present the hon'ble mr.justice ram mohan...
TRANSCRIPT
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 01ST JUNE, 2016
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA
WRIT PETITION NO. 40994 OF 2002(GM-RES)
C/W CCC NO. 87 OF 2004(CIVIL)
IN WP NO.40994 OF 2002
BETWEEN:
JUDICIAL LAYOUT RESIDENTS AND SITE HOLDERS ASSOCIATION (REGD.), GKVK POST, BANGALORE - 560 065. REP.BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
CONSISTING OF
a) SHRI B.V. BYRA REDDY, PRESIDENT, NO.1362, III CROSS, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 65. BANGALORE CITY
b) Y.R JAGADISH VICE-PRESIDENT NO.548, 18TH MAIN ROAD JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65. BANGALORE CITY
(NOW DECEASED)
2
c) M CHIKKALINGAIAH SECRETARY NO.1816, 8TH MAIN, JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65. BANGALORE CITY
d) G.K NAGARAJA TREASURER NO.1730, 6TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65. BANGALORE CITY
e) S.D VENKATARAMANAIAH FOUNDER PRESIDENT & DIRECTOR NO.1803, 8TH MAIN ROAD JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65.
BANGALORE CITY
f) M SHIVA MURTHY FORMER VICE-PRESIDENT & DIRECTOR NO.1430, 1ST CROSS JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65.
BANGALORE CITY
g) D.N KAGWAD DIRECTOR NO.1185, 10TH CROSS JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65.
BANGALORE CITY
h) RUPA KUMARI DIRECTOR NO.126, 21ST MAIN JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65.
BANGALORE CITY
3
i) Y.C BUJABHALAIAH JOINT SECRETARY & DIRECTOR NO.990, 14TH CROSS JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65.
BANGALORE CITY
j) A LAXMANA RAO DIRECTOR NO.522, SEVEN HILLS, 23RD CROSS, 18TH MAIN JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65. BANGALORE CITY
k) L.S RAJA RAO DIRECTOR NO.516, 18TH MAIN, 24TH CROSS JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65.
BANGALORE CITY
l) N NAGARAJU DIRECTOR NO.185, 25TH MAIN ROAD JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65.
BANGALORE CITY
m) MANJUNATHA HOLLA DIRECTOR 13TH MAIN, JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65.
BANGALORE CITY
n) SMT. SARASWATI DIRECTOR 11TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65. BANGALORE CITY ... PETITIONERS
4
(By Sri. G. PAPI REDDY, ADV., FOR P(a), (c), (d) AND (e); SRI. A.K. BHAT, ADV., FOR P(f), (h), (j) TO (n); SRI. Y.R. JAGADISH P(b) – DEAD; SRI. D.N. KAGAWAD, P-(g); SRI. Y.C. BUJABHALAIAH, P-(i)
AND
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT. M.S. BUILDINGS, BANGALORE - 560 001.
BANGALORE CITY
3. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE, BANGALORE. REP.BY ITS COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE CITY
4. THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE - 560 001. BANGALORE CITY
5. SMT. SUNANDA, D/O LATE MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
6. SRI ASHOKA S/O LATE MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
5
7. SMT. AMBUJA
D/O LATE MARAPPA W/O SRI PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
8. SMT ARUNA D/O LATE MARAPPA W/O SRI SURESH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
9. SMT MANJULA D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY (S/O LATE MARAPPA) W/O SRI. GOVINDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
10. SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O LATE MARAPPA (S/O LATE MARAPPA)
11. SMT. SHAKUNTHALA D/O LATE MARAPPA W/O LATE JAGANNATH (S/O LATE MARAPPA) AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
12. SMT. SUMANGALA D/O LATE MARAPPA W/O SRI IRDERAJU AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
13. SMT. AMBIKA D/O LATE MARAPPA W/O SRI. KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
14. SMT. SAVITHA D/O LATE MARAPPA
6
W/O SRI KITTY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
15. SRI SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
16. MANJU S S/O LATE MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, NO. R5 TO R16 ARE R/AT NO.1, LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI NAGARA, NEAR NES OFFICE, DODDABALLAPURA ROAD, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE – 560 064. RESPONDENTS 5 TO 15 ARE ALL REPRESENTED BY THEIR GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER NO.16 ABOVE, MANJU S/O LATE MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
17. ASHA RAVINDRA W/O LATE DR.M B RAVINDRA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/OF NO.106, CHAITANYA APARTMENTS, BHOJA RAO LANE, ALAKE, MANGALORE. (RESPONDENTS 5 TO 17 ARE IMPLEADED BY COURT ORDER DATED 24.06.2011)
18. N SHIVANNA DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, RETIRED ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, NO.84, 'KUMBALE MAYURA VARMA ROAD, LAKSHMIPURA, KEMPE GOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE 560019.
7
19. C SHIVALINGAIAH FORMER PRESIDENT, THE KSJDEHB CO-OP SOCIETY, NO.1, SURYAPRAKASH BUILDING, OPP TO NATARAJA TALKIES, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE – 560 020. (RESPONDENTS 18 AND 19 ARE IMPLEADED BY COURT ORDER DATED 07.03.2014)
20. KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, NO.49, CHURCH STREET, BANGALORE - 1. REP. BY MEMBER SECRETARY. (RESPONDENT NO. 20 IS IMPLEADED BY COURT ORDER DATED 10.10.2014)
21. BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD, K.G ROAD, BENGALURU,
REP. BY SECRETARY.
(RESPONDENT NO. 21 IS IMPLEADED BY COURT ORDER DATED 10.04.2015) ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. K. KRISHNA, ADV., FOR R1; SRI. R. DEVDAS, PRL.GA FOR R2; SRI. V SREENIDHI, ADV., FOR R3; SRI. H. SUBRAMANYA JOIS, SR. ADV., A/W SRI. M. SIVAPPA, SR. ADV., A/W SRI. T.R. SUBBANNA, SR. ADV., A/W SRI. S. ANIL KUMAR, ADV., FOR R4; SRI. N.R. NAIK, ADV., FOR R5 TO R16; SRI. M. JAIPRAKASH REDDY, ADV., FOR R17; SRI. S.N. BHAT, ADV., FOR R18; PETITION AGAINST R19 STANDS ABATED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 10.10.2014; SRI. GURURAJ JOSHI, ADV., FOR R20; SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADV., FOR R21)
8
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-1
TO PRODUCE BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT THE LAYOUT
PLAN OF THE JUDICIAL LAYOUT APPROVED IN FAVOUR OF
THE 4TH RESPONDENT SOCIETY BY ITS RESOLUTION
NO.503/92, DT. 16.11.1992.
DECLARE ALL THE ACTIONS OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT
SOCIETY AND ANY ONE CLAIMING UNDER IT, DEVIATING FROM
THE APPROVED LAYOUT PLAN SANCTIONED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT BEARING RESOLUTION NO.503/92, DT.
16.11.1992 IN SO FAR AS THEY ALTERED THE NATURE OF THE
PARKS, CIVIC AMENITY SITES AND OTHER OPEN SPACES
SPECIFIED THEREIN, AS ILLEGAL, VOID AND INOPERATIVE.
DIRECT R1 TO TAKE REGISTERED RELINQUISHMENT
DEED FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT SOCIETY TRANSFERRING
ALL THE PARKS, CIVIC AMENITY SITES AND OTHER OPEN
SPACES AS SPECIFIED IN THE LAYOUT PLAN SANCTIONED BY
IT AS PER RESOLUTION NO.503/92 DT. 16.11.1992 AND HAND
OVER POSSESSION OF THE SAME TO R3 HEREIN.
DIRECT R3 TO FORTHWITH TAKE ALL NECESSARY STEPS
TO PRESERVE, PROTECT AND MAINTAIN THE PARKS, CIVIC
AMENITY SITES AND OTHER OPEN SPACES IN THE JUDICIAL
LAYOUT, BELLARY ROAD, G.K.V.K.POST, BANGALORE-560 065
& ETC.,
9
IN CCC NO. 87 OF 2004
BETWEEN:
JUDICIAL LAYOUT RESIDENTS AND
SITE HOLDERS ASSOCIATION (REGD.),
GKVK POST, BANGALORE - 560 065.
REP.BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
CONSISTING OF
a) B.V. BYRA REDDY, PRESIDENT, NO.1362, III CROSS,
JUDICIAL LAYOUT,
BANGALORE – 65.
b) M CHIKKALINGAIAH SECRETARY NO.1816, 8TH MAIN, JUDICIAL LAYOUT
BANGALORE – 65.
c) G.K NAGARAJA TREASURER NO.1730, 6TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65.
d) S.D VENKATARAMANAIAH FOUNDER PRESIDENT & DIRECTOR NO.1803, 8TH MAIN ROAD JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65.
e) D.N KAGWAD DIRECTOR NO.1185, 10TH CROSS JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65.
10
f) SMT. RUPA KUMARI DIRECTOR NO.126, 21ST MAIN JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65.
g) Y.C BUJABHALAIAH JT. SECRETARY & DIRECTOR NO.990, 14TH CROSS JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65.
h) A LAXMANA RAO DIRECTOR NO.522, SEVEN HILLS, 23RD CROSS, 18TH MAIN
JUDICIAL LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 65.
i) L.S RAJA RAO DIRECTOR NO.516, 18TH MAIN, 24TH CROSS JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65.
j) MANJUNATHA HOLLA DIRECTOR 13TH MAIN, JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65.
k) SMT. SARASWATI DIRECTOR 11TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65. ... COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI. SANDESH CHOUTA, ADV.,)
11
AND:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE – 560 020. SRI. JAYAKAR JEROME
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT. M.S. BUILDINGS, BANGALORE - 560 001.
BANGALORE CITY
SMT. SHAMEERA BANU
3. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, YELAHANKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE – 560 064.
SRI. H.M. RAMAPPA
(VIDE ORDER DATED: 29.01.2004
R2 AND R3 ARE DELETED)
4. THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BANGALORE - 560 001.
REP. BY. SRI. C. SHIVALINGAIAH
5. SRI. C.M BASAVARAYA, RETIRED DIST & SESSIONS JUDGE, HON'BLE PRESIDENT THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OP SOCIETY R/AT NO. 16, 2ND CROSS, JUDICIAL OFFICERS COLONY,
SANJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE.
12
6. C SHIVALINGAIAH, PRESIDENT, CONSUMER FORUM, SECRETARY,
THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETY, SWATHI COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR,
PLAT FORM ROAD, SESHADRIPURAM,
BANGALORE - 560 020.
(REPORTED AS DEAD ON 14.08.2014 VIDE ORDER DATED
10.10.2014)
7. SHRI M. RUDRAIAH, ADVOCATE, VICE PRESIDENT THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, "NANDHI HOUSE," NO.1284, IIIRD CROSS, JUDICIAL LAYOUT G.K.V.K. POST, BANGALORE-65
8. SHRI KEMPA THIMMAIAH, TREASURER, THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, S.D.A., C.M.M. COURT, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-52. (A-4 TO A-8 ARE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5 V/O/DATED: 24.08.2007)
9. SRI. D.B DEVAGIRIKAR DIRECTOR THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, "DEVAMANDIRA" NO. 1396, 9TH MAIN ROAD, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, G.K.V.K. POST,
BANGALORE – 65.
13
10. N SHIVANNA DIRECTOR, THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, RETIRED ASSISTANT REGISTRAR NO.84, KUMBALE MAYURA VARMA ROAD LAXMIPURA, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE-19.
11. SRI. N LINGAIAH DIRECTOR THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, SECTION OFFICER/ASST. LIBRARIAN,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE.
12. SHRI S BASAVARAJU DIRECTOR THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY; SHERISTEDAR, CENTRAL PROCESS NAZAR OFFICE,
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE-9.
13. SHRI. H.C PUTTASWAMY DIRECTOR THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, F.D.A, CITY CIVIL COURT COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE-9.
14. SMT. B.S SHANKARAMBHA, DIRECTOR THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, CHIEF SHERISTEDAR JUDICIAL MAGISTRATES COURT, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-52.
14
15. SHRI. K SIPPEGOWDA DIRECTOR, THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, EMPLOYES HOUSE BUILDING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,
COURT OFFICER,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND PRESIDENT, KARNATAKA STATE EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, CUBBAN PARK, BANGALORE-1,
BANGALORE.
16. SHRI. V. NARAYANAPPA DIRECTOR, THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL
DEPARTMENT EMPLOYES HOUSE BUILDING CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETY,
RETIRED ASSISTANT REGISTRAR,
NO.1867, 7TH CROSS, 1ST ‘A’ MAIN,
JUDICIAL LAYOUT
G.K.V.K POST, BANGALORE-65.
17. MALLAIAH DIRECTOR THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY; COURT OFFICER, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE.
18. SHRI. P SRINIVAS DIRECTOR THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, COURT OFFICER, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-01.
15
19. SHRI. G.S SHIVAKUMAR DIRECTOR THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, F.D.A, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, K.G.I.D BUILDING, BANGALORE-1.
... ACCUSED
(SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADV., FOR A-1; A2 AND A3 DELETED;
SRI. H. SUBRAMANYA JOIS, SR. ADV., A/W
SRI. M. SIVAPPA, SR. ADV., A/W
SRI. T.R. SUBBANNA, SR. ADV., A/W
SRI. S. ANIL KUMAR, ADV., FOR A4 TO A8;
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 10.10.2014
SRI. C. SHIVALINGAIAH (A6) STANDS DROPPED AS ABATED)
THIS CCC FILED U/S.11 & 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF
COURT ACT PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS FOR DISOBEYING THE ORDER
DT.18.06.2003 IN W.P.NO.40994/02(GM.PIL).
THIS WRIT PETITION AND THE CONTEMPT PETITION
HAVING RESERVED FOR ORDERS AND COMING ON FOR
DICTATING ORDERS THIS DAY, RAM MOHAN REDDY, J, MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
16
O R D E R
Common questions of law and that of fact arise for
decision making, hence with the consent of the learned
counsel the petitions are clubbed together, finally heard
and disposed of by this order.
Petitioner, an Association, registered on
4/3/1999 under the Karnataka Societies Registration
Act, 1960, with certificate of registration, Annexure -'A',
represented by its office bearers has presented this
petition, duly authorised by a resolution dated 06-05-
2002, Annexure 'B', of its Executive committee, alleging
several illegalities perpetuated by the Karnataka State
Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-
operative Society, for short 'Society' registered on
11/8/1983 under Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act,
1959, for short 'KCS Act'.
2. It is asserted that the object of the Society was
to acquire lands under the Land Acquisition Act 1894,
17
for short 'LA Act', form residential layout and allot
house sites to its members, in furtherance of which
approached the State Government- Respondent No.2
herein, who, through its Special Land Acquisition
Officer, acquired lands measuring 193 acres comprised
in different Survey numbers of Allalasandra, Chikka
Bommasandra and Jakkur Plantation. The society, it is
said, on being put in possession of the lands, submitted
a layout plan to the Respondent No.1 -Bangalore
Development Authority, for short ‘BDA”- for its
approval/sanction. A resolution dated 16/11/1992
bearing No.503/1992, it is asserted, was passed to
approve the layout plan subject to certain conditions
and issued three notices dated 1/8/1993, 28/8/1993
and 28/2/1994 to the Society to comply with the said
conditions. It is alleged that although the Society
neither replied to the notices nor complied with the
conditions by paying the necessary charges,
nevertheless, formed the layout by laying roads, open
18
spaces for parks, civic amenity sites and the following
2048 residential sites :
• 845 sites of 30 ft x 40 ft
• 70 sites of 30 ft x 45 ft
• 493 sites of 40 ft x 60 ft
• 220 sites of 30 ft x 50 ft
• 80 sites of 50 ft x 80 ft
• 104 sites of 60 ft x 90 ft
• 39 sites of 80 ft x 120 ft
• 197 odd sites.
3. Petitioner submits that the Society in its
Statement of objections in Subramani v/s Union of
India, reported in ILR 1995 KAR 3139 stated that sites
noticed above were formed after the layout was
approved by BDA. The Society, it is further asserted,
having specifically held out to its members, before
allotment of sites, that the approved layout plan
provides for 11 parks and 5 civic amenity sites, on such
representation of members of the Society applied for and
obtained allotment of sites in the layout, majority of
19
whom have put up construction and are residing there
in.
4. Petitioner's representations - 'C', 'C-1', to 'C-3'
addressed to the respondents to furnish copy of the
approved plan of the layout in question, BDA, it is said,
responded by communication dated 17/6/2002, -‘D’,
while in the General Body meeting held on 29/9/2002,
-'E', the Society stated that 49% of 193 acres utilised for
formation of the layout is reserved for roads,
underground drainage, temple, parks and play grounds.
Petitioner's representation -‘F’ demanding the Society to
disclose the details of allotment of 2048 sites, it is said,
was responded by reply -‘G’. The Association by letter
dated 28-08-2000 ANNEXURE-‘H’, sought permission of
the Society to install Gouri and Ganesha idols to
celebrate Ganesha Festival in a specifically mentioned
civic amenity site. ANNEXURE-‘J’, it is claimed, is the
legal notice by two members of the Society served on all
20
the respondents and Authorities. The copy of statement
of objections filed by the Society in WP 11211/95 is -
‘K’, while two sale deeds, -'L' and 'M' executed by the
Society specifically covenant that the layout plan is
approved by the BDA in its Resolution No.503/92 dated
16/11/1992.
5. Petition is filed calling in question the action of
the Society and its office bearers in forming sites in the
area earmarked for Temple and those for civic amenities
in the draft plan submitted to the BDA for approval of
the layout, known as “Layout” and for the following
reliefs:
• Direct the first respondent to produce before this
Hon’ble Court the layout plan of the Judicial Layout
approved in favour of the 4th respondent-Society by
its Resolution No.503/92, dated 16/11/1992;
• Declare all the actions of the 4th respondent
society and anyone claiming under it, deviating from
the approved layout plan sanctioned by the first
21
respondent bearing Resolution No.503/92, dated
16/11/1992, in so far as they altered the nature of
the Parks, civic amenity sites and other open spaces
specified therein, as illegal, void and inoperative.
• Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the first respondent to take
registered relinquishment deed from the 4th
respondent society transferring all the Parks, civic
amenity sites and other open spaces as specified in
the layout plan sanctioned by it as per Resolution
No.503/92 dated 16/11/1992 and hand over
possession of the same to the 3rd respondent
herein, in the interest of justice and equity.
• Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to forth
with take all necessary steps to preserve, protect
and maintain the parks, civic amenity sites and
other open spaces in the Judicial Layout, Bellary
Road, GKVK Post, Bangalore-560 065, in the
interest of justice and equity; and
• Grant such other relief this Hon’ble Court deems
fit in the facts and circumstances of this case,
including an order as to costs, in the interest of
22
justice and equity.
6. A Co-ordinate Division Bench by order dated
22/01/2003 observed thus:
“Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
despite prohibition to change the character and nature
of the open space land, the respondents have started
forming sites in the open space land measuring 195’ x
200’ reserved for temple.
Issue notice to respondents 1, 3 and 4, returnable
in two weeks. Learned Government Advocate to take
notice for respondent no.2.
In the meanwhile respondent No.4 society not to
change the character of the land described in
I.A.No.1/2003.”
7. The schedule to IA- 1/2003 reads thus:
Open space measuring 195' x 200' and bounded by:
East : 14th Main Road;
West : Site No.969;
North : 16th Cross;
South : 15th Cross;
23
in the Karnataka Judicial Employees House Building
Layout, Bangalore-560 065.
8. On 18/6/2003, the following order was passed:
“Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits
that despite the order dated 22/1/2003 the civic
amenity sites are being sold by the 4th respondent-
Society and in this way it is changing the character.
The Petitioners are directed to file the details of such
sites, which have been sold in violation.
2. Respondents 3 and 4 are served, but not
appeared despite service. Learning Standing
Counsel for the B.D.A., and the learned Government
Advocate are present, but no counter has been filed.
3. It is necessary to ascertain the facts.
Therefore, Respondent No.4/Society is directed to
submit a copy of the map filed to B.D.A., to this Court
and a list of transfer of civic amenity sites, if any,
within one month. Respondent No.1/B.D.A., shall
also submit its report within two months.
4. The interim order dated 22/1/2003 shall
continue and in addition it is also made clear that
during the pendency of this Petition, the Society shall
24
not transfer any civic amenity sites as shown in plan
submitted to B.D.A., until further orders. In the
meanwhile the respondents can file their counter.
Put up after two months.”
9. On 18/7/2003, the Society filed a memo
producing additional documents as directed on
18/6/2003. The Society in its memo stated that it had
filed the following documents:
1) Layout plan approved by City Municipal Council,
Yelahanka as per resolution No.24 dated
22/5/1996 not forthcoming from records.
2) The letter of 4th respondent handing over the
layout to CMC with copy of relinquishment deed
along with CA sites parks etc., as per layout plan.
3) Letter of City Municipal Council, Yelahanka dated
23/01/2003 for having taken over the entire
layout with CA sites, play grounds, parks,
drainages, water supply lines and all other
connected civic amenities.
