance, in the instant
case, the issue for consideration by this Court is with
regard to the manner of retention of the khatha. The
respondents have however disputed the right as claimed
by the petitioner-society and the allottees of the site who
are claiming right for such retention. In the situation
that the acquisition had been set aside, it is the
contention on behalf of the respondents that the society
does not acquire any right to form the layout and
thereafter allot the sites in favour of its members. It is
their contention that when the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has set aside the acquisition, all actions prior to the
same wherein the petitioner-Society had entered into
any agreement with the land owners, would also loose
37
its relevance and therefore, when there is no document
of ownership in favour of the Society or its members,
the khatha cannot be effected in their names. Hence it
is contended that the ratification document relied upon
by the petitioner-Society is of no consequence
whatsoever. In that regard the validity of the document
is also assailed. It is their further contention that the
petitioners cannot also claim right under the suits said
to have been decreed in favour of the society inasmuch
as the compromise decree obtained is by fraud since the
respondents herein had not been notified. On the other
hand, compromise had been entered into by one of the
representatives of the society claiming to be the power of
attorney holder. It is therefore their contention that
when the instant proceedings initiated is for giving effect
to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no
technical contentions can be advanced to defeat the
right of the private respondents herein. Hence, they
seek for dismissal of these petitions.
38
8. In the light of the above, I have heard Sri
Madhusudan R.Naik, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners, Sri Nanjunda Reddy, learned
senior counsel, Sri R.S.Ravi, learned counsel, Sri
Manmohan, learned counsel appearing for the
respective private respondents, Sri R.Subramanya
learned counsel, Ms.Asha Kumbargerimath, learned
counsel appearing for the Bruhat Bangalore
Mahanagara Palike and Sri Taresh, learned counsel for
respondent No.18. I have perused the writ papers.
9. The question for consideration in the matter is
relating to the khatha entries and such khatha entries
would normally revolve around title and there would be
not much to be decided in a writ petition except noticing
that aspect relating to the existence of title documents.
However, keeping in view the nature of the contentions
which have been put forth and also the long history of
the case whereunder certain rights are being claimed
which are peculiar to the instant case, the arguments
have been heard elaborately. Further, in the instant
39
facts, what requires to be considered is also the nature
of right that is being claimed by the rival parties in the
background of the manner in which the Society claims
to have formed the layout and allotted sites to its
members. Though in the instant writ petition there are
several disputed questions of fact which have been
raised and no finding could be rendered on that aspect
in the instant proceedings since it can only be
considered in an appropriately constituted suit, the
basic issues relating to the manner of the right as
claimed with regard to the right of the petitioners for
retention of the khatha which is already in their name
or otherwise in any event would have to be considered.
10. The fact that the petitioner- Society had
initially entered into certain agreements of sale with the
private respondents herein and such other owners of
the properties for purchase of the lands relating to the
formation of the layout cannot be in dispute. It is in
that context, the land owners had also executed
irrevocable Power of Attorneys in favour of the society
40
though the said transactions were prior to the process
of acquisition. However, in view of the scheme for
formation of the layout being approved by the State
Government whereunder the properties were to be
acquired keeping in view the fact that the society had
entered into agreements with the land owners, the land
was sought to be acquired. The fact that the matter
relating to acquisition has been considered and has
been ultimately decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
vide its orders dated 21.02.1995 is a matter of record.
It is in that context, the rights of the parties is required
to be considered.
11. First and foremost, the legal position that the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would bind all
parties concerned needs no elaboration. Therefore, in
the present facts, whether the said judgment becomes a
bar for the society to lay further claim with regard to the
property in all eventualities or not is required to be
noticed. In the circumstance of the judgment being
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the land owners
41
including the private respondents herein had been
called upon to redeposit the amount and complete the
formalities as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is
not in issue inasmuch as the document at Annexure-B
produced by the petitioners themselves would disclose
this position. In such circumstance, whether the
petitioners can still claim right in respect of the property
is the question.
12. In that regard, the petitioners contend that
though the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
been complied, the same was with an understanding
with the landowners to continue with the private
transactions which had been entered. The society and
the landowners are stated to have entered into a
declaration-cum-ratification deed in that regard. A copy
of such document dated 10.11.2000 is at Annexure–C.
The date of the document itself would indicate that the
same is entered into subsequent to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said document no doubt is
disputed by the respondents by contending that the
42
same has not been registered and a proper stamp duty
has not been paid and would therefore not convey title.
The said document in fact has been relied upon by the
petitioners in the suits which were filed by them seeking
declaration with regard to the ownership of the
property. One such judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.15571/2004 is produced at Annexure-D1. In
that proceedings, the said ratification deed and the
circumstances in which the petitioners claim right to
the property has been adverted to without suppression
of any fact and in that circumstance, the suit has been
decreed. It is contended on behalf of the private
respondents that the very manner in which the
judgment and decree has been obtained is fraudulent
and therefore the said decree cannot be relied upon.
The judgments in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya
Naidu (Dead) by LRs –vs- Jagannath (Dead) by LRs
(1994) 1 SCC Pg.1; Grama Panchayath, Naulakha –
vs- Ujagar Singh & Ors (AIR 2000 SC 3272); A.V.
Papayya Sastry & Ors –vs- Govt. of A.P. & Ors; T.
Vijendradas –vs- Subramanian (2007 (8) SCC 751)
43
and Smt. Badami (Dead) by her LR –vs- Bhali (2012
AIR SCW 3560) has been relied on by the learned
counsel for private respondents to contend that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the judgment and
decrees obtained by fraud cannot be relied upon by the
Courts or such other authorities and the same could be
challenged even in collateral proceedings and therefore,
the instant decree cannot be taken into consideration.
13. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners on
the other hand has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Shankar Sitaram
Sontakke & anr. –vs- Balakrishna Sitaram
Sontakke & Ors (AIR 1954 SC 352) and in the case of
Prakash Narain Sharma –vs- Burmah Shell Co-
operative Housing Society Ltd. (2002 (7) SCC 46) to
point out that such contention if raised, it would have to
be with material particulars and a decree can only be
challenged in an appropriate and properly constituted
suit and the decree cannot be ignored by any other
authority or in such other proceedings.
44
14. A cumulative perusal of the decisions will
indicate that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above
referred decisions has held that a fraudulent decree
would not be sustainable as the well established
position of law, but the circumstance under which it
has been said is also relevant since in such cases, it
was considered on the facts which made it evident and
the facts therein leads to that situation. Since the
position is also that there should be material particulars
to do so, it cannot be ignored. The question that arises
for consideration in the instant case is as to whether
merely because the private respondents have contended
that the judgment and decree has been obtained by
fraud, that in itself would be sufficient for this Court to
ignore the decree and also to discard the ratification
deed. In that regard, the contentions as noticed would
indicate that the petitioner-society initially after
entering into agreements with the land owners in the
year 1984 had taken possession of the properties.
Pursuant thereto, a layout had been formed. The roads
45
and the common areas earmarked therein had in fact
been relinquished in favour of the notified area
committee i.e., the local authority which had approved
the plan under the document dated 20.10.1995
(Annexure-A). The said fact would prima facie indicate
that the layout had been formed round about the time
when the Hon'ble Supreme Court had set aside the
acquisition as the said document refers to the society
having executed the civil work. No doubt, all actions
would be subject to the order which had been passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and would yield to it if there
was no further inter-se arrangement between the
parties. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in fact while
setting aside the acquisition has left it open to the
parties to enter into any further understanding in the
matter, dehors the acquisition so as to protect the
interest of the site purchasers who were likely to have
put up construction.