25
10. Society, in addition, stated that the layout
falls within the jurisdiction of the City Municipal
Council, Yelahanka, for short 'CMC' as per Government
Notification and though there was correspondence with
the BDA regarding approval of plan etc., as per
resolution of the BDA it ceased to have jurisdiction over
the area, hence no further steps were taken to obtain
sanction from BDA. Developmental charges as per law,
it is said, is paid to CMC Yelahanka as per their demand
which is about Rs.36 lakhs.
11. BDA filed its Statement of objections on
24/5/2004 reiterating the prayers in the memorandum
of writ petition. BDA stated that the society made an
application dated 6/11/1992 for approval of the layout
plan as per the old norms i.e., 65% sital area and 35%
towards CA and roads and permit them to execute the
civil works, whence BDA by letter dated 28/11/1992
informed the society that in the resolution dated
26
16/11/1992 vide subject no. 503/1992, resolved to
approve the layout for 156 acres and 26¾ gunta subject
to the following conditions:
1) To furnish possession certificate from Revenue
Department before issue of intimation,
communicating layout charges.
2) To furnish NOC from KEB and BWSSB
authorities before issue of work order.
3) To remit contribution of Rs.2 Lakhs per acre
towards Cauvery Water Supply Scheme as per
revised rates.
4) To furnish NOC from Co-operation Department
before release of sites
5) To entrust the civil works to the society itself
under the supervision of BDA.
6) To pay ring road surcharges at Rs. One lakh per
acre as per the Authority resolution and
7) Other usual terms and conditions.
27
12. In addition it stated since the Society did not
comply with the conditions, hence by letters dated
8/12/1993 and 24/2/1994 called upon the Society to
comply with the conditions, which was responded to by
reply dated 22/3/1994 stating that Item Nos.2 and 4 of
the conditions need not be submitted for the time being
while Items 3 and 5, the Society filed WP 39338 to
39341/92 in which the Court granted stay of the
demand. As regards, Item No.1, the Society sought 30
days time to submit the possession certificate.
13. BDA issued final notice dated 26/5/1994, to
furnish particulars sought for, failing which the Society
would be liable for delay in approval of the layout plan.
The Society on 1/6/1994 sought time to furnish the
particulars relating to Item No.1 until the Government
handed over possession of 17 acres 18 guntas of land to
it.
28
14. By another letter dated 18/3/1996, it is
stated that the society requested for release of the
approved layout plan and in the meanwhile as there was
a change in the Government Housing policy relating to
private layout wherein 25% of the sites in the private
layout are to be reserved for Economically Weaker
Section and Lower Income Group, the BDA called upon
the Society to modify the layout plan as per the new
government policy. The Society, it is said, by letter
dated 30/4/1996 stated that as it had not taken any
financial assistance or subsidy from the Government,
hence the applicability of the housing policy would not
arise.
15. At Paragraph 6 of the statement of objections,
it is stated that it issued communication dated
02/04/1997, under Section 17, 15(4) of the Karnataka
Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, for short 'KTCP
Act' and Sec 32 of the Bangalore Development Act 1975,
29
for short 'BDA Act' and Rule 37 of the Karnataka
Planning Authority Rules, for short 'KPA Rules',
pointing out that the lands in question fell within the
territorial jurisdiction of the BDA, hence permission for
development under the aforesaid provisions of law when
not obtained by the society, directed the society not to
carry out the development work. There afterwards BDA
having issued notice dated 2/5/1997 fixing the date of
hearing on 8/5/1997 calling upon the society to appear
before the authorities, nevertheless the Society did not
appear.
16. BDA further states that on 26/11/1997 and
08/10/2002, Final Notices were issued to the Society
directing them to discontinue the unauthorised
formation of layout and to show cause within seven
days from the date of receipt of the said notice as to why
action should not be taken to stop the unauthorised
work by dismantling the layout and restore the land to
30
its original condition. Society by letter dated
18/10/2002 contended that the completion of the
formation of the layout was in order to avoid
unauthorised occupation of land, encroachment of
lands by the land grabbers and formation of revenue
sites by builders, in addition to other contentions. It
also stated that by Gazette Notification of the
Government, the lands fell under the territorial
jurisdiction of Yelahanka and Byatarayanapura CMC
which demanded payment of supervision and
development charges by letters dated 19/12/1996 and
27/6/1997, which was complied with. The Society, it
is stated, claimed to have obtained transfer of khatha of
sites in favour of individual members and paid annual
taxes while building plans and licences to construct
houses was issued by CMC. Society, it was claimed,
though provided civic amenities, drinking water facility,
etc., nevertheless did not take any help from the BDA or
the Government in this regard.
31
17. At Paragraph 8 it is specifically stated that the
BDA did not sanction or approve the layout plan in
favour of 4th respondent and that the said society failed
to comply with the conditions stipulated in letter the
dated 28/11/1992 till date.
18. Although the BDA obtained a legal opinion for
initiating further steps in the matter after verifying the
records, nevertheless, since the petition was filed and
the proceedings pending, BDA, claims did not proceed
further in the matter.
19. At Paragraph 9 it is stated that despite the
order dated 18/6/2003 of this Court directing the
Society to submit the copy of the layout plan filed to
BDA and the list of transfer of CA sites, within one
month, so as to enable the BDA to comply with the
direction to verify and submit a report within two
months, nevertheless, since there was non-compliance
32
by the Society, the BDA stated that it was unable to
verify and file the report. In furtherance of the said
order, it is stated that several letters addressed to the
society to comply with the directions contained in the
order dated 18/6/2003 did not fructify except for a
letter dated 5/8/2003 of the Society reiterating its
earlier statement that since the area falls within the
jurisdiction of CMC Yelahanka, the question of
obtaining the approval of layout plan from the BDA did
not arise.
20. Petition was opposed by filing statement of
objections on 9/7/2004 of Respondent No.3, City
Municipal Council, Yelahanka for short ‘CMC’ stating
that by executing the relinquishment deed dated
17/5/2002, the Society made over to the CMC, roads,
parks, playgrounds, drains with water supply, sewerage
lines, street lights etc., as the entire layout was formed.
It is stated that on the execution of the relinquishment
33
deed and handing over of the areas to the CMC, no
changes or alterations are made by the CMC. It is
further stated that by Government Notification dated
4/10/1995, the CMC was constituted with territorial
jurisdiction encompassing the judicial layout and
therefore the layout plan was approved on 22/5/1996.
According to CMC, the Society had formed the layout
before it sought approval of the layout plan which
consisted of the following civic amenity sites:
• 5 areas earmarked for parks;
• About 2 acres towards Chikkabommasandra
• About 2 acres in Allalasandra portion
• An area 960x40/2 + 20 ft
• Areas of about 800 ft x 30 ft
• Portion of about 4 acres by the side of
playgrounds;
• About 2 acres for school;
• About 2 acres for playground by the side of the
park annexed.
34
• Area for temple measuring about 80 ft x 100 ft;
• Water supply common area measuring about 80 ft
x 60 ft.
21. CMC further submits that U/s.170(1) of
Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, for short 'KMC Act',
it is the statutory duty of the Municipality to accord
sanction to the new layouts within its territorial
jurisdiction, and since judicial layout was formed before
it fell within its jurisdiction , and the land was acquired
by the State for the society in accordance with law, CMC
did not find any reason to reject the society's request
for sanction of the layout plan, more so, in the light of
the decision of the Division Bench in AIRCRAFT
EMPLOYEES CO-OP SOCIETY v/s BDA & OTHERS
decided on 20/4/2001, hence passed the resolution
ANNEXURE-‘R-1’, approving the layout plan with the
civic amenity sites as it stood in May 1996.
35
22. Society filed its statement of objections on
9/7/2004 inter alia stating that the Writ Petition for the
alleged irregularities and illegalities is not maintainable
as the Society is registered under the 'KCS Act', not
being a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution. Society admitted that it is a dispute
between itself and its members which can be agitated
u/s 70 of the 'KCS Act' and not by way of a Writ. It
stated that all members of the Petitioner Association
and in particular petitioners (b), (j) and (n) are not
members of the Society, hence cannot seek redressal of
alleged irregularities and illegalities said to have
committed by the Society though not committed.
23. The Society further states that it was formed
with the object of securing land, forming layout and
allotting sites to its members, approached the State to
acquire certain lands under the LA Act, to an extent of
193 acres comprised in villages of Allalasandra,
36
Chikkabommasandra and Jakkur Plantation. With
that object, it is stated that it negotiated and entered
into agreements with the land owners for purchase of
200 acres, at the then prevailing market rate.
Government after constitution of Committee called the
“Three Man Screening Committee” obtained a report
over the genuineness of the Society, whereafterwards,
the Deputy Commissioner issued a Notification under
Section 4(1) of the LA Act to acquire lands measuring
170 Acres for and on behalf of the Society, followed by a
final notification to acquire 169 Acres of land. Society
denied that the Government had acquired 193 Acres as
claimed by the Petitioner.
24. It is claimed that out of land to an extend to
156 Acres 26 ¾ guntas, 139 Acres 08 ¾ guntas
possession was delivered to the Society by the Land
Acquisition Officer on 13/11/1992, and issued with a
Possession Certificate ANNEXURE-‘R-1’. As there was
37
litigation in respect of the remaining extent questioning
the acquisition before this Court by the owners of the
lands namely Papaiah and others and a stay order was
in force with respect to 17 Acres and 18 guntas,
possession of that land was not delivered. On the basis
of the extent of land acquired, a tentative layout plan, it
is said, was prepared and submitted to the BDA for
approval, whence BDA passed a resolution No.503/92,
dated 16/11/1992 to approve the plan subject to
certain conditions. The society claims to have called in
question the circular No. RCS 28/94-95 dated
17/5/1994 of the Government not to register
documents unless clearance was obtained from the
Registrar of Co-operative societies and the release order
issued by the BDA in respect of sites formed by Co-
operative Societies in WP No.18447/1994 whence a
learned Single Judge (G.P.Shivaprakash, J.,) by order
dated 15/7/1994 ANNEXURE-‘R-2’ quashed the
Circular.
38
25. At Paragraph 6 it is stated that since WP
11144/1993 and connected petitions filed by other
House Building Societies, were pending relating to the
demand for payment towards Cauvery Water Supply
Scheme; Ring road charges; and surcharges by
Circular of the BDA, the society was unable to comply
with the demand for payment. It is stated that the said
Circular was quashed by order dated 20/4/2001 of the
Division Bench ANNEXURE-‘R-3’. The Writ Petition filed
by one Sri Papaiah and others questioning the
acquisition of their lands was dismissed and the Land
Acquisition Officer delivered possession of the remaining
17 Acres and 18 guntas under Possession Certificate
dated 2/9/1994 ANNEXURE-‘R-4’.
26. In Paragraph 8 it is stated that One
Subramani along with others filed WP 35837/1994 and
other connected petitions by way of Public Interest
Litigation questioning the acquisition of land and
39
Judges of this Court being made members as also
allotment of sites made to them by the Society.
According to the Society, it did not pursue with the BDA
its application for approval of plan though tentatively
approved subject to certain conditions by resolution
dated 16/11/1992. In addition, it is stated that the
demand by the BDA for huge sums of money towards
charges mentioned above subject matter of pending Writ
Petitions which demands were struck down by a
Division Bench as illegal while the Special Leave Petition
was dismissed, petitioner cannot reagitate the very
same alleged irregularities and illegalities.
27. At Paragraph 9 it is stated that Society
initially sought acquisition of 240 acres of land
thereafter reduced to 200 Acres, on obtaining
agreements of sale from owners of lands who were paid
full value, society initiated correspondence with the
Government to acquire the remaining land measuring
40
45 Acres 33 ¼ guntas by letter dated 24/2/1993
ANNEXURE-‘R-5’. This extent of land it is stated was
found as small pockets inter spread within the large
extent of land acquired for the layout. The Special
Deputy Commissioner, it is said, on the basis of the
letter dated 18/5/1993 of the State Government
ANNEXURE R-6 initiated land acquisition proceedings
as disclosed in the letter dated 14/7/1993
ANNEXURE-R-7.
28. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, it is
said, addressed a letter dated 21/8/1993 to the Society
ANNEXURE R-8, requesting furnishing of details of
lands relating to acquisition proceedings to be initiated
along with an application enclosing agreements of sale
obtained from land owners. In compliance with the said
request, Society is said to have made an application
ANNEXURE-‘R-9’ seeking acquisition of 39 Acres 6¼
gunta out of 45 acres 33¼ guntas, as enclosed to the
41
letter dated 30/12/1993 ANNEXURE-‘R-10’, and since
acquisition proceeding was not initiated, the society
addressed a letter dated 13/07/1994 to the Hon'ble
Minister ANNEXURE-‘R-11’.
29. At Paragraph 10, it is asserted that the State
Government constituted the Yelahanka Municipality as
a City Municipal Council under the 'KM Act', by
notification No. HUD 439 KLR 95 dated 4/10/1995
ANNEXURE-‘R-12’ including within its territorial
jurisdiction the entire villages of Chikkabommasandra,
Allalasandra and Jakkur plantation. The said
Yelahanka CMC exercising jurisdiction under the 'KM
Act', while the BDA having no jurisdiction on the said
land, directed the society to pay development charges
and obtain approval of the layout plan. The society, it is
claimed, prepared a comprehensive plan including the
unacquired area, forming 2,200 sites of different sizes,
parks, civic amenities, play ground, stadium, schools,
42
temples, and paid the charges to the Yelahanka CMC
pursuant to which by Resolution No.24 dated
22/5/1996, plan was approved. A copy of which was
placed along with the Memo dated 18/7/2003. (though
such a memo is not traceable in the file). The demand
of the Municipal Council, it is said, was met with by
payment.
30. At Paragraph 11 it is specifically denied that
in the plan furnished to the BDA, for formation of 2048
sites, there is an increase in the number of sites to 2200
in the plan furnished to the city municipal council. It is
asserted that the resolution No. 503/1992 dated
16/11/1992 of the BDA, it was resolved to agree to
approve the layout subject to fulfilment of certain
conditions and as the BDA ceased to have territorial
jurisdiction, and the CMC Yelahanka was invested with
that jurisdiction, the compliance of the conditions set
out by BDA did not arise. The increase in number of
43
sites, it is further stated, is due to the inclusion of 39
acres of land and therefore approval by the CMC,
Yelahanka for formation of 2445 sites is within its
jurisdiction. It is clarified that the total number of sites
in the layout as proposed in the plan submitted to the
BDA was 2268 and not 2048.
31. After approval, sites were formed and
registered in CMC, Yelahanka and Land Tax was
assessed. Sites which were allotted in favour of some of
the petitioners who were members of the Society and
sale deeds executed in their favour and khathas were
made in their names and names included in the
Municipal records and not with the BDA, are the
statement of the Society. Site owners, it is claimed,
have obtained licence and sanctioned plans from CMC,
Yelahanka.
32. After inclusion of unacquired lands and
subsequent delivery of possession of acquired lands by
44
the Land Acquisition Officer, the layout plan was altered
and a comprehensive layout plan was prepared and
number of sites was increased and the plan was
approved by CMC, Yelahanka for 2268 sites. In the
layout plan, land for parks, play ground, stadium, civic
amenities, educational institution, temple have also
been provided, while the Society denies that the open
spaces earmarked for the CA Sites have been allotted
and construction of residential buildings put up.
33. In its General Body Meeting held on
29/9/2002, the Society stated that 49% of 193 Acres
reserved for roads, underground drainage, temple etc
was a mistake in the printing which was got corrected in
the meeting and was within the knowledge of the
petitioner.
34. Society further states that petitioner taking
advantage of the temporary permission granted for
installing Gowri and Ganesh idols to celebrate Ganesh
45
festival are attempting to build up a case with untenable
contentions. They have misinterpreted the letter
ANNEXURE-‘H’. The entire area covered by the
boundaries mentioned in the letter was not a civic
amenity site, while one site measuring about 100 x 100
feet was reserved as Civic Amenity Site for temple and
the said site is still kept vacant.
35. Further the Society submits that it has
provided land for parks, playgrounds etc, and it is for
the CMC, Yelahanka to establish the same; an
educational institution already exists in the layout and
a stadium is to be built and developed by the CMC; It is
for the Government to provide or establish public offices
and hospitals and that there is a Government hospital
in Chikkabommasandra village and private Nursing
Homes near the layout providing medical facilities; and
the Society furnished the letter from the office of CMC
for having taken over possession of the CA sites and
46
informed the Society to deposit remaining difference
amount to the CMC ANNEXURE-‘R-13’.
36. By letter dated 23/1/1999 of the Government
relating to a Circular informing the Societies which
genuinely require lands, in respect of which sale
agreements are entered for formation of layout to
provide residential sites to its members, were permitted
to hold such lands to form layout without acquisition.
Society having obtained final agreements of sale by
paying full sale considerations to the owners of lands
and taken possession pursuant to the agreements of
sale, proceeded with the formation of the layout
including those lands as indicated in the comprehensive
plan prepared in respect of the total extent of 193 acres,
of which approval for 2268 sites included in the
unacquired lands was approved by the CMC. It is
further stated the Society entered into compromise with
land owners who filed suits against the Society as the
47
said lands were not acquired even though they had
agreed to sell and delivered possession.
37. The Society prays for dismissal of the Writ
Petition as it has not committed any irregularity or
illegality which has seriously jeopardized the rights of
the residents in the layout and as the Society has
already handed over the entire layout to CMC, issue of
directions do not arise. It is further stated that BDA
has no jurisdiction over the area in question as it falls
within the Yelahanka CMC limits as per Government
Notification and plan has been approved by the said
CMC and the earlier tentative approval granted by BDA
is irrelevant.
38. The additional statement of objections by way
of Counter Affidavit sworn by Sri. C.Shivalingaiah,
President of the Society, it is stated that after the
Society prepared the Comprehensive Layout Plan and
submitted it to the CMC for approval, inclusive of 17
48
acres 18 guntas of land of which possession was given
in September, 1994, and lands of which agreement of
sale was entered into, falling within the layout area in
respect of which consent was extended by the land
owners for development. CMC demanded layout
charges at 9% and betterment charges at Rs.25/- per
sq.mtrs for unacquired lands measuring 36 acres and
15½ guntas, excluding the area of 14 acres covered by
road, approved the layout plan for 14 acres and 15½
guntas. The total extent for which the layout plan was
approved is an area of 193 acres and 2¼ guntas as per
resolution dated 22/5/1996. He further submits that
there is no plan approved by the BDA but it is approved
by the CMC, Yelahanka. Some of the petitioners in this
petition having approached CMC obtained transfer of
Khata and obtained licence with sanction of the building
plan for construction in their sites which facts have
been suppressed. The deponent further submits that
the approval from the CMC is for 2268 sites of different
49
dimensions and it is a false statement that sanction is
for 2048 sites. Provision is made for parks in five areas;
water tank for supplying water for the entire layout;
playground; school and for construction of a temple in
an area of 80 x 100 ft. All the areas of civic amenities
are handed over to the CMC and entire layout
transferred to the CMC Yelahanka by executing a
relinquishment deed. He further denies that the civic
amenity sites are converted into regular sites and sold
to private persons. A site measuring 80 ft x 100 ft
earmarked for the temple is shown in the layout plan
approved by the CMC as a civic amenity site handed
over the CMC. It is further stated during the year 1990
in the society elections, the petitioner unsuccessfully
contested against the deponent and to wreck vengeance
against the officer bearers have filed the Writ Petition
making false allegations.
50
39. On 19/11/2004 the following order was
passed:
“By order dated 9/7/2004, this Court had
directed the 3rd respondent-CMC and the 4th
respondent-Society to produce the certified copy of
the land sanctioned by the CMC which the learned
counsel appearing for the 4th respondent –Society
submits is complied with by filing the same along
with an application.
The Photostat copy of the plan, produced, is not
legible and we are unable to identify the area
demarcated as civic amenity sites. The 4th
respondent is directed to produce the plan which is
legible and in which the civic amenity sites are
identifiable.
The 4th respondent shall also make available a
copy of the said plan to the 1st respondent –BDA
who shall, keeping in mind the Comprehensive
Development Plan of the said area and Zonal
Regulations, file a statement as to the areas notified
as public, semi public residential, park etc.,
The Registry is directed to place on record the
51
original file in WP 35837/1994 along with connected
writ petitions disposed off on 12th October, 1995.
Call on 10.12.2004.”
40. In compliance with the said directions, BDA
filed its statement on 16/12/2004 stating that it
prepared an enlarged version of the Comprehensive
Development Plan ANNEXURE-‘R-4’ (not found in the
pleadings), attempted to locate the area falling within
the layout plan approved by CMC, Byatarayanapura in
favour of the Society by marking the parks as Exs.P-1 to
P-10, while the CDP describes these areas as residential
zone. Similarly the area reserved for civic amenity
marked as C.A, while two portions in the vicinity of
Ex.P-4 are said to fall in the residential zone. Another
C.A site adjacent to Jakkur Plantation and abutting the
railway line to its West shown as C.A, is described as
Transportation Zone in that CDP, while the extreme
North portion of Jakkur Plantation in which the land of
52
the Society is situated and shown for residential
purpose in the Layout Plan, infact is reserved for a park
in the CDP.