15. It is in that circumstance, the society claims
to have continued in possession of the property and
46
allotted sites in the layout and in the absence of the
property being acquired for the benefit of the petitioner-
society, the agreements that had been entered into with
the owners earlier were ratified by the land owners by
receiving further amount and sites in certain cases. As
such, the declaration-cum-ratification deed has been
entered into so as to ratify the earlier agreements and
such other transactions which the petitioner society had
directly entered into with the land owners. Hence, the
manner in which the document has come into effect
would indicate that it is not as if the title is being
claimed directly under the declaration-cum-ratification
deed as a document of conveyance. Therefore, the
registration and the stamp duty as contended by the
learned senior counsel for the respondents by relying
upon the decision in the case of K.B. Saha & Sons
Pvt., Ltd –vs- Development Consultant Ltd. (2008 (8)
SCC 564) and in the case of Suraj Lamp and
Industries Pvt. Ltd. –vs- State of Haryana and
Another (2011 (6) Karn L J 69 (SC)) need not be an
issue for consideration in a writ proceedings and the
47
said document when relied upon to be marked in an
appropriate proceedings, if the need arises, such
questions would remain open in the background of the
other evidence that would be available.
16. In such factual situation, when the Civil
Court in the said suit in O.S.No.15571/2004 has
accepted the said document when all facts were brought
before it and had decreed the suit in favour of the
society, it cannot be said that the said judgment and
decree is without any force though it could be assailed
in appropriate proceedings. Further, neither the right
or possession is being claimed based only on the
ratification deed but the same is relied upon in
furtherance of an earlier transaction and in that
context, the right under Section 53-A of T.P. Act should
also be another aspect to be considered which in fact
has been observed in the latter of the above judgments
referred. In that circumstance, merely because the sale
deeds executed by the society to the members refers to
the acquisition proceedings, the title would not be
48
defective. Even the non-mentioning of the ratification
deed in the sale deeds executed subsequent to the date
of ratification, cannot lead to the assumption that it was
not in existence, but would have to be established in
accordance with law and they are all matters of
evidence.
17. It is another matter as to whether the said
judgment and decree at this stage can be discarded as
having been obtained by fraud in view of the contention
put forth by the respondent’s counsel. Insofar as that
aspect of the matter, the same would have to be
considered keeping in view the judgments which have
been cited and the fact situation in the instant case.
However, before adverting to the same, one other aspect
which also requires to be noticed is that some of the
land owners had at an earlier point filed Contempt
Petitions in Nos.224-26/2005 before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court complaining that its decision had not
been implemented and as such contempt was
committed. In the said proceedings, a counter affidavit
49
had been filed on behalf of the society which was a
respondent in the said contempt petition. A copy of the
affidavit and the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has been produced by the petitioners along with
their rejoinder statement as Annexures-R and S
respectively. A perusal of the affidavit filed in the said
contempt proceedings would indicate that as of August
2006 itself, in the said proceedings, the society had
contended with regard to the subsequent
understanding which had been entered into with the
land owners after initially complying with the order of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
18. It is in that circumstance, the petitioners had
also pointed out with regard to the ratification deed
which had been executed and the manner of having
paid further amounts and sites to the land owners by
way of settlement subsequent to the order of setting
aside the acquisition so as to ratify the earlier
transaction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court on having
accepted the contentions was of the view that the
50
petitioners had not made out any case for contempt and
the petitions had been dismissed though detailed order
was not passed. This aspect of the matter would
indicate that there were certain adjustments made
between the parties for the purpose of complying with
the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thereafter
to regularise the transaction which had been entered
into between them for which liberty had been provided
in the main order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court while
setting aside the acquisition. Therefore, to the said
extent, the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
nullifying the acquisition was accepted by the parties
and thereafter on regulating the transaction by
adjusting the same by way of ratification, the further
progress was made. The judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Singh –vs-S.N.
Kanungo and Ors (2010 (4) SCC 504) relied on by the
learned senior counsel for the petitioners would indicate
that such compliance would be sufficient. Even
otherwise, by implication the Hon'ble Supreme Court
51
has accepted that position in the case of the parties
herein also.
19. Therefore, in such circumstance, when the
land owners have received further amounts from the
society and also certain of the land owners have
obtained sites from the society, the said aspect of the
matter cannot be ignored in a writ proceedings while
considering limited right for khatha entries unless
certain other evidences are brought on record in a
properly constituted suit. When several site
purchasers, who are in possession have put up
construction, if the land owners still had grievance that
the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not been
complied and further action was required, in that case,
other course was open and mere change of khatha in
the manner it is being attempted would not serve any
purpose. Hence, the contention of the respondent that
ratification deed is without sanction of law or not
sustainable in law cannot be accepted in a writ
proceedings when it was relied upon even before the
52
Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the civil suit. Though
Sri R.S. Ravi, learned counsel specifically contended
that his client has not signed any documents including
the alleged ratification deed, it cannot be in dispute
that all his other family members have signed. Further,
the extent to which his client claims right is also a part
of the layout and as such his contention at this stage in
the instant proceedings cannot be accepted. In fact in
the decision in the case of B.L. Sreedhar & Ors –Vs-
K.M. Munireddy (Dead) by LRs. & Ors (2003 AIR
Kant HCR 257 (SC)) relied on by the learned senior
counsel for the petitioners it has been held that when
the transaction is for the benefit of all, one person is
estopped from questioning the transaction.
20. Further, the said document has been
accepted in a civil proceedings and a decree has been
granted in favour of certain site owners and the society
who were before the Court below in the civil suit. At the
same time, the respondents have also relied upon the
judgment passed in civil suit where the trial Court is
53
said to have dismissed the suit filed by the site owners
who had sought injunction against interference. In the
said suit also, the ratification deed relied upon was the
subject matter for consideration and the civil Court in
the said suit had not accepted the same. However, so
far as the said judgments which have been passed in
favour of the land owners and against the site holders,
the site holders have filed Regular First Appeal in RFA
No.770/2010 before this Court and the same is said to
be pending and an order of status quo has been
granted. Therefore, insofar as the validity of the said
documents having been accepted in one set of civil
proceedings and not being accepted in another set of
civil proceedings, it would in any event be considered in
appropriate proceedings which are still pending before
this Court and in such circumstance, it was not open
for the Statutory Authority to decide upon the right of
the parties by commenting upon the document by
observing that it is an attempt to cover up the earlier
mistake.
54
21. However, so far as the contentions which
arise for consideration in the instant petitions wherein
the society having the benefit of the judgment passed by
the Civil Court is claiming right to the property would
have to be looked at from a different angle keeping in
view the circumstances under which they have entered
into such agreement with the land owners and have
relied upon the same. In that regard, it is contended by
the respondents that the decrees obtained by filing
compromise petitions are fraudulent inasmuch as the
society had filed the suit and the person, who is the ex-
president of the society as a Power of Attorney Holder
had represented the land owners and had entered into
compromise. In another suit in O.S.No.5471/2002 filed
against Sri Sadashivayya, the landowner was
represented by Sri Bharath Kumar who is the paid
Secretary of the Society as the power of attorney holder
of the landowner and subsequently the sale deed dated
04.03.2005 executed by the society to the allottee is also
by the said Sri Bharath Kumar. It is therefore
contended this in itself on the face of it would indicate
55
that the judgment had been obtained by fraud, that too
by entering caveat in the said proceedings and avoiding
notice being issued to the land owners.
22. In that regard, what is to be noticed is that
even though the rival judgments have been cited with
regard to the fraudulent decrees required to be ignored
as has been noticed above, the question is as to whether
merely because the respondents have contended so, the
judgment and decree can be considered to have been
obtained by fraud while taking note of the decree in
these proceedings when there is no evidence with regard
to the validity or otherwise of the power of attorney
based on which such actions have taken place. On the
said aspect of the matter, what is relevant to be noticed
is that though the land owners contend so, there is
nothing brought on record or contended to the effect
that the irrevocable Power of Attorneys which have been
executed earlier in favour of the office bearers of the
society had been revoked by the land owners. Hence,
the reference to the Contract Act to say that the agency
56
did not subsist etc., is without assailing it in an
appropriate proceedings. Hence when, the power of
attorney was available, the holder of the same has acted
pursuant to it. But, if there was any other fraudulent
act by the POA holder, it was required to be pleaded and
proved in appropriate proceedings. In fact the decision
in the case of Shanti Budhiya Vesta Patel & Ors –vs-
Nirmala Jayprakash Tiwari & Ors (2010 AIR SCW
2851) relied on by the learned senior counsel for the
petitioners would indicate that even in a situation where
heirs of the plaintiff sought recall on the ground of fraud
and coercion, when POA holder had entered into
compromise, it was held that facts are necessary to be
pleaded and proved as the registered POA has sanctity.