41. On 11/3/2005 Respondent No.3, CMC filed
an additional statement stating that the Commissioner
of CMC assisted by the Engineering Section and
Revenue Section of Municipality surveyed and inspected
the judicial employees’ layout at Allalasandra and
noticed the following factual position of the layout
within the municipal limits:
• 1 Acre 26 guntas between Sy.No.65 and
Sy.No.94 earmarked for playground and park in
the plan is fully covered by fencing with a gate
by a private party claiming to be his land.
• 1 Acre 15 guntas in Sy.No.14/1 earmarked for
school is claimed by a private party.
• 16636 sq.ft is earmarked for burial ground.
• 1070 ft x 111 ft towards south of the layout is
marked for park.
• 85 ft x 87 ft area pump house.
• 425 ft x 270 ft for school and play ground and
53
park
• 142 ft x 61 ft water tank
• 860 ft x 65 ft as park and water tank
• Leaving apart the roads and drainages.
42. The CMC further states that Allalasandra and
adjoining villages were included in CMC, Yelahanka
Municipal limits by Gazette Notification dated
22/8/1995. The layout was formed before the area
came into Municipal limits and the society submitted a
layout plan for approval and for transfer of khata of the
sites in favour of the members and also sanction of
building plans. CMC on 22/5/1996 resolved to transfer
the khata and sanction building plans on compliance
with the Municipal rules and procedure and on the
same day the in charge commissioner affixed the seal
and signature to the plan submitted by the Society.
Further on 17/5/2002, the Society executed a
registered Relinquishment Deed handing over the area
of road, drainage, civic amenity sites etc ANNEXURE-‘R-
54
3B’ without annexing a plan to the deed and presumed
to be accepted as of May 1996 which the Municipality
accepted by its letter dated 23/1/2003. The C.A site
measuring about 2.22 acres is said to be under private
control and the park fenced with compound wall and a
big gate by a private party as found at the time of
survey. C.A school property measuring about 1.04
acres is land of Sri. Shankarappa who had sold this
land to Somaiah in turn he had sold it to Sri.
Jayprakash of V.V.Puram as informed by the villagers
during the inspection. In respect of the other sites,
Municipality has measured and prepared sketches
ANNEXURE-‘R-3C’ series.
43. The CMC further submits that the Society is
due Rs.47,04,568/- towards development and
supervision charges in respect of the layout to the
Municipality.
44. On 6/1/2006, (found in CCC 87/2004 c/w
55
WP 40994/02 order sheet) the following order was
passed:
“Sri V.Lakshminarayan, learned counsel for the
4th respondent submits that the Annexure R-2 to the
affidavit dated 20.10.2005, particularises the details
of the 250 sites, identified by the Society, from out of
the 404 sites, said to be located in the civic amenity
area, in the report of the Bangalore Development
Authority. According to the learned counsel, the
aforesaid 250 sites fall within the areas reserved for
civic amenities. The learned counsel requests that a
direction be issued to the BDA to conduct a joint
inspection to identify the remaining 154 sites, as the
Society is unable to do so on the basis of the plan
submitted by the BDA along with the report.
Sri C B Srinivasan, learned Standing Counsel for
BDA has no objections for a joint inspection and to
identify the balance 154 sites, with reference to the
report submitted.
Recording the submission of the learned counsel
for the parties, the BDA is directed to conduct a joint
inspect after issuing notices to the 1st petitioner and
56
the 4th respondent Society fixing the date/s and
time for inspection and identify the remaining 154
sites. The 4th respondent is thereafter permitted to
file an additional affidavit in respect of the said
sites.
Sri Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner points out to the photo copies of the
encumbrance certificates, to contend that more than
13 sites are conveyed by the present office bearers
after the interim order was passed in this case,
which is contrary to the submission of Sri V
Lakshminarayan, learned counsel for the 4th
respondent recorded in the order sheet dated
8.7.2005. Sri V Lakshminarayan seeks time to
secure instructions as to whether all the said sites
fall within the area earmarked for civic amenity etc.,
or elsewhere.
Having regard to the fact that the 4th respondent
has identified 250 sites falling within the area
reserved for civic amenity etc., reference to which is
made in the Annexure R-2 to the statement of
objections dated 20.10.2005, it is necessary that the
nature of the said sites should be preserved without
57
effecting any change and hence, we direct that no
construction or further construction shall be put up
on the said 250 sites. But at the same time, it does
not mean that construction could be made or
proceeded within such of those sites which have so
far not been identified by the Society as falling
within area reserved for civic amenity etc., though as
a matter of fact they are in the said area. It is useful
to extract the order dated 9.7.2004, which reads
thus:
“It is also made clear that any construction made
on any civic amenity site, as per the map,
hereonwards would be at the risk and responsibility
of the person making such construction.”
In our considered view, the aforesaid order
would take care of such of those sites which have
not been so far identified by the 4th respondent
Society as falling within the areas reserved for civic
amenities, parks etc.,
We further direct the 4th respondent Society to
communicate this order to all its members.
58
List on 3rd February, 2006.
Let a copy of this order be made available to the
learned counsel for 1st petitioner, 4th respondent
Society as well as learned Standing Counsel for
BDA.”
45. In compliance with the order dated 6/1/2006,
BDA states that it conducted the Joint Survey along
with the petitioner and the Society on 4/2/2006 and
prepared a joint Inspection Report identifying 404 sites
and the Plan. As per the joint inspection report, 154
sites are identified along with the 250 sites formed by
the society, as falling within the civic amenity area.
Details of the site numbers vacant or built up, it is said,
is enclosed as ANNEXURE-A and the area reserved for
parks/open spaces and Civic Amenity Sites in the draft
layout submitted by the Society during 1992 as
ANNEXURE-B in the Report submitted by the BDA,
while roads have been tarred and electric facilities
59
provided to the layout.
46. Society filed its statement of objections to the
report submitted by BDA in compliance with the order
stating that at the time of survey, Secretary of the
society Sri. Suresh Kumar.S (who is under suspension
for misconduct), 1st petitioner and officers of the BDA
were present with a copy of the plan produced by the
petitioners which is said to be a draft plan submitted by
the Society to the BDA without signature and seal of the
Society, whence the Secretary objected to identify any
CA site as per the said plan, nevertheless officials of the
BDA continued their survey and marked the areas
reserved for Future Development sites as CA sites and
prepared report stating that there are the 404 sites. The
plan was not prepared or finalised on the spot at the
time of inspection and is not signed by the Secretary of
the Society is the objection. It is alleged that the plan
submitted by BDA to the Court is as per instruction of
60
the petitioner and prepared in the office of the BDA.
The draft plan, it is stated, submitted for approval to
BDA on 6/11/1992 is as per the old norms on the basis
of 65% sital area and 35% CA, park and road area and
same had been agreed to be sanctioned by BDA as per
its resolution dated 16/11/1192 on compliance of
certain conditions. Hence, it is stated BDA or the
petitioners cannot contend that the Society is required
to leave more than 35% as CA, park and road area.
47. The further objections are that the BDA in its
statement of objections ANNEXURE-‘R-1’, stated that
since the area is surrounded by GKVK (UAS) campus
with garden and forest area of about 4000 acres
situated on 3 sides of this layout and about 40-50 Acres
of medicinal plantation maintained by the Central
Government, some open space required to be left is
reduced in the formation of the layout as it will not
affect greenery or ecology in the area. It is submitted
61
that some of the members of the petitioner society have
obtained allotment of sites from the Society in area
shown as CA and Park area and have constructed
houses thereon obtaining plan and licence from the
CMC, hence, it is not open for the petitioners to
question the authority of Society in obtaining the
approved plan from CMC. 83 structures/constructions
being illegal or unauthorised construction in the layout,
it is stated, are incorrect as they have been duly
authorised by the CMC.
48. This Court on 22/12/2006 (in CCC 87/2004)
passed the following order:
“The Learned Senior Counsel representing the
parties submit that they would have a joint inspection
of the areas as mentioned in the application to be
earmarked for civic amenities and report on 12th
January, 2007.
It is hoped that the Learned Senior Counsel
would bring about an amicable resolution to the vexed
dispute by the next date of hearing.
62
List on 12th January, 2007.”
49. In compliance with that order, Petitioner on
19/01/2007 filed an Inspection Report after a survey
was conducted on 5/1/2007 and 18/1/2007 in respect
of certain lands mentioned in the I.As filed by the
Society which reads thus:
1. “The temple site earmarked as one in the map
submitted by the BDA was inspected. The said
site measures 80’ x 100’.
2. The area earmarked as 1203 is not in existence.
3. The park area earmarked as III was also
measured. The said area measures 424 ft x 267
ft. While the said measurements were being taken
one Muni Narayanappa S/o Muniswamappa gave
a statement that he is the owner of 0.29 guntas of
land in the said area. He stated that he is the
owner of the said land and it was seen that several
thatched roof huts were built on the said land. He
has also produced encumbrance for the same. Sri
63
Muninarayanappa is in possession of 0.28
Guntas.
4. In so far as the area earmarked as IIIA is
concerned, the measurement was taken and it is
found that the area measures 968’ x 102’ + 11/2
(54692 sq ft)
5. IIIB: Area bearing No. IIIB was also measured.
The said area measures about 40’+37/2 x 200’;
37+32/2 x 200’; 32+29/2 x 200’; 24+29/2 x 200’;
and 24+19/2 x 133’ (28860 sq ft)
6. IIIC: Railway Marginal Land: The area earmarked
as IIIC, was also measured. The said area
measures 10.10’ + 4/2 x 409’. At one end the
area measures 4 ft in width and at the other end
the same measures about 14 ft. (2863 sq ft)
7. In so far as area ear-marked as IIID in the map
submitted by the society the area was measured
and the same measures 76+76+72/3 x 898’. In
the said area storm water drain measuring
300’x15’ has been constructed. The said storm
water drain has not been fully constructed. At
northern end of the area there is a burial ground
64
and there are six tombs. Besides six tombs there
is a structure constructed by the City Municipal
Council and the same is not in use. About 10 Ft.
depth drain exits (67050 Sq Ft) through out
abutting the GKVK Compound.
8. VA: The area ear-marked as VA belongs to the
brother of Sri. Javaji Sreenivasalu, Advocate Javaji
Sreenivasalu was also present at the time of
taking measurement and he has given a statement
that the said land belongs to his brother. He is
ready and willing to show the registered sale deeds
in that behalf. Hence no measurement was taken.
The members of the society did not dispute this
fact.
9. VB: The area ear-marked as VB measures
16+12’/2 x 111’. The said area includes footpath
and transformer. (1554 sq ft)
10. VC: The said site is vacant measuring 31’ x
60’ (1860 sq ft).
11. Subsequently, the area measuring VD as
shown in the map submitted by the society was
inspected. The Respondent No.4 – Society
65
contends that the said area measures 50 ‘ x 60 ft.
However, on actual measurements, the said area
measures only 39 ft x 26 ft (1045 sq ft).
12. Area ear-marked as VE is not in existence
and hence not inspected.
13. The area ear-marked at VF at para 7 was
also inspected. The area measures
36’+4+10+14/4 x 160 ft (2560 sq ft)
14. At para 8 of the I.A. submitted by the
Respondent No.4- Society, the Society has shown
in the map that it would keep open six sites. On
inspection it was found that there are only five
sites each measuring 30’ x 40’. It is submitted
that in the BDA report there are about 38 sites
carved out in the said CA area, out of which the
Respondent No.4 – society has consented to
relinquish only five sites.
15. At Para 9 of the I.A. submitted by the
Respondent No.4 – society, the society has
consented to relinquish about 32,200 sq ft. (Burial
ground). It is submitted that the said burial
ground is not available for the benefit of the
66
residents of the judicial layout and the same is not
acquired. The said burial ground is only used by
Allalasandra people for cremation.
16. The measurements were conducted in the
presence of the petitioners as well as the members
of the society. All the areas earmarked above are
carved out of the Map produced by the society and
is not in accordance with the BDA Map.”
50. Sri.C.Shivalingaiah, President of the Society
filed an affidavit on 22/02/2007 in pursuance of the
order dated 2/2/2007 in CCC 87/2004 which reads :
“Sri.Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for some of
the contemnors had made a statement before this
court during one of the dates of hearing, under
instructions of his client, that the Society would
expend sufficient monies towards providing basic
amenities such as construction of a Post Office,
Library, Milk booth, a shelter for HOPCOMS, a Police
Station, Temple and similar such amenities in the
Judicial Layout. The said submission is not a part of
the records. Hence, the same is recorded today, to
which the learned counsel has no objection. Learned
67
counsel submits that he would have a responsible
officer of the Society to ensure filing of an affidavit,
undertaking in that regard, after a resolution is
passed by the Society. List on 23-02-2007 before
which time the Society shall file the affidavit.
Sri Keshava Reddy, learned AGA is permitted to
have an inspection of the records of this proceeding
as well as the earlier proceedings which have
reached a finality and are placed along with these
records.
List for evidence on 23-02-2007.”
51. The affidavit filed on 22/2/2007 by
C.Shivalingaiah reads thus:
“I C.Shivalingaiah, s/o. Late Shri.Channegowda,
aged about 66 years, President,Karnataka Judicial
Department Employees House Building Co-operative
Society, Bangalore-560 001, do hereby solemnly
affirm and state on oath as follows:
1) I submit that in pursuance of the order passed by
this Hon’ble Court on 2-2-2007 in the above
matters, the Board Meeting of the Karnataka
State Judicial Department Employees House
Building Co-operative Societies Ltd., was held on
68
13-2-2007 for considering the submission made
on behalf of the society by our Advocate Sri
S.K.Venkata Reddy before this Hon’ble Court for
providing amenities, that was placed on record
by passing an order by this Hon’ble Court and or
filing affidavit of a responsible officer of the
society to ensure the same. The subject was
placed before the Board meeting with the copy of
the order in Subject no.4 of the Agenda for
consideration and to pass a resolution in respect
of the same.
2) I submit it was unanimously resolved by the
Board of Management of the 4th Respondent in
the writ petition in subject No.4 to construct a
building consisting of Ground Floor and 1st Floor
in the vacant land adjacent ot the existing society
building. Being the centre of the layout to provide
HOPCOMS, Mulk booth, Police Station and Post
Office in the ground floor and Library, in the 1st
floor as per the plan got prepared through the
civil Engineer. The copy of the plan is produced
as Annexure-A to this affidavit. It is decided to
construct the said building providing all facilities
in one place under a common roof by the societies
69
funds and mobilising funds from other sources.
It was also resolved and decided to correspond
with the concerned departments for providing the
said facilities in the building proposed to be
constructed and to request them to co-operate
and co-ordinate with us in establishing the said
services in the building.
3) I submit the society has also resolved to reserve
and provide the area measuring 84 feet x 134
feet in Site No.859/B-1 for construction of the
temple and further resolved that the society
would undertake to construct the temple from out
of its own funds and funds mobilised by
donations from devotees and philanthropists. A
plan has been got prepared and annexed to the
affidavits Annexure-B. Already an application
was filed by the society on 17-11-2006
earmarking certain sites for civic amenities.
4) I submit the resolution passed by the Board of
Management of the 4th Respondent is produced
as Annexure-C to this affidavit.
5) I submit the Board of Management has passed
70
the resolution authorising me to file this Affidavit
by giving an undertaking to provide the facilities
as described above and as per the resolution by
constructing a complex and the temple as per the
plan annexed to this affidavit.
6) I swear that this is my name and signature and
the contents of this Affidavit are true and
correct.”
52. Sri S.D.Venkataramaiah, one of the
petitioners has filed an affidavit in response to the IA
filed by the Society for consideration of settlement on
17/11/2006 wherein the Society has shown certain
area in the judicial layout as available for public
purpose. It is stated in the affidavit that a joint
inspection was made by the senior counsel along with
the petitioners and the Society members. Area shown in
the IA filed by the Society is not in accordance with the
actual area as observed by the senior counsel and hence
the same was not acceptable to the petitioner. Affidavit
filed by the president of the Society on 22/2/2007 in
71
compliance with the court order stated that area initially
left for temple was measuring 195 ft x 200 ft and out of
which now the Society has made available only 130 ft x
84 ft and area left for parks etc is not sufficient for a
population of 2500 site owners. An area of 60 ft x 31 ft
as shown available for public purpose is not additional
area.
53. Having regard to the nature of controversy
brought before Court and the efforts of the learned
Senior counsel to reduce the shortfall in the area
reserved for civic amenity and open spaces in the layout
formed by the Society, although, without a sanction of
the layout plan, it is useful to notice the orders passed
and directions issued over an extended period of time
which are extracted herein below:
54. This Court on 2/3/2007 passed the following
order:
72
“Learned counsel for the petitioner files an
affidavit dated 2-3-2007 of one
S.D.Venkataramaiah, one of the petitioners, by way
of a counter to the I.A. dated 17-11-2006 filed by the
4th respondent. The same is taken on record.
Sri.Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel for
one of the contemnors submits that the Writ Petition
be heard on its maintainability. We are not
impressed by this submission. The maintainability
of the writ petition will be heard along with the merit
of the petition. The trial in the contempt case is yet
to commence. Moreover, the volume of orders
passed in this petition and the Contempt petition
only disclose the extent of leeway extended to the
Society and the contemnors, to place relevant
material before this Court. It is true that the Society
and the contemnors have evinced interest, at the
instance of this Court, to bring about a resolution.
Nevertheless, the tenor of the objections filed by the
writ petitioners, discloses that a plausible resolution
is like a mirage in a desert.
On a perusal of the order-sheet maintained in
the Writ petition and the Contempt petition, what is
73
noticeable is the fact that C.Shivalingaiah, President
of the Society made a statement, as recorded in the
order dated 19-08-2004 that a plan was submitted
to the BDA before it was transferred to the
jurisdictional City Municipal Council, Yelahanka, and
this court by order dated 17.12.2004 directed him to
furnish the said plan submitted by the BDA for its
approval, at the earliest point of time, which is not
complied with till date.
It is the allegation of the petitioners that in every
Sale Deed executed by the Society, contains a
covenant that the site allotted/conveyed was
pursuant to the sanction of a layout plan by the
BDA. Thus, the said plan assumes great importance
in order to decide the controversy brought before this
Court. We say so because, admittedly the plan
earmarked areas for civic amenity, open spaces,
playgrounds, parks, etc.. The particulars and
identity of the said areas in the layout must be with
reference to the BDA plan, which unfortunately is not
forthcoming. The Society and more particularly,
C.Shivalingaiah, President has evaded the
production of the said plan. It is not as if the Society
did not deliberate in any of its meetings over the
74
layout to be formed in the land acquired for the
Society. It is not as if the Society did not earmark
specific areas for residential, commercial,
playgrounds, parks, temples, schools, etc. It is not
as if the Society, without any basis, went about its
business of allotting sites to its members. Strangely,
though not these facts are strongly guarded secrets.
In this view of the matter, we are left with no
other option but to direct the Society to place before
this Court all and every relevant material relating to
the resolutions passed by the Society from its
inception as well as the audited statement of
accounts which might throw some light in the
direction of deciding the questions that arise for
consideration. We are aware of the past litigation,
the pleadings of which are apart of this petition
disclosing affidavits of C.Shivalingaiah, President
furnishing sketchy details of the percentages of land
earmarked for open spaces, amenities, roads, etc
and the fact that those calculations are based upon
a sanction of a layout plan by the BDA. It has been
the endeavour of the petitioners to point out to the
statement of the President of the Society, at every
stage, in each and every proceedings to point out the
75
percentages of land set apart for civic amenities, etc.
It is no doubt true that the Bangalore
Development Authority, at the instance of this Court
filed a report detailing the total number of residential
sites that fall within the civic amenity areas,
playgrounds, parks, etc., earmarked and delineated
in the plan submitted by the Society. This report is
yet to be considered and ordered. Thus, looking at it
from any angle, the answer to the questions lies in
the plan submitted by the Society to the BDA.
We are therefore constrained to direct the
Society to place before this Court before the next
date of hearing all and every material recoding the
resolutions passed from the inception of the Society,
till yesterday.
Sri.Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior counsel
seeks a week’s accommodation to commence the
trial. List on 16-03-2007 for evidence and for the
Society to comply with this order.
Let a copy of this order be made available to
both the parties.”
76
55. In pursuance of the show cause notice, the
Society filed a memo stating that Supreme Court passed
an order of interim stay of order dated 2/3/2007 until
further orders in SLP to Appeal (Civil) No.5057/2007.
56. On 10/8/2007, it was brought to the notice of
the Court that the Committee of Management of the
Society is superseded by an order of the State
Government appointing an administrator under the
'KCS Act,' hence, the Court directed the State to place
the order of supersession and appointment of
administrator to the Society.
57. Government Advocate filed a Memo on
17/8/2007 producing the order dated 8/8/2007 of the
Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies (I & M),
Bangalore superseding the Committee of Management of
the Society, in compliance with the order dated
10/8/2007.
77
58. This court on 23/11/2007 passed the
following order:
“Heard the learned senior counsel for the
Petitioners.
The learned counsel for respondents/society seeks a
week’s accommodation to explore the possibility of
bringing about a resolution to the controversy.
In the light of the report of the BDA dated
17/2/006, indicating that there are 404 sites formed
in the open sites formed in the open spaces as
shown in the layout plan submitted to the BDA by
the society, the respondent is directed to furnish to
the Court, by the next date of hearing, the names
and addresses of the allottees and subsequent
owners of the said sites.
Post on 7th December, 2007.”
59. In compliance with this order, the Society on
4/1/2008 filed memo along with the copy of the list of
names and addresses of allottees of 404 sites, whence
this court passed the following order:
78
“In compliance with the order dated
23/11/2007, Sri.Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned
counsel for the 4th respondent – Society submits that
on 30/11/2007, a letter was addressed to the Sub-
Registrar, Yelahanka to furnish the Encumbrance
Certificates in respect of 404 sites formed in the open
spaces as shown in the Layout plan submitted by
the BDA by the Society and as indicated by the BDA
in its report dated 17/2/2006, so as to ascertain the
names and addresses of the persons registered as
owners of the sites in question under instruments of
transfer, to which the Sub-Registrar has indicated
that the Encumbrance Certificates would be issued
provided Rs.68,000/- is paid as fee. According to
the learned counsel, the Administrator of the Society
is not in a position to pay the said sum of money and
secure the Encumbrance Certificates. Learned
counsel further submits that the Administrator is
currently holding charge of Deputy Registrar of Co-
operative Societies, Circle-I and hardly finds time to
administer the Society and that the State be directed
to ensure that the Administrator functions full time,
to assist the Court in this proceeding.
Having regard to the fact that the petition is a
79
public interest litigation espousing the cause of not
only the members of the Society but the citizens at
large and keeping in mind the nature of complaint
brought before this Court, we think it appropriate to
direct the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka to furnish to the
2nd respondent the Encumbrance Certificates in
respect of the 404 sites, without insisting with the
payment of fee and the State, through its
Government Advocate, is directed to place before
Court the said Encumbrance Certificates. It is made
clear that the Sub-Registrar shall furnish the names
and addresses of the Transferor and Transferee as
disclosed in the instruments of transfer, in each of
the Encumbrance Certificates. The State is further
directed to ensure that the Administrator of the
Society functions fulltime in the administration of the
4th respondent-Society so as to assist the Court in
the proceedings in this petition.
State to place on record the Encumbrance
Certificates within four weeks. Learned counsel for
the 4th respondent files a memo dated 4/1/2008
enclosing a copy of the letter dated 30/11/2007
addressed to the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka and the
names and addresses of the allottees of the 404
80
sites as found in the registers of the Society. The
same is taken on record. List on 8/2/2008. Let a
copy of this order be made available to the learned
Government Advocate.”
60. Further on 8/2/2008, the Additional
Government Advocate submitted that the encumbrance
certificates are made available and a list would be
prepared and filed. Society also filed a memo setting
out certain proposal for settlement which was
unacceptable to the Petitioner Association as stated in
the order dated 28/3/2008. The order sheet discloses
that the appointment of administrator the 4th
respondent society was quashed by order dated
26/3/2008 of a learned single Judge.
61. On 17/6/2008, the Society filed a Memo
along with copy of the order dated 21/4/2008 in SLP to
Appeal (Civil) No.5057/2007 wherein the order
challenged was dismissed with liberty to make an
81
application before the Division Bench of the High Court
on the question of maintainability of the Writ Petition.
62. Pursuant to the resolution dated 3/7/2008,
Society filed a memo dated 4/9/2008 along with an
affidavit of even date placing on record the layout map
ANNEXURE’R-4(4)’ (not found in the pleadings)
demarcating areas coloured in Maroon and purple,
available for being deployed as civic amenity sites and
areas coloured yellow, being sites allotted to one Sri
Ramakrishnappa and others, of which the Registrar of
Societies has passed an order to take action to
invalidate the sale deeds, who is said to be negotiating
with the society to settle the issue. Accordingly, 39% of
the extent of 184 Acres comprised in the layout
constitutes roads, civic amenities, parks, open spaces;
although only 35% was contemplated by the Society at
the earliest point of time when the layout plan was
placed before the BDA for approval. BDA while
82
imposing conditions to approve the layout plan, directed
that an extent of 35% of the land be left out for roads,
civic amenities and other open spaces.
63. On 5/9/2008, the respondent-Society was
directed to place on record the exact dimensions,
boundaries and the schedules of each of the areas
demarcated with the colours purple, pink, maroon and
yellow in the plan ANNEXURE-‘R-4(4)’ to the memo, in
addition an affidavit as to whether the aforesaid areas
are freehold or otherwise.
64. Additional affidavit of the society dated
3/10/2008 is filed along with enclosures in compliance
with the order dated 5/9/2008.
65. An affidavit is filed by the petitioner on
5/12/2008, as objections to the additional affidavit filed
by the Society on 3/10/2008, stating that the
compromise proposal put forth is not accurate and does
not inspire confidence, while the detailed description of
83
total extent of undisputed land available is more than 3
acres and 27 guntas. The list of RTC Extracts and
letters, representation addressed to the President of
Association at Janaspandana Karyakrama in Judicial
Layout in reply to 20 points grievances of the residents
is also furnished along with the affidavit.
66. A Counter affidavit is filed on 5/1/2009 by
the Society by way of rejoinder to the affidavit filed by
the Petitioner enclosing copy of the proceedings of the
Society held on 3/8/2008 as a Souharda Spandana
Sabhe ANNEXURE-‘R-4(12) ; copy of RTC extract for the
year 2008-2009 in respect of Sy.No.94/3 is filed as
ANNEXURE-‘R-4(13)’; and copy of the letter
dated30/7/2008 that the Society had submitted to the
Tahsildar on 6/8/2008 for correction as ANNEXURE-
‘R’4(14)’. While Annexure-‘R-4(15)’ is a copy of the letter
of the Tahsildar addressed to the Assistant
Commissioner. ANNEXURE-‘R-16 TO 18’ are said to be
84
the RTC Extracts of Sy.No.4 marked as Exs.P1-P2, 104-
3A-1, 104-3A-2, 14(5), 14(6).
67. Memo filed by representatives of the petitioner
when considered the following the order was passed on
17.4.2009:
“The property in question, when acquired, fell
within the territorial jurisdiction of the then
Bangalore Development Authority and thereafter
within the local authority known as City Municipal
Council, Yelahanka – respondent No.3. It appears,
by a notification, the area comprised within the City
Municipal Council, Yelahanka, has since merged
with the Bangalore City Corporation, presently
known as Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike.
Therefore, there is a need to substitute the third
respondent as Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara
Palike. The petitioners are permitted to carry out the
amendment to the cause-title, by substituting the
third respondent to that of Bruhat Bangalore
Mahanagara Palike, by its Commissioner.
The registry is directed to issue hand-summons
85
to the petitioners for service of notice of the petition
on the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike,
returnable by 24/04/2009. Steps to be taken
forthwith.
The fourth respondent is directed to prepare and
file a map encompassing an area of 156 acres and
26 ¾ guntas of land acquired for the Society by the
State, incorporating the areas earmarked for civic
amenities, open spaces etc., and sites.
The State Government to secure and place before
the Court, from the Special Land Acquisition Officer
the material particulars of acquisition of the land
measuring 156 Acres and 26 ¾ guntas together with
the map and the records relating to handing over
possession of the said lands to the Society, on or
before 24/04/2009.
List this matter on 24/04/2009.”
68. In compliance with the order dated
17/4/2009, the respondent-Society filed a memo (not
found in the record) dated 24/4/2009 enclosing a
layout map in respect of 156 acres and 24 guntas and
86
the unacquired portion of land demarcated in green
colour over which sites are formed. It is pointed out
that the CA and park area represents 4.82%, while
roads 33.65%. The areas earmarked for CA and parks
are coloured crimson, and the open space in purple,
under the nomenclature ‘acquired/vacant’, in the
abstract.
69. By order dated 24/4/2009, the Court directed
BBMP Commissioner to make a spot inspection of the
CA, park and open areas earmarked in the map and file
a report over:
a) Location
b) Measurements
c) The condition and availability of the said areas.
70. Vide Court order dated 17/04/2009, the
Government Advocate produced and placed before the
Court, three files with index and pagination, relating to
acquisition of the land.
87
71. BBMP has filed a memo dated 22/7/2009
enclosing a report with Annexure pursuant to a survey
conducted by its Engineering Department in compliance
with the order dtd.24/4/2009.
72. Society has filed a reply to the Report of
BBMP which reads thus:
“REPLY OF THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE DATED 28.07.2009:
The Respondent No.4 begs to submit as follows:
1. This Hon'ble Court by its order dated
05.09.2008 directed Bruhath Bangalore
Mahanagara Palike to measure and identify the
open areas, Parks and C.A. Sites as
demarcated in the plan submitted by this
Respondent along with the interim application
and to file a report of the same. In compliance
with the said order the Commissioner for the
Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike has
submitted a report of the lands held by this
Respondent, showing the Dimensions,
88
Boundaries and the Schedule of each of the
areas demarcated in different colours.
2. It is humbly submitted that at the outset it is
to be brought to the notice of this Hon'ble court
that only in so far as the Lands shown in the
Schedule at Sl. Nos. VI- XVII (excluding lands at
Sl. Nos. I to V) is being demarcated as Areas to
be utilized for the purposes of Civic Amenities at
the first instance by this Respondent. This
Respondent had demarcated 8.21 ¼ Acres of
land to be used for the purposes of Civic
Amenities. According to the above report filed
by the Commissioner of the BBMP, 8.15 ¼
Acres of land is reading available with this
Respondent Society for the purpose of handing
it over to the BBMP to be developed as C.A.
Sites.
3. This respondent may be permitted to
submit a reply upon each of the items
mentioned in the Schedule as here under:
I. LAND SHOWN AT SL.NO.I, AS VACANT
LAND IN SY. NO. 94/3(P) MEASURING 0.37
89
ACRES (40293 SQ. FT):
This land was not shown as reserved for the
purpose of utilization as a C.A. area by this
Respondent in the plan submitted to this
Hon’ble Court. Out of 37 Guntas of land that
was acquired for the purpose of Society, there
are certain encroachments in about 15-17
Guntas of land. Even as on today about 20
Guntas of land is vacant and this Respondent
most humbly submits that the said land
measuring 24 Guntas in sy. No. 94/3(P) can be
immediately handed over to the BBMP to be
developed as C.A. Area.
II. LAND SHOWN AT SL. NO.II, SITE NO.
2013(C) MEASURING 0.05 ACRES (5482 SQ.
FT.):
This site was not shown as reserved for the
purpose of utilization as a C.A. Area in the plan
submitted to this Hon’ble Court by this
respondent. This site has already been allotted
to a member of the respondent Society.
III. LAND SHOWN AT SL. NO.III, SITE NO.
90
2072(A) MEASURING 0.16 ¾ ACRES (18326
SQ. FT.): (20957 SQ. FT. BY BBMP)
These sites were not shown as reserved for the
purpose of utilization as a C.A. Area in the plan
submitted to this Hon’ble Court by this
Respondent. These sites are formed in an
Acquired land and the possession is with the
Respondent Society and hence the said sites
0.16 ¾ ACRES (18326 SQ. FT) can be
immediately handed over to the BBMP to be
developed as C.A. Area. The Encumbrance
Certificate of these sites has already been filed
before this Hon'ble Court.
IV. LAND SHOWN AT SL. NO. IV, AS OLD
PUMP HOUSE NEAR RAILWAY TRACK
MEASURING 0.15 ½ ACRES (16896 SQ. FT):
This land was not shown as reserved for the
purpose of utilization as a C.A. Area by this
Respondent. The Old Pump House which is
connected to the Bore well belongs to the
Respondent Society and can be handed over
to the BBMP to be used for the purpose of Civic
Amenity
91
V. LAND SHOWN AT SL. NO. V, AS SY NO. 4(P)
OF JAKKUR PLANTATION VACANT LAND
MEASURING 1.15 ACRES (59884 SQ. FT):
(55641 SQ. FT. BY BBMP)
This land was not shown as reserved for the
purpose of utilization as a C.A. Area by this
Respondent. This Land is reserved by the
Respondent Society for the purpose of formation
of sites. The details of this land are as shown
below:
(a) The land measuring 2 acres in Sy. No.4 of
the former Jakkur Plantation Village, Yelahanka
Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore had
been acquired by the State Government, for the
benefit of the Respondent Society vide
Preliminary Notification dated 11.02.1988 and
Final Notification bearing No. R.D/156/AQB/84
dated 24.02.1994. True copy of Final
Notification dated 24.02.1994 is produced
herewith and marked as DOCUMENT NO.1.
(b) In LAC No. 903/1988-89 the Special Land
92
Acquisition Officer passed a General Award of
Rs.1,96,800/- along with interest. True copy of
General Award dated 11.12.1990 is produced
herewith and marked as DOCUMENT NO.2.
(c) The Respondent-Society had filed W.P. No.
1600/1994 praying to direct the Respondents to
deliver possession of certain lands which
included the above stated 2 acres of land of
Jakkur Plantation Villages, which was allowed
by Order dated 10.02.1994 by this Hon'ble Court
with a direction to the Respondents therein to
handover possession of the lands to the Society
within six weeks from the date of receipt of the
Order. True copy of the Order dated 10.02.1994
in W.P. No. 1600/1994 is produced herewith and
marked as DOCUMENT NO.3.
(d) By an Official Memorandum bearing No. LAQ
(9) SR 12/87-88 dated 02.09.1994, the Special
Land Acquisition Officer handed over possession
of the lands mentions therein including the Lands
measuring 2 acres as stated above to the
Respondent-Society. Out of the 2 Acres mentioned
above, a part of the land has been utilized for the
93
formation of the Road by this Respondent and the
remaining measuring 1 Acre 15 Guntas is still in
lawful possession of this Respondent. True copy
of the Official Memorandum 02.09.1994 is
produced herewith and marked as DOCUMENT NO.
4
(e) The previous owner of the said land, one J.M.
Krishnappa had questioned the aforesaid
Acquisition Proceedings by filing W.P NO. 7084/
1989 before this Hon'ble Court and the same has
been dismissed as withdrawn by Order dated
13.11.1992 with observation as under:
"However, a memo has been filed stating
that an understanding has been arrived at
between the petitioner and 4th respondent
and his contentions to be kept open. There
cannot be any conditional undertaking. This
is made known to the counsel.”
Counsel submitted that he will withdraw it
unconditionally. Statement recorded. Memo
rejected.
Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn".
True copy of the Order dated 13.11.1992 in
94
W.P.No. 7084/1989 is produced herewith and
marked as Document No.5
f) As there was dispute with regard to the title
claimed by the said J.M. Krishnappa, the award
amount was deposited at the Civil Court U / S 30,
31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act for
determination of the rightful owner to pay the
compensation. Thereafter on the Claim statement
filed by J.M.Krishnappa and proving his title, the
Hon 'ble Court in L.A.C. no. 221/1999 by its order
dated 31.07.2004 held that J.M. Krishnappa is
entitled for compensation awarded and also for
interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the compensation
awarded of Rs. 1,96,800/- for one year and
thereafter at 15% which has been paid by this
Respondent. True copy of the Award in L.A.C. no.
221/1999 is produced herewith and marked as
DOCUMENT NO.6.
g) Since interest awarded by the Civil Court was
not paid by this Respondent, J .M., Krishnappa
has filed an Execution Petition in Ex. No. 1/2005
in order to avail interest upon the compensation
amount awarded and the same has been
95
deposited to the court by this Respondent.
Memorandum of Execution Petition in Ex. No.
1/2005 is produced herewith and marked as
DOCUMENT NO.7.
h) The owner J.M. Krishnappa has withdrawn
the amount by filing a memo regarding
satisfaction of the Award amount in full as per
memo dated 12.06.2008. True copy of Memo
dated 12.06.2008 is produced herewith and
marked as DOCUMENT NO. 8. Thereafter the
Cheque bearing: No.79249 dated 10.07.2008 for
Rs.1,37 895/- was issued in favour of J.M.
Krishnappa by the Registrar, City Civil Court
Bangalore which was received by him. True
copy of the Order sheet showing Endorsement
dated 10.07.2008 is produced herewith and
marked as DOCUMENT NO.9.
(i) Pursuant to the Acquisition Proceedings,
the Revenue Records in respect of the Suit
Schedule property was transferred into the
name of the Defendant Society vide MR 8/
1992-93, after due publication following the
procedure contemplated in law. True copy of the
96
Revenue Record showing the name of the
Respondent Society is produced herewith and
marked as DOCUMENT NO. 10.
(j) Though this Respondent is the owner in
possession of the said land as per the
Acquisition Proceedings and as per the entries
relevant columns of the Revenue Records, the
said J.M. Krishnappa has now filed a Suit in O.S.
No. 3124/2009 claiming that he is in
possession of the said land and he has also set
up one person to put up a Dhabha by name
Uday Huts and also to file a Suit in O.S. No.
2873/2009 before the City Civil Court at
Bangalore.
VI. LAND SHOWN AT SL. NO. VI AS C.A NEAR
60’ ROAD TOWARDS SOUTH MEASURING
1.15 ½ ACRES (59944 SQ. FT): (60026
SQ. FT. BY BBMP)
This Site is shown as a Park and the same is
readily available to be handed over to the
BBMP.
97
VII. LAND SHOWN AT SL. NO. VII AS C.A.
NEAR 60' TOWARDS NORTH MEASURING
0.028 ¼ ACRES (30764 SQ.FT) (30664 SQ.
FT. BY BBMP)
The Pump House is constructed by the
Respondent Society which is being used for the
purpose of supply of water to the residents of
the Judicial Layout. The remaining area is Park
area and the same is readily available to be
handed over to the BBMP.
VIII. LAND SHOWN AT SL. NO. VIII, AS
WATER TANK, MEASURING 0.07 ½ ACRES
(8369 SQ. FT): (8013 SQ. FT. BY BBMP)
The Water Tank is constructed by the
Respondent Society which is being used for the
purpose of supply of water to the residents of
the Judicial Layout. The said area is already
being used for the purpose of Civic Amenity and
the same is readily available to be handed over
to the BBMP.
IX. LAND SHOWN AT SL. NO. IX AS
98
SOCIETY BUILDING, MEASURING 0.03 ½
ACRES (3798 SQ. FT): (3782 Sq. Ft. by
BBMP)
The vacant area behind the building belonging
to this Respondent has been demarcated and
shown in the Affidavit already filed that it
would be used for the purpose of Library, Post
office and other Civic Amenity purposes.
X. LAND SHOWN AT SL. NO. IX AS NEAR
C.I.M.A.P, MEASURING 0.01 ½ ACRES (643
SQ. FT): (490 Sq. Ft. by BBMP)
This is a very small extent of land and needs to
be ignored.
XI. LAND SHOWN AT SL. NO.X1, AS PLAY
GROUND, MEASURING 2.24 ½ ACRES
(1,13,900 SQ. FT): [112173 SQ. FT. BY BBMP]
The entire extent of land is in Sy. no. 93 and
l04/3A-l which are acquired lands. The sheds
which shown over the said land in the Report
file by the BBMP is in a small portion of the
area and the Respondent-Society is taking
99
necessary action to get the same cleared.
XII. LAND SHOWN AT SL. NO.XII, AS SRI
MUNESHWARA TEMPLE, MEASURING 0.02 ¼
ACRES (2459 SQ. FT): (2460 Sq. Ft. by
BBMP).
This land has Sri Muneshwara Temple
constructed upon it and the same can be
handed over immediately to the BBMP.
XIII. LAND SHOWN AT SL. NO.XIII AS
PROPOSED TEMPLE, MEASURING 0.08 ½
ACRES (9315 SQ. FT):
This land is vacant and the possession is with
the Respondent Society, which was to be used
for a proposed temple. The Board which was
present at the time of Inspection by the
Authorities of the BBMP mentioning as
Muneshwara Temple has been removed and
the said land can be immediately handed over
to the BBMP.
XIV. LAND SHOWN AT SL. NO.XIV, AS C.A
ADJACENT SITE NO. 91 MEASURING 0.05 ¼
100
ACRES (5759 SQ. FT): (2880 SQ. FT. BY BBMP).
This is a vacant land in possession of the
Respondent Society
And the same can be immediately handed over
to the BBMP.
XV. LAND SHOWN AT SL. NO.XV, AS Park
adjoining GKVK compound WEST,
MEASURING 1.26 ½ ACRES (72462 SQ.
FT):
The water tank shown to be present in the said
land belongs to the Respondent Society. The area
is no longer is being used for the purpose of
burials, as per the order dated 04.09.2000 of
this Hon’ble Court in W.P. no. 18060/2000. The
toilets shown in the said land on the Northern
edge are unauthorized constructions and the
same would immediately be removed. This land
was formed out of Sy. NO. 39, 41 and 42 of
Chikkabommasandra Village. The area is now
shown as Raja Kaluve in the sketch and the
report prepared by the BBMP. Actually this land
is ‘B’ kharab land measuring 0.12 G in Sy. No.