When that is the position, in a collateral proceedings, it
cannot be accepted merely because it is contended so
and that too in a situation when the proceedings itself is
being held by the Statutory Authority being guided by
external source and Government order though it was a
quasi judicial proceeding.
57
23. However, as noticed, the private respondents
contend that in view of setting aside of the acquisition,
all actions prior to are also deemed to have been set
aside and wiped out. In my view, the said contention
cannot be accepted in the instant writ proceedings
unless the same is decided in a properly constituted
suit. That is so for the reason that when the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had set aside the acquisition, liberty
had also been granted to negotiate with the land owners
in that regard for private transactions. Such
transactions are claimed to have been entered. If they
are by valid documents, it will certainly bind the
landowners. As such if the validity of such transaction
is to be assailed, it cannot be done in the present
proceedings as either the Statutory Authority or this
Court in a proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution will not venture to decide the same. In
fact in the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court cited by the learned senior counsel for
respondents, in the case of Bangalore City Co-
operative Housing Society Ltd., -vs- State of
58
Karnataka & Ors (C.A.No. 7425-26/2002 DD.
02.02.2012), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the
said case also allowed the society to enter into
negotiations with the land owners notwithstanding the
acquisition being set aside. That was to protect the
interest of the site purchasers though the ultimate
direction was to handover vacant land. In the instant
case, as noticed, there was implementation of the order
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and thereafter the
understanding is claimed to have been reached with the
land owners and presently all the petitioners who are
seeking for retention of the khatha are the site
purchasers.
24. Therefore, in such circumstance, if the land
owners were of the view that the entire earlier
understanding between them had also been wiped out
in view of the setting aside of the acquisition
proceedings, the land owners ought to have refrained
from entering into the further understanding with the
society by receiving further amounts and in certain
59
cases by receiving sites in the layout formed by the
society on their land. In fact, along with their rejoinder
statement, the petitioners have filed the tabulation of
the lands and the owners with whom understanding
had been entered into. The said statement is marked as
Annexure-‘W’ and the details with regard to the owners
of the property and the suit filed against them is also
indicated. The statement also shows that the additional
payments were made after the year 1995 i.e.,
subsequent to setting aside the acquisition proceedings
which only indicates that the landowners had
negotiated further. In such circumstance, if the said
land owners have executed the ratification deed on
receiving the amount, certainly it would not be open for
them to contend in a proceedings relating to khatha
that the earlier documents have not been acted upon.
Therefore, in such circumstance, when the power of
attorney had not been specifically revoked, keeping in
view the agreement and the earlier documents which
had been executed, in furtherance of earlier transaction,
when they have received additional amounts and acted
60
upon the earlier documents, the mere contention in a
writ proceedings that the said decrees have been
obtained by fraud cannot be accepted. If at all there are
deeper questions of title to be decided based on the
validity or otherwise of the existing documents or the
non-existence of earlier documents as claimed, the
same can only be agitated before a Civil Court. In fact,
any proceedings for revocation of khatha can arise only
after the rival claims relating to ownership of the
property is adjudicated in the proper forum.
25. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of State of Gujarat –vs- Patil Raghav Natha
& Ors (1969 (2) SCC 187) relied on by the learned
senior counsel for the petitioners fortifies the above
opinion that the Civil Court is the appropriate forum for
such determination. In fact in respect of the very same
first petitioner-Society herein, certain other landowners
had approached this Court in W.P.Nos.11134-141 and
11183/1998 (Smt. Gowramma & Ors –vs- State of
Karnataka and ors decided on 26.07.2000), seeking
61
protection of their possession based on the order of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court setting aside the acquisition.