41/1 and 0.05 G in Sy. No. 41/2 and 0.15 G in
Sy. No. 42. This 'B' kharab land was included
101
in the land acquisition proceedings and
Compensation was awarded at Rs.2,952/ - for
0.12 G in Sy. NO. 41/1, Rs.1,230/- for 0.05 G
in Sy. No. 41/2 and Rs.3,690/- for 0.15 G in Sy.
No. 42, which was deposited by this
Respondent Society which is evidenced in the
Award dated 13.03.1991. Copy of the Award
dated 13.03.1991 is produced herewith and
marked a DOCUMENT NO. 11. Copy of the sketch
in Akar Bund showing the above mentioned
extent of land as 'B' kharab land is produced
herewith and marked as DOCUMENT NO. 12.
Hence it is evident that there is no Raja Kaluve
in the said land and what is shown as Raja
Kaluve is merely 'B' kharab land which is
already been acquired for the purpose of the
Respondent Society after the compensation
amount is deposited by the Respondent Society.
Copy of order dated 4.9.2000 in WP. NO.
18060/2000 is produced as DOCUMENT NO.
13.
The above said land is vacant and earmarked
for the purpose of park.
102
XVI. LAND SHOWN AT SL. NO. XVI, AS C.A. NEAR
BURIAL GROUND, MEASURING 0.8 ½ ACRES
(9303 SQ. FT) (SHOWN AS 0.05 ½ ACRES
AND 5999 SQ.FT IN THE SCHEDULE):
This land can be used for the purpose of Civic
Amenity and can be
handed over immediately to the BBMP as it is
vacant.
XVII. LAND SHOWN AT SL. NO. XVII, AS BURIAL
GROUND, MEASURING 0.29 ¾ ACRES (32470
SQ. FT): (15785 Sq. Ft. by BBMP)
This is an acquired land and compound has
been constructed
around this Land by this Respondent.”
73. This court on 7/8/2009 in CCC 87/2004
passed the following order:
“In response to the report dated 22/7/2009 of
the Commissioner, Bangalore Mahanagara Palike,
the respondent – Society has filed a reply dated
6/8/2009. The same is taken on record. Learned
counsel for the parties contend that the vacant space
at Item No.1 to 17 as mentioned in the report dated
103
22/7/2009 could be handed over to the Bangalore
City Corporation for maintenance. In respect of the
plot shown at Sketch No.1, it is pointed out that there
are large number of small tenements at the hind
portion and that, if that portion is segregated and
provided with a corridor for ingress and egress to
and from that place to the main road, a large extent
of open space could be salvaged and used as a
park, while the Society to take steps to ensure that
the unauthorised occupants are evicted from the
tenements and thereafter hand over the said
property to the Corporation for development as a
park. The sketch at Sl.No.1 does not indicate the
exact measurements of the areas that require to be
segregated for the formation of the corridor. Learned
counsel for the Corporation submits that the
Engineers would make a further inquiry and file a
better sketch mentioning the details with specificity.
Learned counsel for the Corporation also submits
that a plan of action would be placed before this
Court over the utlilisation of the open spaces
atS.Nos.1 to 17 if granted some time.
Sri.A.K.Bhat, learned counsel for some of
petitioners points out to the memo of additional
104
documents filed on 4/1/2008 by the Society to
contend that few of the sites in respect of which Sale
Deeds had been executed after the interim order was
granted were cancelled in order to purge contempt in
addition to other vacant sites which have not been
allotted are indicated in the list. Learned
Government counsel is directed to ascertain the
status of these sites as reflected in the Encumbrance
Certificates.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Society
submits that after making necessary verification over
the vacant sites, as indicated in the memo dated
4/1/2008 and on instructions, would make his say
on the next date of hearing.
List on 14/8/2009.”
74. In pursuance of the order, Misc.W 9232/2009
was filed for correction of order dated 7/8/2009, which
was corrected vide order dated 9/10/2009 which is
extracted under:
“This application is by the respondent – Society to
correct the order dated 7-8-2009 in so far as it
105
relates to recording of the submission of the learned
counsel for the parties over vacant space at Item
Nos.1 to 17 as mentioned in the report dated 22-07-
2009 that could be handed over to the Bangalore
City Corporation to read as excluding Item Nos.2 and
5. According to the learned Senior counsel for the
applicant, it is stated that Item No.2 property was
allotted on 27-09-2002 followed by conveyance
under a registered Sale Deed No.1042/2002-03 to
one of the members of the Society. As regards Item
No.5 in the report, it is contended that the persons
claiming to be occupants have instituted
O.S.No.2873/2009 and 3124/2009 pending on the
file of the Learned City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH-
6) and CCH-16 respectively and have obtained
interim orders on 7-4-2009 and 16-05-2009
respectively, and therefore, it is not possible to hand
over the said premises. Accepting the statements
made in the application, and as advanced by their
learned Senior Counsel, the respondent Society
cannot hand over possession of Item No.2 in the
report dated 22/7/2009 of the Bangalore City
Corporation. In so far as Item No.5 is concerned,
apparently possession cannot be handed over as on
date in view of the interim orders passed by the Civil
106
Court.
Keeping in mind the nature of controversy
brought before Court in the form of public interest
litigation, the Civil Courts are directed to hear the
suits out of turn and dispose of the same in any
event, within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order. The application is
ordered accordingly.”
75. On 13/11/2009, the petitioner filed a memo
which reads thus:
“The petitioners/complaints in the above matter
seeks permission of this Hon’ble court to produce the
status of 404 sites formed in parks/CA areas i.e.
number of vacant sites available, number of sites
sold in violation of the interim order and sites in
which cancellation deeds were obtained by the
Society to purge contempt of Court as undertaken.”
Petitioner has also produced the list of 404 sites formed
in parks/CA areas on the basis of Plan submitted by the
Housing Society to BDA, Bangalore along with the
107
Memo filed.
76. Order dated 13/11/2009 reads thus:
“The memo dated 13-11-2009 filed by the
petitioners is taken on record.
The respondents to have their say over the said
memo.
The learned senior counsel for the respondent-
Society submitted that the Deed of Relinquishment
was executed on 16/10/2009 and lodged for
registration before the Sub-Registrar in compliance
with the order dated 9/10/2009. Sri.
K.V.Narasimhan learned counsel for the Bruhat
Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (for short BBMP)
submits that possession of the properties in terms of
the order dated 9/10/2009 is handed over and the
BBMP is presently in possession of the same and in
that regard prepared a mahazar dated 12/10/2009.
The copies of the Relinquishment Deed and the
mahazar enclosed to the memo filed by the Society is
taken on record.
The BBMP to have its say over fencing of
108
properties and plan of action over the development,
improvements and maintenance of the vacant spaces
on the next date of hearing as directed in order
dated 19/10/2009.
Sri.Subramanya Jois, learned senior counsel for
the Society, submits that in terms of the order dated
9/10/2009, notices have been issued to
unauthorised occupants of Item No.1 property,
reference to which is made in the order dated
9/10/2009 and action is taken to evict them. As
regards the vacant spaces, reference to which is
made in order dated 9/10/2009, the learned
counsel for the Society seeks time to have its say.
List on 15-01-2010.”
77. Order dated 22/01/2010 reads thus:
“The extent of land acquired by the State for the
beneficiary-Society is said to be physically surveyed
by the State and its functionaries at the time of
acquisition, as well as during the pendency of this
petition followed by a sketch prepared in that
regard. Though the Society has placed on record a
map showing the extent of land with boundaries,
109
acquired and handed over to the Society, we find a
need to identify the extents of areas kept vacant and
not utilised for any particular purpose. Thus the
necessity to secure an Aerial survey of the extent of
land acquired, which when superimposed with the
map provided by the respondent-society, would
disclose clarity over excess vacant land after
formation of sites. In that view of the matter, the
State Government, in association with the Bangalore
Development Authority, is directed to carry out an
Aerial survey and furnish a map of the extent of land
acquired for the beneficiary-Society and thereafter,
superimpose it with the map furnished by the
respondent-Society and submit a report. The
exercise, it is obvious, would take some time and in
that view of the matter, the counsel for the State and
BDA to have their say over the time required for such
exercise.
Learned Sr. Counsel for the Society seeks time to
have his say over the vacant spaces referred to in
the order dt.9/10/2009 on the next date of hearing.
List on 28.1.2010.
Let a copy of this order be made available to the
110
learned counsel for State and the BDA.”
78. Respondent-Society files a reply to the memo
dated 13/11/2009 of the petitioners where a detailed
report of vacant sites though allotted but not registered
in the names of the allottees are listed. Site used for
sinking a bore well; used by the National Highway
Authority for public purpose of NH 7, site for office
building of the society and site measuring 7200 sq.ft
handed over to the BBMP as civic amenity site are
mentioned. Sites where sale is cancelled by effecting a
cancellation deed and sites where rectification deeds
executed in view of mistakes later noticed are listed.
79. In the order dated 28/1/2010 the submission
of learned counsel for BBMP is recorded that action over
the 14 items of property is on the anvil, while BDA's
submission is that on an enquiry, the process by way of
aerial survey (Satellite Imagery) is a cumbersome
111
requiring the permission of the Ministry of Defence and
would take considerable time to carry out such survey
in respect of the land acquired for the Judicial Layout.
80. On 5/3/2010, the Society files an affidavit of
its president enclosing the map of the Layout
indicating:
a) The areas earmarked as civic amenities and open
spaces handed over to the Bruhat Bangalore
Mahanagara palike;
b) The area demarked as temple site;
c) Sites which were sold subsequent to the interim
orders including the site cancelled for purging the
contempt;
d) The sites which are said to be in dispute in civil
proceedings.
81. On 5/3/2010, the Court passed the following
order:
112
“The members of the Karnataka Judicial
Department Employees House Building Cooperative
Society, filed W.P.No.40994/2002, by way of a
Public Interest Litigation, calling in question the
action of the Society and its office bearers in forming
sites in the area earmarked for Temple and those for
civic amenities in the draft plan submitted to the
Bangalore Development Authority for approval of the
layout, known as “Judicial Layout”. This Court by
order dated 22.1.2003 directed the Society not to
change the character of the land described in IA-
I/2003 while recording the submission of the
learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the
society was in the process of forming sites in the
open space measuring 195’ x 200’ reserved for
temple. By order dt. 18.6.2003, the Society was
directed to submit a copy of the plan filed with the
Bangalore Development Authority and a list of
transfer of civil amenity sites and the 1st respondent
Bangalore Development Authority to submit a report,
while continuing the interim order dt. 22.1.2003, and
a further direction not to transfer any civic amenity
sites as shown in the plan submitted to Bangalore
Development Authority, until further orders.
113
The office bearers of the Society including
C.Shivalingaiah, the then President having conveyed
certain sites after the interim orders, contempt
proceedings were initiated in CCC.No.87/2004 in
which evidence both oral and documentary were
recorded, whence the plan of the Layout filed with
the Bangalore Development Authority was produced
and marked as Ex. P82A, disclosing the areas
earmarked for open spaces, civic amenities etc., in
the layout formed by the Society. In order to purge
the contempt, some of the sale deeds were cancelled
by execution of cancellation deeds before the Sub-
Registrar, Yelahanka.
In the Writ Petition, on the orders of this Court, a
joint inspection comprising of the Bangalore
Development Authority, one of the petitioners by
name Byra Reddy and the then Secretary of the
Society by name Suresh Kumar, was conducted at
the layout, on 4.2.2006 and a detailed report was
filed indicating that 404 (250 + 154) sites were
vacant or built up and that Site No.2118/A; 2118/B;
2118/C and 2118 being vacant were earmarked as
114
Park in the draft layout plan, submitted by the
Society to the Bangalore Development Authority for
approval.
On Vishakantegowda, s/o Nanjuna Gowda, filed
Misc.W.1277/10 in W.P.40994/02, to be impleaded
as a proper and necessary party to the proceedings,
on the premise that he was a bonafide purchaser for
value without notice of the proceedings, the site
No.2118/E formed in the Layout. It was alleged that
C.Shivalingaiah had issued a letter of allotment dt.
11.10.1999 of the said site in favour of a member by
name Smt.Vinoda, who on payment of the amounts
towards cost of site, the said C.Shivalingaiah
executed a sale deed dt. 10.2.2006, conveying the
said site and also a letter addressed to the Sub-
Registrar, Yelahanka to exempt him from
appearance, at the time of registration of the
conveyance. The Sub-Registrar by name
H.P.Ramanjaneya is said to have registered the sale
deed as Document No.13221/05-06. Thereafter the
said Vinoda, represented by her power of Attorney
Holder Smt.G.C.Prathiba Kumari is said to have
executed and lodged for registration the sale deed
conveying the said site, on 17.2.2006, in less than a
115
week of execution of the first deed. The purchaser
by name K.M.Somesh is said to have paid
Rs.60,05,000/- as against the allotment value of
Rs.1,59,000/- as recorded in the earlier alleged sale
deed. The impleading applicant claimed to have
purchased the same property under a registered sale
deed dt. 24.12.2009 for valuable consideration of
Rs.1,02,00,000/- of which Rs.80 lakhs is said to be
paid in cash in favour of K.M.Somesh.
In the objection statement filed by the Society
while denying the claims asserted by the applicant it
was contended that the Secretary Suresh Kumar
after the joint inspection, whence Site No.2118 was
shown to be civic amenity site in the layout plan,
connived with the Sub-Registrar, in manipulating the
records to have the same registered as if
C.Shivalingaiah had executed the Sale deed, and the
letter seeking exemption from appearance before the
Sub-Registrar. In addition it was contended that
there was no member by name Vinoda nor was a
site No.2118E allotted much less formed in the
layout of sites and that Suresh Kumar was the
father-in-law of K.M.Somesh. It was also contended
that during the year 2006 when illegalities
116
perpetuated by Suresh Kumar came to light a
complaint was lodged before the jurisdictional police,
who on investigation seized relevant material such
as rubber stamps, seals, documents, in addition to
the sale deed dt. 10.2.2006 registered as
Doc.13221/2005-06 and filed a charge sheet in
C.C.No.8971/2007 before the jurisdictional
Magistrate, indicting the said Suresh Kumar,
K.M.Somesh, Vinoda for offences punishable under
the Indian Penal Code.
Having noted the tenor of the statement of
objections and the execution and registration of the
sale deed dt. 13221/2005-06, dt. 10.2.2006, while
the interim orders were in force, this Court directed
the State Government - party respondent to secure
the presence of the Sub-Registrar by name
H.P.Ramanjaneya on the date of hearing.
Accordingly the said person is present before Court
and is represented by learned counsel on record and
Sri.S.P.Shankar, learned Senior Counsel.
To a question of the Court as to how the Sub-
Registrar registered the document of sale
dt.10.2.2006 conveying a portion of the civic amenity
site, and exempted the appearance of
117
C.Shivalingaiah, the then President of the Society,
the learned counsel submits that the letter seeking
exemption, was more than sufficient for the
satisfaction of the Sub-Registrar for the said purpose
under Section 39 of the Karnataka Co-operative
Societies Act. To yet another question as to whether
the Sub-Registrar was questioned in the
investigation into the complaint lodged against
Suresh Kumar and others over the fabrication of the
said documents, leading to registration of the Sale
deed, learned counsel submits that the said Sub-
Registrar was not questioned though he discharged
duties as such from June 2004 to August 2006 at
Yelahanka Sub-Registry.
In the surrounding circumstances, prima facie
there is material to show that the Sub-Registrar
H.P.Ramanjaneya, has committed contempt of Court,
and therefore initiate contempt proceedings and
issue show cause notice to H.P.Ramanjaneya, s/o
H.Pattabhiramaiah, aged 61 years, No.426, 8th
Main ‘D’ Block, Rajajinagar, II Stage, Bangalore-10,
asking him to show cause within ten days as to why
action should not be taken.
List on 15.3.2010.”
118
82. On 15/3/2010, Respondent-Society files an
affidavit dated 15/3/2010 of the President of the Society
enclosing a map depicting the layout formed in a total
extent of 181 acres 39 ¼ guntas (approximately 182
acres) of which 156 acres and 26¾ guntas of land is
subject matter of acquisition. It is stated in the affidavit
that areas are demarcated by different colours and
specifically set out in the index therein.
83. On 15/3/2010 the following order was
passed:
“Learned counsel for the 4th respondent-Society
files an affidavit dt.15.3.2010 of the President of the
Society enclosing a map depicting the layout formed
in a total extent of 181.39 ¼ (approximately 182
acres), of which 156 acres and 26 ¾ guntas of land
is subject matter of acquisition. It is stated in the
affidavit that areas are demarcated by different
colours and specifically set out in the index therein.
The affidavit is taken on record.
Having regard to the fact that in Subramania –vs-
119
Union of India (WP 35737/94 and connected
petitions), the Society had filed objection statement
indicating 2048 sites of different dimensions, as set
out therein, were formed in the acquired land, which
fact was accepted by a Co-ordinate Bench, as
animated in its judgment reported in ILR 1995 KAR
3139. Respondent No.4 is directed to file necessary
pleading in the matter of compliance with the said
statement vis-a-vis map enclosed to the affidavit. In
other words the Society to make a statement on oath
whether there is compliance with the aforesaid
statement made before the Co-ordinate Division
Bench of this Court and if not, the extent of
deviations.
The area demarcated in the Blue Colour
measuring 22,195 sq.ft earmarked by the Society for
construction of a temple, is stated to be inclusive of
9315 sq.ft of land handed over to the BBMP under
the relinquishment deed. The balance extent of land
not being part of the relinquishment deed, it is
incumbent on the part of the Society to execute a
relinquishment deed over the said balance extent of
land too.
The Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
120
(BBMP) to have its say over the rectification of the
proposed development Scheme in respect of Item
No.9 relating to the site meant for construction of
temple and to file necessary memo in that regard.
List on 19.3.2010 at 10.30 a.m.
Let a copy of this order be made available to the
learned counsel for the parties.”
84. Further on 19/32010 the following order was
passed:
“In partial compliance of the order dated
15.3.2010, the President of the 4th respondent-
Society files an affidavit dated 19.3.2010 stating
that physical verification reveals 1940 sites carved
out of 156 acres and 26 ¾ guntas of land as against
2048 mentioned in W.P.No.35837/2004 and
connected petitions. In addition, it is stated that
sites bearing Nos.1963, 1966 and 1979 to 1933
totaling to 19 are not in existence. It is further stated
that 310 sites are carved out of the land purchased
by the Society.
Sri. Subrmanya Jois, learned Senior counsel for
the 4th respondent-Society submits that allotment of
121
sites Nos.859 F and G together measuring 8000 sq.ft
marked in yellow colour with dots are cancelled and
the 4th respondent has no objection to make them
part of the site meant for temple coloured in purple,
in the plan annexed to the memo and affidavit dated
15.3.2010 and that the society is willing to execute
the relinquishment deed in respect of said two sites
measuring 8000 Sq.Ft., in favour of Bruhat
Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. According to the
learned Senior counsel, the total extent of land thus
earmarked for the temple is 22195 + 8000 Sq.Ft =
30195 Sq.Ft.
Sri.Byra Reddy, petitioner No.1 (a) and Sri.A .K.
Bhat, learned counsel representing petitioners 2, 6,
8, 10 to 14 submit that an extent of 30195 Sq.Ft. of
land left out for temple complex would be substantial
compliance with the extent of land meant for the
temple in the draft layout plan submitted by the 4th
Respondent for sanction to the Bangalore
Development Authority.
In the light of the fact that, two open spaces are
carved out in the Judicial layout for temple complex,
one being the aforesaid extent 30195 Sq.Ft., and the
122
other measuring 2400 Sq.Ft. (Muneswara Temple,
item No.7 as recorded in the spot inspection report
dated 12.10.2009 of the Bruhat Bangalore
Mahanagara Palike) being non other than item No.8
in the proposed plan of action of BBMP, handed over
to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, we
think it appropriate that there is substantial
compliance in regard to the land meant for temple in
the layout.
In that view of the matter, in partial modification
of the order dated 15.3.2010, the 4th respondent-
Society is directed to forthwith execute and register
the release and relinquishment deed of the balance
extent of land from out of 30195 Sq.Ft., excluding the
extent already relinquished (9315 Sq.Ft) in favour of
Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. It is made
clear that this extent of 30195 Sq.Ft., is to be put to
use for a temple complex including a community hall
as well as a park and the Bruhat Bangalore
Mahanagara Palike is directed to ensure the same in
its plan of action. The proposals for construction of
the Temple complex are subject to orders of this
court.
Thus the allottees of site numbers 859 C and D
123
are free to put up construction of residential building
on the said sites.
It is brought to our notice that in the joint
inspection report of the Bangalore Development
Authority it is observed that out of 404 sites there
exists building on 83 sites while others vacant,
which are cared out of sites earmarked for civic
amenity in the draft layout plan submitted to the
Bangalore Development Authority. It is submitted
that some of the allottees in violation of the interim
order have erected buildings without the permission
of the Court or sanction of building plan increasing
the total number of building from 83 to
approximately 90 to 95 buildings. It is further
submission that since the extent of land handed-over
to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike towards
open space, parks and civic amenity sites is
approximately 4.82% out of the total land use while
it is represents 5.49% of the total acquired land
measuring 156 acres and 26 ¾ guntas, the vacant
sites out of the 404 sites could be put to use for civic
amenities, parks and open space. This submission
certainly deserves consideration by of 4th
respondent – Society. Sri.Subramanya Jois, learned
124
Senior counsel submits that the Society would
endeavor to consider that submission and submit
their replies, if granted a reasonable time.