While disposing of the writ petition, this Court had
relegated the parties to their remedy before the Civil
Court. By yet another order in W.P. No.20009/2010
(Kareshannaiah -vs- State of Karnataka & Others
decided on 15.01.2013) wherein the landowner in
relation to the same first petitioner-Society had sought
direction to the authorities to remove construction put
up by the allottee under the society, but the learned
Judge of this Court had held that it can be considered
in a suit and not in writ petition. The learned counsel
for the respondents however contended that the said
orders of this Court were passed when such direction
was sought against the State and one Smt.
Janakamma, one of the landowners and as such, it is in
personam and not in rem. The said contention cannot
be accepted since the very fact that the State was made
a party and a direction was sought, the relief claimed
was based for implementation of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court order. Therefore, the genesis for the relief sought
62
in those petitions and the subject matter herein are all
by relying on the order setting aside the acquisition.
Hence, I am of the opinion that even to seek reversal of
khatha entries, the landowners would have to get their
right decided in a civil suit in view of several subsequent
developments leading to several complicated questions
having arisen and thereafter approach the revenue
authorities and not based only on the order of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court as the position has stood
altered after complying with that order and this had
also been brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in contempt proceedings.
26. In these circumstances, the decision relied
upon by the learned counsel for some of the private
respondents in the case of Ritesh Tewari & Anr –vs-
State of Uttarpardesh & Ors (2010 (10) SCC 677)
and in the case of Amar Singh –vs- Union of India &
Ors (2011 (7) SCC 69)) would not be of assistance since
at this juncture, it cannot be said that any action of the
petitioners is bad at the inception since there have been
63
developments subsequently and agreements in any
event could have been entered at the earliest point.
Though it is contended that the society could not have
purchased agricultural land in view of the bar contained
in Section 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and
as such the contract is void under Section 23 of the
Contract Act; further, compromise can only be of lawful
agreements as provided in Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC, the
same would not apply herein. The bar will apply only to
the completed transactions by execution of sale deed to
the society in respect of agricultural land. In the
instant case, it is the members who have ultimately
purchased the lands after formation of layout and there
is no material on record to show that there is any sale
deed in favour of the society. The second of the above
noted decisions is only to the effect that persons coming
with unclean hands are not entitled to relief unless full
facts are disclosed, but it is not the position in the
instant case since all facts have been pleaded in all
proceedings.
64
27. The further question is as to whether the
action initiated by the respondents is bona fide? The
order impugned no doubt indicates that the same has
been passed in exercise of the power available under
Section 114-A of the Act. A perusal of the said provision
indicates that the statutory authority has the power to
review the entries relating to khatha. The provision also
indicates that such review could be made within a
period of three years from the date on which the khatha
had been entered and in the circumstances indicated
therein. In the instant facts, there can be no dispute
whatsoever that the khatha had been entered in the
name of the site purchasers much earlier to the area
coming within the jurisdiction of the BBMP i.e., even
before the said provision in Section 114-A of the Act
being available to be exercised. Hence, there cannot be
any dispute that it is beyond three years after the
khatha entries were made. The learned counsel for the
respondent relied on the decision in the case of Chet
Ram Vashist –vs- Municipal Corporation of Delhi &
another (AIR 1981 SC 653) and in the case of T.V.
65
Usman –vs- Food Inspector, Tellichetty Municipality
(AIR 1994 SC 1818) to contend that the time limit
prescribed should be considered as directory. However,
the issue therein was different inasmuch as in the first
decision, it pertained to deemed licence and in the
second decision, the period for filing analysis report was
fixed though no time limit was there to institute
prosecution. Hence, since no limitation was fixed for
exercising the power granted under the statute, it was
held so in the said cases. On the other hand, in the
case of Santhoshkumar Shivgonda Patil & ors –vs-
Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Ors (2009 (9) SCC
352) relied on by the learned senior counsel for the
petitioners, it has been held that even if the statute does
not prescribe limitation, the revisional power should be
exercised in reasonable time and ordinarily it should be
within three years so that settled things should not be
unsettled. Therefore, the review power if exercised
beyond three years, it is not sustainable when the
statute itself prescribed the time limit.