Sri.S.P.Shankar, learned Senior Counsel on
instructions from the counsel on record
Sri.R.P.Rajeshwar for H.P.Ramanjaneya to whom
the Registry had directed notice in compliance with
the orders of this court, though returned to the
Registry unserved, submits that said
H.P.Ramanjaneya is present before court as
identified by the instructing counsel, and is willing to
receive the notice. In that view of the matter, the
Registry is directed to serve the notice and its
enclosures on H.P.Ramanjaneya under
acknowledgement. Reply if any within four weeks.
If an application is made by H.P.Ramanjaneya
for issue of a certified copy of the order of this court,
taking suomoto cognizance of contempt, it is
needless to state that the Registry shall forthwith
issue the certified copy.
List the petition on 9th July 2010 for further
hearing.
125
Let the copy of this order be made available to
the learned counsel for the parties.”
85. In compliance with the detailed order dated
5/3/2010, the Sub-Registrar by name Sri
H.P.Ramanjaneya filed his counter affidavit dated
5/4/2010, the consideration of which was deferred. On
9/7/2010 the following order was passed:
“In compliance with the order dated 5-3-2010, the
Sub-Registrar by name H.P.Ramanjaneya has filed
his counter affidavit dated 5-4-2010. The
consideration of the averments stated in the affidavit
is deferred. The Sub-Registrar’s presence is
dispensed with until further orders.
There is a larger question that needs to be
addressed. The pernicious practice in Sub-
Registrar’s office, which over decades, has turned
into tradition and in respect of which, the State
Government is fully aware, has failed to take steps
to stem the rot. Therefore, we request the learned
Members of the Bar to address the question, explore
the possibilities to get over the difficulties
126
encountered by every citizen in the Sub-Registrar’s
Office so as to stream line the business transacted
therein to make it more transparent. The State
Counsel is directed to take necessary instructions
from the authorities concerned.
Sri.S.Shekar Shetty, learned counsel for the
impleading applicants, submits that copies of the
application could not be served on the petitioners
since the learned counsel for the petitioners had
declined to accept the same having retired from the
case. One Sri.Byrareddy, one of the petitioners who
was present before the Court, accepts the copy of the
application. For objections over
Misc.W.No.5846/2010 and Misc.W.No.5847/2010,
call on 16-7-2010.
List on 16-7-2010.”
127
86. On 24/9/2010, BBMP files a memo along
with action report over the fixing of barbed wire fencing
encompassing the civic amenities and open spaces
relinquished in its favour by the Society.
87. The following order was passed on 4/2/2011:
“Sri.K.V.Narasimhan, learned counsel for the
BBMP submits that the BBMP has calked out a plan
of developmental activities providing necessary
infrastructure in the areas reserved for amenities
and would soon be translated into benefits for the
residents.
It is hoped that the BBMP would take up action
on a war-footing and place material before Court
over the action taken.
It is a matter of fact that the layout is not
provided with a sewage treatment plant and
therefore, the State Government to have its say over
providing the treatment plant at the earliest, having
regard to the fact that if sewage remains untreated,
it would cause serious health hazard as well as
pollution to the environment.
128
List on 25.02.2011.”
88. On 25/2/2011, BBMP filed a memo enclosing
a letter dated 25/2/2011 relating to the works carried
out by the BBMP and copies of the photographs.
89. Misc.W. 4181/2010 was filed to implead the
legal heirs of one Marappa who was the owner of Site
No.759/D and the application was allowed vide order
dated 24.6.2011 and the applicants were permitted to
come on record as Respondents 5 to 16.
90. On 30/7/2011, R-5 to R-16 filed their
statement of objections stating that they are the legal
heirs of Late Marappa and Late Lakshmamma, the
absolute owners of agricultural lands in Sy.No.12/2C,
measuring 0-22 Guntas and Sy.No.12/4B, measuring 0-
22 Guntas, situated at Allalasandra village, Yelahanka
Hobli, Bangalore, who offered to sell the land to the
Society for Rs.80,000/- per acre and received an
129
advance of Rs.50,000/- on 30/01/1985, as the sale
consideration was not paid, late Marappa and Late
Lakshmamma objected for interference. According to
the Legal representatives, O.S.NO.4361/2000 was filed
by the Society, to execute registered Sale deed in their
favour, which was settled by intervention of elders and
well wishers and compromise memo filed and decree
passed on 9/7/2003 ANNEXURE –“R-1” TO “R-3”. It is
stated that after obtaining the decree, application was
filed before the Municipal Commissioner, Town
Municipality, Yelahanka for change of khatha whence
an endorsement was issued ANNEXURE R-5 to furnish
the approved layout plan. Legal notice was issued on
9/11/2001, to withdraw the endorsement, which the
Municipal Commissioner, it is said did not comply,
hence W.P.5152/2002 was filed which was disposed of
on 9/7/2003 directing the Municipal Commissioner to
effect the Khata without insisting on layout plan
ANNEXURE-“R-4”.
130
91. It was further stated that after BBMP took
possession of the entire area, application was filed to
effect change of Khata but BBMP issued an
endorsement ANNEXURE-“R-6” stating the khata could
not be given effect as it was identified as CA site. As the
Society was trying to dispose of the site,
O.S.No.894/2010 was filed ANNEXURE-“R-7”.
92. Written arguments of petitioner No. f, h, j, k,
l, m and n (6, 8, 10 to 14) was filed on 12/2011 while
written submissions and citations of other petitioners
was filed on 30/12/2011 following which reply
submissions of the Respondent-Society was filed on
12/01/2012.
93. On 27/7/2012 the following order was
passed:
“ORDER ON IA.12/2011
Sri.Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel for
the Society, submits that reasonable time be
extended for compliance with the order dated
131
11.11.2011 as the Society is in the process of
making a search in the layout for a vacant site to be
made available to a member, by name
Mr.R.M.Nagarajaiah, an allottee of a site falling in
the 404 sites mentioned in the BDA report.
In the circumstances, we think it appropriate to
extend eight weeks time from today. The application
is ordered accordingly.
The land acquired for formation of the layout
measures 156 acres 26 ¾ guntas. The unacquired
land being revenue pockets inside the layout
measures 25 acres 12 ½ guntas. The total extent of
land forming the layout is 181 acres 39 ¼ guntas as
described in the map enclosed to the memo dated
21/4/2012 for the fourth respondent-Society. In the
abstract to the map, as against 156 acres 26 and ¾
guntas, the percentages of areas utilized for
formation of sites, civic amenity with parks and
roads are furnished as 61.64% cents, 5.49% cents
and 32.87% cents, respectively.
The application for sanction of a layout plan in
the year 1992 filed by the fourth respondent-Society
was for an extent of 156 acres and 26 ¾ guntas, by
132
permitting the utilization of 65% of the area for sites,
and the balance of 35% towards civic amenity area,
parks and roads. The BDA having considered the
said representation and the plan resolved to approve
the plan subject to conditions as set out in Ex.P.83A
(CCC No.87/2004). PW-2 the Town Planning Officer,
by name Mahendra examined on 13/7/2007 in CCC
No.87/2004 testified that the requirement for
approval/sanction of a layout plan was 50%
towards sital area; 15% towards parks and open
spaces and 35% towards roads and civic amenities.
What is not forthcoming is the requirement of the
percentages contained either in a rule or a circular
issued by the Government or regulation.
In that view of the matter, the BDA to furnish
material in that regard, while it is also open to the
petitioners and the fourth respondent-Society to
place such material on record, more so, since the
fourth respondent asserts that it was entitled to a
sanction for utilizing 65% of the area for sites, as has
been extended to similar such societies.
There is no dispute that the civic amenities and
parks mentioned in the layout plan submitted by the
fourth respondent during the year 1992 for approval
133
by the BDA are not at the same location, at site, but
are at other locations in the layout since released
and relinquished in favour of Bruhat Bangalore
Mahanagara Palike, as demarcated and described in
the sketch appended to the memo dated 21/4/2012.
In order to ascertain the correctness of the
measurements and percentages of the areas utilized
for civic amenities, parks, open spaces and roads as
reflected in the said map, the Bruhat Bangalore
Mahanagara Palike to conduct a spot inspection and
record measurements in the presence of anyone of
the petitioners and anyone of the officer bearers of
the fourth respondent-Society, and submit a report in
that regard. The fourth respondent-Society to make
available copies of the ketch noticed supra to the
learned counsel for the petitioners and the Bruhat
Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. The aforesaid parties
to assemble at 11.00 a.m on 10/8/2012 at the office
of the fourth respondent-Society in the layout without
further notice.
List on 24.8.2012.”
94. In compliance with the order dated
27/7/2012, the respondent-BBMP filed a report along
134
with enclosures on 24/8/2012, with the abstract of the
percentage of utilization of land for formation of layout
in respect of 181 acres and 39.25 guntas (including
unacquired land), disclosing shortfall of 20.20% in CA,
parks and open spaces and excess of 4.42% against
roads and 15.78% towards sites.
95. BDA filed a memo enclosing a photocopy of
the notification dated 12/10/1984 along with the Zonal
Regulations approved under the Comprehensive
Development Plan, in compliance with the order dated
27/7/2012.
96. The Society, filed a memo enclosing the
sketch prepared by a private surveyor, in respect of 156
acres 26.75 guntas of land and its utilization both in
percentages and areas in sq.mtrs and sq.ft. According
to the Society, 60.13% constitutes residential area;
5.53% is relinquished in favour of BBMP; and roads
including roads in un-acquired land constitute 34.34%.
135
The enclosures include photocopies of order passed by
the BDA imposing penalty in respect of areas excess
utilized for sites in a layout formed by MPM Housing
Society and regularizing the layout.
97. The Society presented a memo dated
31.8.2012 enclosing a map of layout Annexure-R4(G)
signed by the Deputy Commissioner, Senior
Superintendent of Land Records and countersigned by
the Tahasildar, Bangalore North Taluk, indicating that
an extent of 154 acres 11¾ gunta is acquired, while 28
acres 6¼ guntas is the unacquired portion, totalling to
182 acres and 18 guntas, and that an extent of 2 acres
15 guntas, is in unauthorised occupation while 7 acres
11 guntas is said to be unutilized by the Society. Also
enclosed to the memo is a photocopy of a portion of the
Zoning Regulations of the year 2015 providing
prescription of 55% of sital area; 15% of civic amenities
and parks, in a layout, and exemption to be accorded in
136
the event of short fall in the CA site area. The order
dated 31.8.2012 reads thus:
“Respondent No.4-Society files a memo enclosing
two maps as Annexures-R4(G) and R-4(K), as well as
photocopy of Chapter VI of Zoning Regulations of the
Master Plan 2015 and a list Annexure-R4(J)
containing the names, site numbers and dimensions
of the sites allotted to the land owner by name
Subbaiah, since deceased s/o Pillappa.
Learned Sr.counsel for the 4th respondent
submits that from out of 156 acres 26 ¾ guntas of
land acquired, an extent of 16,880 sq.ft equivalent to
15 ½ guntas is acquired by the National Highway
Authorities for the expansion of NH-7 road as
described in ANNEXURE-“R-4(K)” map. Learned
counsel further points to Map ANNEXURE-“R-4(G)”
and more particularly to the area marked as Ex.1 to
Ex.8 said to be extra sites allotted to late Subbaiah’s
family on the assurance that it would be utilised for
construction of a choultry which is said to be vacant
and unutilised. According to the 4th respondent, the
total area of the sites marks in Ex.1 to Ex.8 works
out to 33,427 sq.ft including the road portion
137
excluding the road portion is 33,227 sq.ft.
Learned Sr.counsel further submits that sites
bearing Nos.2119-2114 totally measuring 16,575
sq.ft, located adjacent to the land measuring 16,896
sq.ft marked as ANNEXURE –“R-4(G)”, handed over
to the BBMP, the 4th respondent-Society is willing to
utilise the same to make good the shortfall in the
civic amenity areas. 4th respondent-Society as well
as petitioners are at liberty to place on record such of
those sites found to be vacant and forming part of
404 sites as also vacant land remaining unutilised,
so as to utilise the same to reduce the shortfall in the
civic amenity areas.
Having heard the learned Sr.counsel, we think it
appropriate to direct the respondent-BBMP to take
measurements of the extents of land noticed supra
and as indicated in the plan ANNEXURE-“R-4(G)”
and submit a report, for further orders.
List on 6.9.2012.
Let a copy of this order be made available to the
learned counsel for the BBMP.”
138
98. On 6/9/2012, Sri.G.Papi Reddy, learned
Advocate for some of the representatives of the
petitioner-Association files a reply to the memo dated
31/8/2012 of the society stating that the area marked
as ANNEXURE-“R-4(G)(B)” measuring 16,896 sq.ft is in
the possession of the BBMP, hence cannot be construed
as yet another CA site that could be handed over to the
BBMP. As regards sites marked as Ex.1 to Ex.8, it is
stated that they are transferred in favour of member of
Subbaiah’s family under separate registered sale deeds
hence unavailable, though some of the sites have not
been utilized for construction of a choultry.
99. Society files a memo containing the details of
the sites which Sri.Byra Reddy has made mention of in
the list of 404 sites, and the version of the Society with
reference to the list are as follows:
a) Sites/Property already handed over to BBMP
b) Sites which have been proposed to be handed over
139
to the BBMP
c) Sites which have been allotted to the Members of
the society wherein registered deeds of conveyance
have not been executed in favour of any of them in
view of the interim directions issued by this Court.
d) Sites/properties in respect of which civil disputes
and disputes before the authority/department
have been pending between the society and the
respective persons concerned.
e) Properties which have been settled in favour of the
former land owners with whom Compromise has
been entered into by the society for enabling
smooth completion of the Layout.
f) Sites which having been registered posterior to the
interim order passed in the aforementioned writ
petition and later cancelled though unilaterally.
g) Deeds of rectification executed by the society –
sites having been registered in favour of the
respective members earlier to the interim order,
140
but have cancelled with their consent, for purging
the contempt attributed to R-4.
h) Sites which have been registered, posterior to the
interim order, respecting which no remedial action
to retrace the steps trodden by the Society have
been taken till date.
i) Sites which are lying vacant in the layout, details
of the utilization thereof and particulars as to
whether the same have or have not been allotted
to any member/s are not immediately traceable
from the record of the society.
j) Site No.2106 which is once registered on
29/9/2001 in favour of a member and same
registered on 23/01/2001 in favour of different
party.
k) Site No.2007 which is registered before the interim
order.
l) Sites where rectification deeds have been executed
by the society, after the interim order
141
m) Site No.362/18 which does not at all exist in the
layout.
100. A detail order is passed on 6/9/2012 reads
thus:
“In compliance with the order dated
31.08.2012, the respondent-Bruhat Bangalore
Mahanagara Palike has filed a report enclosing a
statement showing percentage of the land utilized for
roads in the Judicial Layout; area statement of roads
in unacquired land of Judicial Layout; statement
showing details of sites of Judicial Layout as per
Annexure R-4(J) to the memo filed by the respondent
No.4 Society on 31.8.2012; statement showing
details of two vacant sites of Judicial Layout
together measuring 16575 sq.ft. identified as
Annexures-R4(G)(A) and R4(G)(B) in the map
Annexure-R4(G); as also a copy of the memo dated
31.8.2012 and the plan annexed thereto.
According to the learned counsel for the Bruhat
Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, the area measuring
16575 sq.ft. marked as Annexures-R4(G)(A) and (B)
142
have been check measured and being vacant sites
could be handed over to the Bruhat Bangalore
Mahanagara Palike as civic amenity sites. As
regards the vacant areas marked Ex.1 to Ex.8 in the
map Annexure-R4(G), it is submitted that they form
part of the 42 number of sites indicated in the
statement Annexure-R4(J), allotted to some persons
and that if that is made available, the Corporation
would be willing to put them to use as a compact
civic amenity site. Learned counsel hastens to add
that a check measurement of that area too was
conducted and measurements are disclosed in the
Annexure-3 to the report.
Sri.G.Papi Reddy, learned Advocate for some of
the petitioners, files a reply to the memo dated
31.8.2012 of the fourth respondent stating that the
area marked as Annexure- R4(G)(B) measuring
16,896 sq.ft. is in the possession of the Bruhat
Bangalore Mahanagara Palike hence cannot be
construed as yet another CA site that could be
handed over to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara
Palike. As regards sites marked as Ex.1 to Ex.8, it is
stated that they are transferred in favour of
members of Subbaiah’s family under separate
143
registered sale deeds hence unavailable, though
some of the sites have not been utilized for
construction of a choultry. In that view of the matter,
it is stated that the fourth respondent Society cannot
seek appropriate directions of this Court to consider
the said sites for the purpose of reducing the
shortfall in the civic amenity area.
As regards the claim of the fourth respondent
that 15½ guntas of land in Sy.No.4 of Jakkur
Plantation was acquired by the National Highway
Authority, it is stated, is not correct and the area
utilized by the National Highway Authority is not
more than 1000 sq. ft. and that out of 1 acre 15
guntas, a portion of it remains unutilized and is in
the possession and control of the Society which is
undisclosed with an intention to alienate the same to
private parties.
In paragraph No.6, it is stated that out of 2 acres
of land in Sy.No.4 of Jakkur Plantation, the fourth
respondent -Society has in its possession 1 acre 14
guntas while 20 guntas is utilized for the road while
another portion measuring 900 sq. ft. for the National
Highway.
144
In paragraph No.8, it is stated that the land
measuring 37 guntas in Sy.No.94/3 of Allalasandra
village acquired by the fourth respondent -Society of
which restoration was sought by the owners of the
said land was dismissed by an order of this Court
with a direction to take possession, despite which
the Society has done nothing though has lawful
authority to take over the land. This piece of land, it
is stated, is not disclosed in the memo filed by the
fourth respondent -Society on 31.8.2012. According
to the petitioners, 37 guntas of land could be taken
into consideration to reduce the deficit in the civic
amenity area.
In paragraph No.9, it is stated that out of 404
sites, 35 sites are vacant, available since not allotted
nor any transactions taken place, out of which 14
sites are relinquished and handed over to the Bruhat
Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, and the remaining 21
sites are not handed over. It is stated that 369 sites
out of 404 sites are in the area earmarked for civic
amenity and parks. The petitioners further state that
in the contempt proceeding the fourth respondent -
Society has extended an undertaking that it would
cancel the transfer of 40 sites in view of the interim
145
order while as a matter of fact what is done is
cancellation of sale-deeds in respect of 22 sites while
18 sites remain as such.
At paragraph No.10 of the reply it is stated, a
sketch of the layout covering an area of 156 acres
26.75 guntas of land is annexed with markings in
red and green colours, while the area marked in the
green colour is handed over to the Bruhat Bangalore
Mahanagara Palike the red colour is required to be
handed over to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara
Palike, earmarked as civic amenity sites and parks.
At paragraph 11, it is stated that the Society has
handed over a burial ground measuring 30 guntas to
the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike which has
been in existence for a long time used by the
villagers wherein tombs exist and the land cannot be
utilized either for civic amenity purpose or park and
therefore cannot be taken into consideration to
reduce the shortfall.
At paragraph No.12, it is stated that a sarkari
halla or kharab land exists at the extreme west of
the layout meant for the flow of rain and drain water
146
over which the City Municipal Council, Yelahanka,
constructed a storm water drain. Apart from the said
drain, an area measuring 6 guntas is utilized for
burial ground by the residents of Chikka
Bommasandra and the total area of sarkari halla
measuring about 1 acre 26 ½ guntas is handed over
to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike by the
fourth respondent Society as a civic amenity site.
According to the petitioners, sarkari halla was not
acquired by the fourth respondent Society and
therefore, cannot be included as a civic amenity
area. Petitioners assert that the shortfall shown in
the report submitted by the Bruhat Bangalore
Mahanagara Palike, over land utilization in the
judicial layout is to be reckoned over 182 acres
instead of 156 acres.
.
Sri.Papi Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioners, reiterates that if the undisclosed areas
by the fourth respondent -Society are taken into
consideration, they could reduce the shortfall in the
extent of civic amenity site. It is further submitted
that if the sites which were transferred after the
interim order passed and subject matter of contempt
proceeding are restored, they could be put to use as
147
civic amenity area.
Sri.Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel for
the fourth respondent -Society files a memo
disclosing the details of utilization of 75 sites from
out of 404 sites pointed out by Sri.Byrareddy.