66
28. The contention on behalf of the respondents
however is that the instant proceedings cannot be
strictly construed as one under Section 114-A inasmuch
as the entire proceedings was for the purpose of
implementing the orders passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and therefore, no fretters should be
imposed but should be considered independent of the
provision contained in Section 114-A of the Act. The
learned counsel for the respondents has also relied on
the decision in the case of Mohammed Shahbuddin –
vs- State of Bihar & Ors (2010 (4) SCC 653) wherein
it is held that a wrong provision quoted will not make
the order invalid.
29. To consider the said contention of the
respondents, what requires to be noticed is that the
proceedings is not in the nature as if the land owners
themselves had filed petitions seeking cancellation of
the khatha as required under the provision. In that
view, what cannot be ignored is that the acquisition was
set aside in the year 1995. The process of implementing
67
the order took place in the year 1997 as seen from the
official memorandum at Annexures-B1 to B3.
Subsequent thereto, khatha has been registered
obviously due to the understanding as claimed by the
Society. The petitioners have produced a letter dated
22.06.2006 at Annexure-E and have alleged that the
entire proceedings has been initiated at the instance of
the persons who are interested in the land development
and in that context, the letter has been written by the
MLA who had addressed the letter to the Revenue
Minister and had sought for action in that regard. This
certainly indicates that a different process has been
attempted as late as in the year 2006. On the said letter
itself, the then Revenue Minister has ordered that the
further action be initiated. Pursuant thereto a letter
dated 16.09.2006 (Annexure-F) had been addressed by
the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department to the
Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District to initiate
action to cancel the khatha. The said communication
no doubt in letter appears as if the proceedings are
being initiated in view of the acquisition being set aside
68
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but the spirit of it is
different as seen from the course it has followed.
30. In the said circumstance, even if the
respondents were to contend that the proceedings were
initiated for implementation of the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be accepted
on face value when the very contempt petition which
had been initiated by the land owners had been
dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on
05.01.2007. There was no reason for the statutory
respondents to proceed further in the matter on the said
basis to indicate that the proceedings are for the
purpose of implementation of the order of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court since revocation of khatha alone at this
stage would not have amounted to implementation of
the order when at an earlier point orders had been
passed calling upon the landowners to redeposit the
amount and notional handing over of possession was
over and thereafter the society claims subsequent
transactions as also the possession and constructions
69
put up by the site owners was still in issue. This is also
relevant when in the said contempt proceedings, as
already noticed the Society had filed their counter
affidavit and had also brought to the notice of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to the further
understanding entered into with the land owners for the
ratification of the earlier transaction and in that
circumstance the Hon'ble Supreme Court had closed
the contempt petition. The official and statutory
respondents have also not relied upon any materials to
indicate that similar action had been taken in all
matters relating all societies in respect of whom the
acquisition was set aside, irrespective of the fact
whether there was subsequent understanding or not.
31. Therefore, to contend that the entire
proceedings is only with the intention to implement the
order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would be far
fetched and appears to be one instigated by certain
other persons who are the persons interested in the said
proceedings. Though allegations have been made by the
70
petitioners against respondent No.18 in particular,
considering the affidavit which has been filed and
keeping in view the nature of the proceedings, I am of
the opinion that even if such issue had been raised by
the said member, the authority who was required to
apply his mind was duty bound to assess this aspect of
the matter and should have arrived at his own
conclusion. The necessity for application of mind by the
authority is what has been emphasized in the case of
Commissioner of Police vs. Gordhandas Bhanji (AIR
(39) 1952 SC 16) relied on by the learned senior
counsel for the petitioner. Instead the impugned order
in fact refers to the directions issued by the Government
and the correspondences in that regard and not in the
manner in which an application for review of the entry
of the khatha is to be considered.