Learned Senior counsel submits that at Sl.No.II, the
sites allotted to the family of Subbaiah and more
appropriately marked as Ex.1 to Ex.8 in the map
Annexure-R4(G) are unavailable since allotted and
the parties have entered into a compromise in a
proceeding before the Registrar of Co-operative
Societies. Though the learned Senior Counsel
submits that the sites in excess of 34 sites allotted to
Subbaiah’s family was with the condition that the
excess sites would be put to use for construction of a
choultry a public purpose, and in breach are entitled
to take necessary action in accordance with law,
may do so if law permits since an answer to that
dispute is extraneous to this proceeding. It is also
submitted that in the proceeding of the meeting held
in the committee room under the chairmanship of the
Chief Minister on 20.7.1987, it was decided that the
Co-operative House Societies in Bangalore be
permitted to form layout of sites of maximum
148
dimension 50’ x 80’ and minimum dimension of 30’ x
50’ keeping in view the actual requirements of their
members. According to the learned Senior Counsel
the fourth respondent -Society, by representation
dated 20.8.1987, sought formation of sites
measuring 60’ x 90’; 80’ x 120’ and 100’ x 150’ in
view of large number of applications. The copies of
the proceedings of the meeting and the application
are enclosed to the memo which are taken on record.
Learned Senior Counsel further submits that
regard being had to the reply statement filed by the
petitioners through their counsel Sri.G.Papi Reddy,
further efforts would be made to locate the areas
which could be put to use for civic amenity so as to
make good the shortfall and place the same before
Court on the next date of hearing.
List on 21.09.2012.”
101. On 21/9/2012, court passed the following
order:
“Learned counsel for the Society submits that
effort would be made to ensure reduction of the
149
shortfall in areas meant for open spaces, civic
amenities, etc.,
Sri.K.V.Narasimhan, learned counsel for BBMP is
directed to furnish a list of sites together with PID
numbers and their location on the map which have
been subjected to corporation taxes.
List on 5/10/2012.”
102. The order dated 5/10/2012 reads thus:
“The fourth respondent files a memo dated
5.10.2012 stating that noticing the vacant sites and
properties that could be handed over to the BBMP in
continuation of the memo dated 31.8.2012 enclosing
sketch of the area, followed by the order dated
21/9/2012 recording that the Society would make
efforts to ensure reduction of the shortfall in the
areas meant for civic amenities, open spaces etc., a
tabular statement appended as APPENDIX-I is
enclosed.
Item No.I in Appendix-I contains the particulars of
six vacant sites and as indicated as R-4(G)(A) in the
map R-4(G) annexed to the memo dated 31/8/2012,
measuring 16,500 sq.ft., is adjacent to the civic
150
amenity sites identified as R-4(G)(B) in the said map.
The Society is willing to hand over the same to the
BBMP if so ordered by the Court. The road
measuring 42,600 sq.ft adjacent to the said sites is
said to be the only approach road to the layout and
in which Railway authorities are constructing a
‘Magic Box’.
Learned Senior Counsel for the fourth
Respondent – Society submits that site No.2119 at
Sl.No.1 in Item No.I measures 2625 sq.ft., though
allotted to one Nagarajaiah.R.M, the Society is
agreeable to allot a site carved out of the land
bearing Sy.No.94/3 of Allalasandra village in
exchange for the said site, as requested by the
allottee.
Sl.No.2 bearing site No.2120 allotted to one
Anitha.B, measuring 2675 sq.ft; Sl.No.3 bearing site
No.2121 allotted in favour of Chandregowda.G, is
said to measure 2725 sq.ft “the allotment made in
his favour undeniably posterior to the interim order,
the cancellation thereof has not been affected till
date”(corrected vide court order dated 7/12/2012
for being spoken to); Sl.No.4 bearing site no.2122
allotted in favour of Prema.S, measuring 2775 sq.ft;
Sl.No.5 bearing site No.2123 allotted in favour of
151
Vasanthakumar.B.A. and measuring 2825 sq.ft,
since allotted post the interim order followed by
registration have since been cancelled unilaterally,
while in respect of site allotted to
Vasanthakumar.B.A., the Society has instituted a
suit for declaration and cancellation of the registered
sale-deed on the premise that the said person is
neither a member nor has made payment towards
the sale consideration, according to the learned
Senior Counsel. It is stated that Sl.No.6 bearing site
No.2124 measuring 2875 sq.ft is vacant and
unencumbered.
In the light of the fact that allotment and
registration of certain sites belonging to the Society
made post the interim order have since been
cancelled in order to purge the contempt, it is
needless to state that these sites found to be vacant
belonging to the Society offered to be put to use as
civic amenity sites, we find no impediment to direct
the fourth respondent -Society to release and
relinquish the said sites in favour of the Bruhat
Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. While we are
conscious of the fact that there has been unilateral
cancellation of the sites as also registration of the
sites, keeping in mind the blatant violation of the
152
interim order, we think it appropriate to accept such
unilateral cancellation in order to purge the contempt
as just and proper.
The fourth respondent -Society is directed to
execute and lodge for registration the release and
relinquishment deed in favour of Bangalore
Mahanagara Palike, in respect of the aforesaid sites,
as civic amenity sites, within a month from today.
Though Sri.Subramanya Jois, learned Senior
Counsel for the fourth respondent, points to Item
No.II to the Appendix No.I to submit that 11 items of
properties being sites in the layout totally
admeasuring 28,803.25 sq.ft., are subject matter of
civil suits pending before the Courts at the instance
of the Society on the premise that none of the
allottees are members of the Society and Society has
not received any payment towards sale
consideration, to contend that the sites are also
offered so as to make good the shortfall in the civic
amenity areas, is unacceptable at this stage. We say
so because civil suits are pending and their final
outcome may not be in the near future unless
directions are issued by this Court for speedy
153
disposal of the said suits. Even otherwise, as on
today, we find that these properties are not
appropriate for being handed over to the Bruhat
Bangalore Mahanagara Palike towards reducing the
shortfall in the civic amenity area. We think it
appropriate to direct the Civil Court seized of these
suits to conclude the proceedings at the earliest and
not beyond 15.12.2012.
As regards Item No.III, it is stated that there are
eight sites and roads in between totally
admeasuring 39,587.62 sq.ft., allotted in violation of
the bye-laws and that some of the sites are within
the 404 sites identified by the Bangalore
Development Authority in its report as falling within
the civic amenity areas. The note to the said item
states that eight sites are allotted to the erstwhile
landlords family and that pursuant to the order
dated 6.9.2012 in this petition, remedial action
would be taken by the Society. Learned Senior
Counsel hastens to add that the fourth respondent -
Society has entered into a compromise with the
parties who actively prosecuted the proceedings
before the Additional Registrar of Co-operative
Society, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, in a dispute
154
under section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative
Societies Act. Without adverting to the merit or
demerit of the compromise entered into between the
parties, while being conscious of the fact that the
question as to whether the landlords could be
termed as associated members of the Society, a
question pending consideration in the connected writ
petition, we think it appropriate to defer considering
whether these sites could be handed over to the
Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike towards
shortfall in the civic amenity sites.
Item No.IV, without a nomenclature is said to
consist of 22 sites with two roads admeasuring
52,882.06 sq.ft., located adjacent and abutting the
properties relinquished in favour of the Bruhat
Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. The allottees of sites
at Sl.Nos.7 to 13 and 15, it is stated, are required to
be rehabilitated by providing alternate sites in III
Phase in Hejjala or alternatively, reimbursed and
compensated monetarily. Sites at Sl.Nos.1 to 3, 5, 14
and 21 are said to be vacant while sites at Sl.Nos.4,
6, 16 to 19 and 22 were allotted post the interim
order are subject matter of cancellation unilaterally.
In respect of site No.20 allotted to one
155
R.M.Nagarajaiah, it is stated that an alternative site
would be allotted in the land bearing Sy.No.94/3 of
Allalasandra village as has been requested by the
allottee. The learned Senior Counsel submits that all
the 22 sites form part of 404 sites identified by the
Bangalore Development Authority in its report as
falling in the civic amenity area.
Item No.5 with the nomenclature Sites registered
posterior to the interim order consists of ten sites
totally admeasuring 16,731.81 sq.ft., said to be
registered after the interim order and cancelled with
consent or unilaterally except for three sites at
Sl.Nos.1, 2 and 5. Learned Senior Counsel submits
that in respect of Sl.Nos.1, 2 and 5, action would be
initiated to cancel the registration in order to purge
the contempt. The note in the said Item No.V states
that a vacant land measuring 3600 sq.ft., lies in
between site No.1 (Temple site) and the water tank.
Learned Senior Counsel submits that the Society is
agreeable to hand over this portion of the site to the
Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike to reduce the
shortfall in the civic amenity area.
156
The aforesaid sites at Sl.Nos.1 to 10 are spread
out in different places in the layout and not at one
place and therefore, the utility of each one of these
sites for civic amenities or open spaces would be
considered at an appropriate stage.
We direct the fourth respondent to execute and
lodge for registration a release and relinquishment
deed of the land measuring 3600 sq.ft., lying in
between site No.1 Temple site and the Water Tank in
favour of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
within a month from today.
The fourth respondent -Society files a memo
dated 5.10.2012 enclosing an index with copies of
nine documents relating to certain orders passed by
the State Government; resolution of the Bruhat
Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and a copy of the
order dated 16-11-2010 in W.P.No.18496/2007 and
connected petitions of a coordinate Division Bench.
Learned Senior Counsel, while pointing to the said
documents, submits that though they cannot be
construed as valid precedents nevertheless throw
some light over methodology that was the adopted
by the State and its functionaries in a matter of
157
resolving the controversy of a like nature disposed
off by this Court and in respect of other Societies
plagued with the very same issues over utilization of
large extents of land meant for civic amenities, open
spaces and public purpose. The same is taken on
record.
List on 18.1.2013.”
103. Society on 11/01/2013 filed a memo a/w IA
1/13 for deletion of site No.670/H in the statement filed
vide statement No.V at Sl.No.1 and the same was
allowed vide order dated 11/01/2013 which reads thus:
“ORDER ON I.A.NO.1/2013 AND MEMO DATED
11.1.2013
This application is by the fourth respondent-
Society to delete site No.670/H shown at Sl.No.1 in
the statement No.V accompanying the memo dated
5.10.2012. It is stated that one M.R.Rangaswamy, a
Member of the Society, when allotted site No.670/H
a conveyance deed was presented for registration on
22.3.2002, whence, the Sub-Registrar impounded
the document under section 45-A of the Karnataka
Stamp Act and thereafter released the document on
158
31.10.2004 as indicated in the copy of the registered
instrument enclosed to the memo dated 11.1.2013.
The conveyance of the said property being prior to
the interim order dated 18.6.2003 the inadvertent
mistake in item No.1 of statement No.V needs to be
deleted.
In the light of the submissions of the learned
Senior Counsel being a reiteration of the statements
in the application and the memo and having perused
the copy of the conveyance deed, we think it
appropriate to allow I.A.No.1/2013 and the memo.
Item No.1 in statement No.V in respect of site
No.670/H stands deleted.”
104. Further Court order dated 11/01/2013
reads thus:
“Although the fourth respondent-Society has
furnished the names of the allottees of the 404 sites
which are in the list of Bangalore Development
Authority as sites falling within the area earmarked
for the civic amenity, we direct the fourth respondent
to furnish all material particulars of each of the
allotees including as to whether they are member
159
employees of the Judicial department, presently
employed or since retired and the particulars of their
membership and if not such employees relationship
with any of the office bearers of the Society, past or
present and the particulars of their membership.”
105. The Society filed the following three memos
on 8/3/2013:
1) “MEMO OF COMPLIANCE OF THE ORDER DATED
11.1.2013 REGARDING EXECUTION OF A
RELEASE AND RELINQUISHMENT DEED:
i. The 4th respondent hereby reports the
due compliance of the undertaking
furnished to this Hon’ble Court on its
behalf of its learned Senior Counsel as
regards the execution of
Release/Relinquishment Deed a copy of
the said registered relinquishment deed
dated 1.32013 is enclosed to this
memo, with a respectful prayer that this
Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to
take the same on record.
ii. It is submitted accordingly.”
2) “MEMO:
i. The 4th Respondent herewith produced
160
a copy of Deed of Exchange of
immovable property dt.1/3/2013 in the
above petition for kind perusal of this
Hon’ble Court.”
3) “MEMO FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT:
i. In compliance of the order dated the
11th January 2013, passed in the
aforementioned writ petition, the 4th
respondent-Society files herewith a
Tabular Statement containing all the
available material particulars in respect
of each of the allottees of the 404 sites
referred in the said order of this Hon’ble
Court, the said Tabular Statement
containing interalia the description of
the membership of the site owners
concerned. The same may kindly be
ordered to be taken on record.
ii. As seen from the said Tabular
Statement some amongst the site
owners named therein were/are not
employed in the Judicial Department or
in the office of the Hon’ble High Court of
161
Karnataka. Even though the 4th
respondent has sincerely tried to
ascertain the relationship of any of such
members, with any of the office bearers
of the Society-past or present it is
deeply regretted that the said
information has not been able to be
obtained by the Society, despite sincere
efforts as to whether the said site-
owners are or were employees of the
Judicial Department or of the Hon’ble
High Court of Karnataka.
iii. It is submitted accordingly.”
106. On 8/3/2003 the following order was
passed:
“Learned counsel for the 4th respondent-Society
files three memos of even date 8.3.2013, the first of
which relates to compliance with the direction to
execute release/relinquishment deed in favour of the
BBMP in respect of site Nos.670/7 measuring 1200
sq.ft; Site No.2119 measuring 2625 sq.ft; site
No.2120 measuring 2675 sq.ft; site No.2122
162
measuring 2725 sq.ft; and site No.2124 measuring
2875 sq.ft. The second of the memo is in relation to
the exchange deed executed by R.M.Nagarajaiah,
the member of the 4th respondent by which site
bearing No.1 measuring 2806 sq.ft. is conveyed.
Learned Sr.Counsel for the 4th respondent submits
that the member is entitled to yet another site
measuring about 1200 sq.ft which the 4th
respondent would identify and also execute a
conveyance deed. The third memo is enclosed with a
list of names, addresses, membership, site Numbers,
dimensions and remarks of allottees of sites.
According to the learned Sr.Counsel the use of the
word ‘sadasyaru’ would take into fold members who
are employees of the Judicial Department while
‘Sahasadasyarau’ are with reference to associate
members. The list, it is said, pertains to 404 sites
which the BDA in its report stated fall within the
area earmarked as civic amenities. Learned
Sr.counsel hastens to add that the direction to
furnish the relationship of the allottees with the
employees/member office bearers of the 4th
respondent-Society, despite efforts could not be
ascertained and that the 4th respondent would
make further sincere efforts in that regard.
163
The memos are taken on record. 4th respondent
to ensure copies of the memos and enclosures are
made available to the petitioners and their counsel
and also counsel representing other parties.
Regard being had to the fact that BDA in its
report having made reference to 404 sites falling
within the civic amenity area coupled with the
remarks as are mentioned in the enclosure to the
memo dt. 8.3.2013 furnishing material particulars of
the allottees, more appropriately over the pendency
of the suits for cancellation of the deeds of sale
conveying sites executed posterior to the interim
orders, and in order to ascertain the extent of land
that could be retrieved as civic amenities in that
area, the 4th respondent would have to make
necessary enquiries and place before Court a report
as to how many of the sites could be put together to
constitute a composite block to be put to use for a
civic amenity site so as to reduce the shortfall in civic
amenity area to be provided in the layout.
Learned Sr.counsel further submits that efforts
would be made to lay before court detailed
particulars of the 2238 number of sites in the layout
164
including the areas earmarked for civic amenity
areas which are in the unacquired lands and since
allotted as civic amenity areas.
ORDER ON IA-III/12 There is no representation for the applicant. Application rejected.
ORDER ON IA-IV/13
In view of the endorsement on IA No.IV/13 by the
learned counsel for the applicant stating that he
does not press the application, the same is
accordingly dismissed as not pressed.
ORDER ON IA-II/12
Although office objections raised on the application
are not complied with nevertheless having had a
glimpse at the application the relief to grant
permission to construct a residential house in
property bearing Site No.2113, III Cross, Judicial
colony, Jakkur, Allalasandra, is unavailable.
The site in question is one amongst the 404 sites
falling within the civic amenity areas in terms of the
report filed by the Bangalore Development Authority
and in view of the interim order not to change the
165
character of the land, the relief sought for is
unavailable. Application is, accordingly rejected.
List on 5.4.2013.”
107. On 5/4/2013, Court passed the following
order:
“Learned Sr.counsel for the 4th respondent
submits a memo and statement dt. 5.4.2013
furnishing a tabular statement containing
information of sites owned/not owned by office
bearers of the Society in the names of their family
members, in compliance with the order dt. 8.3.2013.
The same is taken on record.
It is noticed that the contemnors, by name
Basavarya C.M. and Kempathimmaiah, have not
responded to the information sought for by the
Society. However, other Office bearers have
furnished information as indicated in the tabular
column.
Learned Sr.counsel files yet another memo of
even date enclosing copy of a notice dt. 20.3.2013
166
Annexure-1 seeking information from the ex-office
bearers as set out therein. Also enclosed is a map
describing the areas in seven blocks which could be
handed over to the BBMP to make good the shortfall
in the civic amenity areas in the Judicial Layout at
Yelahanka. The Map also contains a legend
describing the areas indicating the proposed lands to
be handed over along with the lands since handed
over, together with the roads to constitute 43.20% of
the lands utilized for civic amenity purpose. In the
memo, it is stated that some litigation is pending in
respect of portions of properties in the Blocks, steps
would be taken to put an end to the litigation and
recover possession of the said properties subject to
orders of this court.
If the 4th respondent is inclined to hand over the
properties in Blocks 1 to 7 as indicated in the map,
to reduce the shortfall in the civic amenity areas, it is
needless to state that it is for the Society to take
necessary action in that regard, in accordance with
law and indicate the date on which possession
would be handed over to the BBMP.
Learned counsel for the BBMP seeks sometime to
167
make his due diligence over the lands proposed to be
handed over as civic amenity areas. List on
26.4.2013.”
108. Order dated 26/4/2013 reads thus:
“Learned counsel for the respondent -Society
files a memo dated 26.4.2013 enclosing an
additional tabular statement furnishing information
as regards sites owned/not owned by the office
bearers of the Society in the names of their family
members. In the said statement, it is noticed that
Kempathimmaiah, Shiresthedar in the City Civil
Court at Bangalore, an ex-officio office bearer, while
holding the post of Director secured allotment of a
site measuring 40’x 50’ in the name of his wife
Smt.Ranjini, as an associate member of the Society.
We think it appropriate to extend an opportunity to
Kempathimmaiah to put in his explanation.
Memo is taken on record.
Sri.Subramanya Jois, learned senior counsel for
the fourth respondent -Society, submits that as and
when the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
168
carries out its due diligence, as recorded in the order
dated 5.4.2013, the Society would indicate the date
for handing over possession of the properties.
Sri.Narasimhan, learned counsel for the Bruhat
Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, submits that in the
wake of the elections to the State Legislative
Assembly, the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
requires a fortnight’s time commencing from
10.5.2013 to carry out its due diligence.
List after summer vacation.
It is needless to state that the Bruhat Bangalore
Mahanagara Palike, after carrying out its due
diligence, may indicate to the fourth respondent
Society, in writing, in the matter of taking possession
of the properties. The Society is permitted to fix a
date to hand over possession of the properties and
execute and lodge for registration the release-cum-
relinquishment deed, without awaiting further orders
of this Court and report on the next date of hearing.”
169
109. Court by its order dated 23/8/2013 passed
the following order:
“In the order dated 26.4.2013, it is noticed that,
one Kempathimmaiah, Sheristhedar of the City Civil
Court also an ex-office bearer of the fourth
respondent Society, while as a Director, secured
allotment of site measuring 40 feet x 50 feet (should
be read as 40 feet x 60 feet) in favour of his wife
Smt.Ranjini (to be read as ‘Rajini’ though in the sale
deed dated 13th July 1998, it is mentioned as
Smt.Rajani, an associate member of the society.
In compliance with the order dated 26.4.2013,
that Kempathimmaiah has filed an affidavit along
with three documents as enclosures, admitting the
fact of allotment of a site in favour of his wife and
the subsequent conveyance of the said site under the
registered sale deed way back in the year 1998 for a
valuable consideration and that the wife of the
deponent is willing to deposit the sale consideration
and if permitted, minus Rs.61,598/- paid to the
society.
Learned Senior Counsel for the deponent submits
170
that the affidavit be accepted and directions be
issued as regards the deposit of the sale
consideration. In the circumstances, we think it
appropriate to defer orders on the request made in
the said affidavit.
Sri.Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel
files a memo dated 23.8.2013 indicating that the
Society has always been ready and willing to hand
over the sites as indicated in the earlier memo dated
5.4.2013, which includes sites indicated in Block
Nos.1 to 7 in the map annexed thereto. However, due
to certain difficulties faced in the form of litigation
pending before court and also interim orders of
injunction operating, learned senior counsel submits,
on instructions from the President, who is present
before court, that such of those sites, which are not
subject to litigation and are freehold, would be
handed over to the B.B.M.P. by making out a list at
the first instance and furnishing the same to the
learned Counsel for the B.B.M.P. and
thereafterwards complete and conclude the process
of delivery of possession by execution of necessary
instruments of release-cum-relinquishment.
171
As regards the properties over which disputes
are pending, learned Senior Counsel submits that a
list would be prepared and made available to the
court furnishing all material particulars.
We think it appropriate to relist these petitions on
20th September 2013.”