32. In the instant case, when it was also brought
to the notice of the authorities, the civil decrees which
had been passed and there being several other
transactions subsequent to the judgment of the Hon'ble
71
Supreme Court, the respondents in any event cannot
contend that the present proceedings is only with the
avowed intention of the implementing the order of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. If that was the contention, it
was certainly open for the land owners who were before
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said contempt petition to
bring to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court all
these aspects with regard to the non-acceptability of the
ratification document to regularize a transaction which
had been set aside in the writ proceedings and had
been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself. When
the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not find disobedience
and the subsequent transactions were also brought to
its notice, certainly the Hon'ble Supreme Court in such
circumstance would have appreciated the said
contention to come to a conclusion as to whether the
ratification deed relied upon by the society was in
contravention of its order passed while setting aside the
acquisition proceedings. When that has not been done
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would not be open
either for the authorities or for this Court to lightly
72
brush aside all the subsequent transactions which have
taken place and merely because the land owners are
now being supported by certain persons, the authorities
could not have taken up the proceedings. The interest
shown by such persons including respondent No.18
only in relation to the lands in this layout and the same
being pursued indicates that there is more than what
meets the eye but it is not necessary for this Court to
advert further.
33. To sum up, what is to be re-emphasised is
that the khatha in fact had been effected in the name of
the site purchasers by the Pattanagere, City Municipal
Council in the year 1998. It is in that circumstance the
present revocation of the khatha is attempted.
However, when subsequently the ratification agreement
has been entered into and the change of khatha was
made and the same not being objected to in the
contempt petition, in such circumstance, when the
contempt petition had been closed, it was wholly
unnecessary at this juncture for either the 18th
73
respondent to intervene or the Government to pass such
orders in the guise of implementing the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, more particularly when there
was a civil decree, which holds the field and when the
same has not been set aside in accordance with law.
Therefore, the authority who was considering this
aspect of the matter in fact ought to have taken note of
the judgment and decree passed in the civil suit which
was still subsisting and ought to have concluded that
the parties who were before it seeking revocation of the
khatha would have to avail their remedies in accordance
with law in a civil forum and thereafter approach the
revenue office, if any change was required instead of
exercising the power of review to decide upon the title,
that too by brushing aside the judgment and decree
which had been granted by the Civil Court and
commenting upon the validity of the document which
was accepted by the Civil Court and also placed before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In that circumstance, if
the fact that the khatha had been effected as far back
as in the year 1998 is kept in view, the authority could
74
not have exercised the jurisdiction beyond the period of
three years as contemplated therein or for purported
implementation of orders. Furthermore, in the instant
case, though the learned counsel for the statutory
respondents seeks to bring it within time, while
contending that the power exercised is within the period
after the area came within the jurisdiction of the BBMP,
such contention also cannot be accepted since the
relevant point for exercising the said power would be the
date on which khatha was made and not the period the
BBMP had jurisdiction over the area.
34. That apart the members of the society who
had been allotted sites had obtained sanction plan from
the authority which had the jurisdiction to consider the
same and had also put up construction therein. In
such circumstance, when the said subsequent
arrangements between the parties had been entered and
the position stood altered, the proceedings by the
authority being guided by Government letter and other
external aid cannot be sustained. Further, the
75
petitioners have also filed an application on 17.09.2012
to produce additional document and have produced the
proceedings of the Principal Secretary to Government
whereunder the direction issued by the Government by
letter dated 16.09.2006 based on which the proceedings
was earlier being sought to be justified has been
withdrawn. As such the basis for the proceedings is
also eroded. Hence, for all the above stated reasons the
impugned orders are not sustainable.
35. In the result, the following;
ORDER
(i) W.P.No.21920/2010 and W.P. Nos. 14665-
675/2012, 20631-20796/2012 are allowed.
(ii) The order dated 19.04.2010 (Annexure-J) and
the order dated 05.04.2012 (Annexure-P)
impugned in the respective petitions stand
quashed.
(iii) Liberty is reserved to the parties to re-approach
the revenue authorities for necessary orders
76
depending on the right that may be determined
by the appropriate forum.
(iv) Parties to bear their own costs.
Sd/- JUDGE
Akc/bms