110. On 20/9/2013, Court passed the following
order:
“The fourth respondent - Society files a memo
dated 20.9.2013 in compliance with the specific
proposals contained in the earlier memo dated
5.4.2013 and a further memo dated 23.8.2013. To
the memo is enclosed Annexure-R4(L) containing a
list of 18 numbers of sites with their property
numbers and the areas comprised therein which
according to the learned Senior Counsel for the
fourth respondent are free-hold properties to be
handed over to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara
Palike by way of release-cum-relinquishment deeds,
to reduce the shortfall in the civic amenity areas
comprised in the layout in question. Annexure-R4(N)
is said to contain relevant material particulars of the
172
boundaries and the extents comprised in the 18 sites
mentioned in Annexure-R4(L), while, Annexure-R4(M)
is said to be a letter addressed to the Joint
Commissioner of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara
Palike, Yelhanka Range, with the acknowledgement
over the proposal to concede in favour of the Bruhat
Bangalore Mahanagara Palike the said sites.
Learned Senior Counsel for the fourth respondent
Society submits that the fourth respondent is ready
and willing to ensure a joint spot inspection of the
said 18 numbers of sites, with the officials of the
Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and execute
release-cum-relinquishment deed.
Sri.K.V.Narasimhan, learned counsel for the
Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, submits that
the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike is willing
to have a joint spot inspection of the said sites,
conducted at about 11.00 a.m. on Tuesday i.e., on
24.09.2013 and if found to be freehold sites to take
possession of the same where afterwards the
respondent No.4- Society to execute the release-cum-
relinquishment deeds on Wednesday i.e., on
25.09.2013.
173
In the memo, at paragraph No.3, it is stated that
Annexure -R4(P) is a tabular statement containing
list of all known disputes and litigations respecting
certain properties. Learned Senior Counsel submits
that better particulars of the litigation would be
made available to the Court by the next date of
hearing.
Learned Senior Counsel points to the lay-out map
annexed to the memo dated 5.4.2013 to submit that
the fourth respondent would explore the possibility of
including the road adjacent to block No.7 which
stands redundant so as to form a part of the other
areas in Block No.7, to be handed over to the Bruhat
Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, to further reduce
shortfall in the civic amenity area.
Sri.Papireddy, learned counsel for the applicant
in I.A.Nos.VI and VII of 2013, submits that the fourth
respondent -Society having not kept up its promise
has resulted in these applications. The fourth
respondent - Society to file its response to each of the
applications.
174
The fourth respondent-Society to comply with the
requirement of joint inspection and execution of
release-cum-relinquishment deed as indicated supra.
List this matter on 25.10.2013.”
111. Court order dated 24/01/2014 reads thus:
“Learned counsel appearing for Mr.Shaker
Shetty, learned counsel for applicant in I.A.No.1 of
14 submits that he does not press I.A.1 of 14 filed
for direction. I.A.1 of 14 is, accordingly, rejected.
2. Mr.Shivappa, learned Sr.Counsel appearing for
fourth respondent, society, submits that the memo
filed on 8-1-2014 is pursuant to the execution of a
relinquishment deed dated 25-9-2013 in favour of
BBMP in compliance with the order dated 20th
September, 2013 and that in a joint inspection that
was held, it surfaced that certain properties to be
relinquished are in possession of persons whose
particulars are mentioned in Annexure-R4(R)
enclosed to the memo, more appropriately in Block
Nos.5, 6 and 7 of the layout.
3. Learned Sr.Counsel submits that some of the
175
immoveable properties in Blocks 5 and 6 are subject
matter of original proceedings before City Civil Court,
Bangalore in CCH No.6, are ripe for evidence and
appropriate direction be issued for disposal of those
suits expeditiously.
4 Mr.K.V.Narasimhan, learned counsel for
respondent BBMP, submits that the society has since
executed a relinquishment deed in terms of the order
dated 20th September 2013 while some of the
properties in R4(R) are not handed over in the light of
the remarks found in the said Annexure.
5. The entire effort is in the direction of enabling
the fourth respondent society to ensure maintenance
of civic amenity areas more appropriately to an
extent of 45% as was the prescription of B.D.A at the
relevant point of time and in that regard, according
to learned Sr. counsel, the society has reached 42%
with a shortfall of 3%. If the properties as are set out
in Annexure-R4(R) to the memo are made available to
BBMP towards civic amenities it would pave way for
reducing the shortfall. Learned Sr. Counsel is very
confident that the said properties would be sufficient
to make good the shortfall. Regard being had to the
176
fact that the subject matter of pending litigation in
the City Civil Court, Bangalore relates to properties
which form part of the area meant for civil amenity,
we deem it appropriate to direct the City Civil Court
to expedite the conclusion of the proceedings in the
suits desirably before the commencement of summer
vacation of 2014. It is needless to state if fourth
respondent society, which is the plaintiff in the suits,
were to make a request to the civil court we have no
reason to believe that the civil court would not take
up the matter on day-to-day basis for disposal.
6. Since the names of the parties who are non-
members and to whom sale deeds of certain sites
are executed are not forthcoming and also failure to
provide the name of the person who allotted the sites
or under whose authority the execution of the sale
deeds were permitted, it is not possible for the court
at this juncture, to initiate action as is necessary in
law against such persons and, therefore, fourth
respondent is directed to make available all the
names of non-member allottees and the name/s of
the person/s who made the allotments or executed
the conveyance deeds.
177
7. The fourth respondent-society has also filed a
memo today enclosing true copies of two layout
plans Annexure R4(L) and R4 (M) said to be
concerning two House Building Co-operative
Societies which were permitted to have 36.30% and
35.21% as civil amenity areas and the remaining as
residential areas by the respondent BDA. The same
is taken on record.
8. Sri.Krishna, learned counsel for B.D.A seeks
time to take instructions in the matter, of the memo.
9. Society and the BBMP to file objections to
I.A.No.6 and 7 of 2013. BBMP and furnish
information as to whether kathas have been issued
to persons allegedly in possession of lands or portion
of land as are mentioned in annexures to the
applications, by the next date of hearing.
Re-list on 14-2-2014.”
112. Order dated 14/2/2014 reads thus:
“Learned Senior Counsel for the fourth
respondent-Society files a memo furnishing the
178
names of non-member allottees and the name/s of
the person/s who made allotment or executed the
conveyance deeds in compliance with paragraph
No.6 of the order dated 24.1.2014. The same is
taken on record. Further orders on the memo
deferred.
Learned Senior Counsel further submits that
when a memo enclosing copy of the order dated
24.1.2014 was filed before the City Civil Court in the
pending suits, memo was not accepted and
therefore, I.A. is filed to-day.
The Presiding Officer of the City Civil Court,
CH.No.6, is directed not to make any further ado
over the subject matter, but to hear and dispose the
suits on day to-day basis commencing from today.
Learned counsel are requested to make submissions
before the City Civil Court to-day, in this regard.
Sri.Krishna, learned counsel for the BDA and the
learned Government Advocate for the State seek time
to make their submission.
Learned counsel for the Bruhat Bangalore
Mahanagara Palike submits that the relevant
179
material particulars of information, sought for in the
order dated 24.1.2014, is on the anvil and would be
made available to the learned counsel for the fourth
respondent-Society and thereafter filed into the
registry.
Sri.V.Padmanabha Kedilaya, learned counsel for
the applicant in I.A.No.2/2014, submits that an
alternative site may be made available to the
applicant in view of the fact that the site allotted to
him is one among 404 sites identified as civil
amenity sites.
Learned Senior counsel for the fourth respondent-
Society submits that besides the objections over
technicality and maintainability of the application,
nevertheless Society would endeavour to identify an
alternative site at the earliest and make its
submissions.
Re-list on 7.3.2014.”
180
113. On 7/3/2014, Court passed the following
order:
“Regarding being had to list brought before this
Court coupled with facts stated by the 4th
respondent/Society that one of its earlier director by
name Sri N Shivanna and a former President by
name Sri C Shivalingaiah had executed documents
conveying the sites formed in the layout to persons,
who were neither members nor resolution passed for
allotment of sites, it is appropriate to implead these
persons as party respondents No.18 and 19.
Petitioners are permitted to amend the cause title.
The 4th respondent/Society submits that the
aforesaid ex-office bearers are party defendants in
the suits instituted by the purchasers said to be
pending before the Civil Court, as stated in the
statement of pending suits enclosed to the memo
dated 14.2.2014 (Annexure-R4N). Petitioners to serve
copy of the memo alongwith enclosures on the two
ex-office bearers/respondents No.18 and 19. The
former President, Sri C Shivalingaiah, who is one of
the accused in the contempt case, is present before
Court. The 4th respondent/Society is permitted to
181
serve memo forthwith on the said persons.
Sri N Shivanna as identified by the President of
the 4th respondent/Society is present before Court.
The 4th respondent is permitted to serve copy of this
memo on the said Sri N Shivanna.
For the statement of respondents No.18 and 19,
list on the next date of hearing i.e. on 28.3.2014.
Sri K V Narasimhan, learned counsel for the
BBMP submits that the BBMP is unable to locate the
37 guntas of land and if the office bearers of the 4th
respondent/Society were to assist the staff of BBMP,
they would prepare a report in the matter.
Sri Subrahmanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel
submits that the President of the 4th
respondent/Society will assist the BBMP after giving
prior information.
Sri Krishna, learned counsel for the BDA files the
statement of facts dated 7.3.2014 with affidavit and
photo copies of certain resolutions and orders
passed by the Authority relating to certain benefits
182
extended to two Societies viz: Mysore Paper Mills
Employees House Building Co-operative Society and
Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative
Society. The same is taken on record.
Relist on 28.3.2014.”
114. On 28/3/2014, the following order was
passed:
“Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 18 and 19
are permitted to file power in the registry and the
registry to print their names.
Post order passed on the last date of hearing, Sri.
K.V. Narasimhan, learned Counsel for the
respondent - BBMP submits that though a spot
inspection was conducted, nevertheless, the area
apparently identified as land belonging to the
Society, since acquired is presently a slum known as
‘Hanumappa Layout’.
183
Learned counsel submits that Engineers of BBMP
were unable to actually identify the area and would
do so if granted some more time.
It is trite that after the land is identified, then the
question would be whether the constructions therein
are legal or illegal or otherwise and as to who
permitted those constructions. Many questions
would arise for decision making thereafterwards.
The office bearers of the society are directed to
ensure assistance to the survey department of BBMP
to conduct survey and identify the exact location of
the land that belongs to the Society.
Respondent Nos. 18 and 19 to file their statement
of objections, if any, by the next date of hearing.
Sri. K.V. Narasimhan, learned Counsel having
made a statement that at the time of spot inspection,
they had noticed that in a particular area released
and relinquished in favour of the BBMP was being
used as a burial ground, action has been initiated to
prevent recurrence. In that view of the matter, the
BBMP to file a comprehensive report over the exact
184
status and the condition of all the lands released
and relinquished in their favour in the Judicial
Layout together with photographs both positive and
negative by the next date of hearing.
Sri. Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel for
the Society submits that in compliance with the
directions issued by this court, the proceedings in
the sixteen civil suits pending before the Trial Court
is conducted on a day to day basis.
Although learned Senior Counsel suggests that a
direction be issued to the civil court to furnish reports
over the progress, we are not inclined to do so. It is
for the Society to persuade the city civil court to
ensure that proceedings in each of the cases listed
on day to day basis, should not turn out to be an
empty formality, but there must be something
substantially done in the progress of each of the
cases. The Society may file its report to the court in
the form of the affidavit of an Officer as to exact
status of each of the cases.
Relist on 13.6.2014”.
185
115. Court by its order dated 10/10/2014,
passed the following order:
“Respondent No.19 i.e., Sri.C.Shivalingaiah is
reported to have died on 14.8.2014 as recorded in
the order sheet dated 10.10.2014 in CCC
No.87/2004. In that view of the matter, the petition
against the respondent No.19 stands abated.
Respondent No.18 to file statement of objections
by today i.e., 10.10.2014 into the registry.
The petitioners are permitted to implead as party
respondent the Karnataka State Pollution Control
Board represented by its Member Secretary as
respondent No.20. Sri.Gururaj Joshi, learned
Stadning Counsel, to take notice for the respondent
No.20. Learned counsel to secure instructions over
the installation of sewage treatment plant outside
the Judicial Layout. The registry is directed to make
out a copy of this order to be furnished to the learned
counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent Bruhat
Bangalore Mahanagara Palike submits that the
respondent is collecting materials to comply with the
186
order dated 28.3.2014 and would file the report, if
extended some more time. Learned counsel is
granted time till 14.11.2014 to comply with the order
dated 28.3.2014.
Relist on 14.11.2014.”
116. Order dated 10/4/2015 reads thus:
“Learned Advocate for the 18th respondent
submits that statement of objections dated
10.10.2014 though filed, would file an affidavit
furnishing material particulars leading to the sale-
deed executed in favour of one Vijayakumari,
including the details of the site, copy of the sale deed
and authorization etc., before the next date of
hearing.
Sri.Gururaj Joshi, learned counsel for the
Karnataka State Pollution Control Board submits
that the then Presiding Officer and the Chairman of
the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board,
Bengaluru, by order dated 31.8.2007, in the matter
of Karnataka State Judicial Employees House
Building Co-operative Society, recorded findings that
it was the responsibility of the Bengaluru Water
Supply and Sewerage Board authorities to provide
water supply and maintain sewerage facilities in the
layout, and directions were issued in that regard to
take immediate action. Learned counsel files a memo
187
enclosing a copy of the said proceeding. Learned
counsel submits that the Bengaluru Water Supply
and Sewerage Board installed a Sewage Treatment
Plant for short _STP_ to treat sewage generated from
Yelahanka New Town and areas very close to the
Judicial Layout and all that is required to be done is
to connect the underground drainage system of the
Judicial Layout for free flow of sewage into the
_STP_. Learned counsel promises the Court that by
the next date of hearing relevant material
particulars, including technical details, after an
inspection, would be made available to the Court.
Sri.Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel
for the respondent _Society, files a memo dated
10.4.2015 enclosing copies of letter dated
20.10.2010 addressed to the Bengaluru Water
Supply and Sewerage Board and its response dated
8.11.2010. In the light of the response stating that
the disposal of sewage system in the Judicial Layout
would be taken up through the execution of
Karnataka State Pollution Control Board work, which
is said to be pending, the Bengaluru Water Supply
and Sewarage Board, by its Secretary, is impleaded
as a party respondent No.21. Let a copy of this order
be addressed to the Secretary, Bengaluru Water
Supply and Sewerage Board, forthwith for their
response.
It is stated, one K.B.Mounesh Kumar, is the
standing counsel for Bengaluru Water Supply and
188
Sewerage Board. Registry to print the name of the
learned counsel.
Sri.K.V.Narasimhan, learned counsel for the
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, for short
_BBMP' submits a report as directed in the order
dated 28.3.2014, followed by the order dated
10.10.2014. Learned counsel submits that the report
contains necessary particulars of the areas in the
layout relinquished by the 4th respondent House
Building Society in favour of BBMP, as civic
amenities and open spaces and BBMP proposed
utilization, and further that the word _future
development_ as shown in the report, requires proper
identification which would be placed on record in the
form of an affidavit. Learned counsel refers to the
map enclosed to the report to submit, that,
possession of certain portions of civic amenity sites,
is not handed over which submission is responded to
by Sri.Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel, to
submit that some of those areas are under litigation
before Civil Courts in 16 civil suits, at the instance of
the Society which it intends to pursue and secure
possession thereof, hence requests the Court to issue
suitable direction to the Civil Courts to post all the 16
civil suits to be tried by one single court since some
of the suits are pending before two courts, in
Bengaluru.
At this stage, Sri.Subramanya Jois, learned
Senior Counsel, submits that in the area marked as
189
park Nos.16 and 17 in the map, there are two roads
which are perpendicular and that by amalgamating
them with the civic amenity site located adjacent
there to, would make it a compact civic
amenity/open space and on instructions of the
present President of the Society who is personally
present, a relinquishment deed would be executed
and possession of the road handed over to the
BBMP. In addition, learned senior counsel hastens to
add that certain small sheds that have come up in
three of the portions marked in red colour in the said
map are of unauthorized occupants who would be
evicted and possession of the same would also be
delivered to the BBMP so as to reduce the deficiency
in the total civic amenity areas in the layout.
If regard is had to the submission of the
learned counsel for the BBMP and the report placed
on record, there is a need to issue direction to the
BBMP to ensure the allocation of funds in its budget
for the financial year 2015-16 for development
activity over the areas specified in the map and as
particularized in the report and also to file an
affidavit in that regard before the next date of
hearing.
It is hoped that the joint enterprise of BWSSB
and the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board
would ensure connectivity of the passage for sewage
through the underground drainage system in the
Judicial Layout into one of the STPs atleast before
190
the next date of hearing. The request to post all the
16 cases before one Civil Court, in Bengaluru, to be
considered on the next date of hearing.
Re-list on 19.6.2015.”
117. On 04/09/2015, Court passed the following
order:
“In compliance with the order dated 10.4.2015,
the respondent-Society is said to have addressed
letters enclosing draft of the relinquishment deed
and a sketch calling upon the Joint Commissioner to
be present at the time of execution of the
relinquishment deed, nevertheless, since there was
no response, a registered letter was addressed
through a legal counsel on 27.7.2015, to which too,
there was no response, according to Sri Subramanya
Jois, learned senior counsel for the society.
Sri Sreenidhi, learned counsel for respondent-
BBMP submits that he has filed power recently and
has no instructions from the Joint Commissioner and
would secure instructions and report to court on the
next date of hearing.
If the respondent-Society, has, in compliance with the order dated 10.4.2015 taken steps in regard to execution and lodging for registration a release and relinquishment deed of the area more-fully set out in
the order, more appropriately, the area covered by two roads to be amalgamated with the civic amenity site located adjacent to them, respondent-BBMP to
191
authorize its representative to appear before the Sub-Registrar on 8th September 2015, and take possession of the said relinquished properties. For the purpose of registration, the Joint Commissioner
to furnish well in advance the name and designation of the officer to represent the respondent-BBMP.
Learned senior counsel, submits that 16 suits in
different courts have since been brought together
and are tried in CCH.No.6, City Civil Court,
Bangalore, and if that is so, the learned Judge
presiding over the Court, is requested to hear all the
suits on the question of court fee, since a preliminary
issue and pass orders, in any event, by the end of
this month, without further time. Respondent-society
is permitted to furnish a copy of this order to the
learned Judge presiding over CCH No.6.
Sri K.B.Monesh Kumar, learned Counsel for
respondent BWSSB submits that sewerage
treatment plant of size not known is installed in the
periphery of Jakkur, to which the sewerage lines
from the judicial layout are connected. Learned
counsel to file a memo furnishing all material
particulars of the said sewerage treatment plant
including its capacity to treat the volume of sewerage
that flows from Judicial layout.
If the plant is in operation, the Pollution Control
Board to inspect the plant by 8th September 2015
and submit a report by the next date of hearing.
192
Re-list on 11.9.2015.
ORDER ON I.A.2/15
Application to be heard along with main matter.
ORDER ON MEMO FOR RETIREMENT
Memo for retirement of learned counsel for
respondent No.3 Mr.K.V.Narasimhan is accepted
since Sri Sreenidhi, learned counsel has filed power.
Memo is ordered accordingly.
ORDER ON I.A.5/2013
I.A.NO.5/2013 is rejected as office objection is
not complied with.”
118. On 11/09/2015, Court passed order which
reads thus:
“Sri.Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel
submits that a relinquishment deed has been
executed and lodged for registration on 8.9.2015, a
copy of which is enclosed to the memo dated
11.9.2015. According to the learned Senior Counsel,
the following are the total areas and dates on which
the relinquishment deeds have been executed in
favour of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike
towards civic amenities, open spaces, parks and
roads as well as storm water drains:-
193
Total Sq. Ft. Relinquishment Deed date
1. 365206 Sq.Ft. 16.10.2009
2. 20108 Sq.Ft. 21.06.2010
3. 12100 Sq.Ft. 01.03.2013
4. 28011.75 Sq.Ft. 25.09.2013
5. 17577.50 Sq.Ft. 08.09.2015
443003.25 Sq.Ft. - 10A 17G
1. C A 443003.25 Sq.Ft. * 10A 17G
2. Storm Water Drain 47710.00 Sq.Ft. * 01A 04G 3. Road 2393082.92 Sq.Ft. * 54A 37G
66A 18G Total 156A % 42.423
On 10.4.2015, the following submission of the
learned Senior Counsel was recorded:
In addition, learned Senior Counsel hastens to
add that certain small sheds that have come up in
three of the portions marked in red colour in the said
map are of unauthorized occupants who would be
evicted and possession of the same would also be
delivered to the BBMP so as to reduce the deficiency
in the total civic amenity areas in the layout.
Learned Senior Counsel submits that in
furtherance of the said submission, the Bruhat
Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and the office-bearers
of the Society would jointly endeavour to ensure the
194
eviction of the unauthorized occupants so as to put to
use the said properties for the purposes for which
they are earmarked.
Learned counsel for the Bruhat Bengaluru
Mahanagara Palike submits that they would assist
the Society and its office bearers in that regard and
would take steps to fence the areas and also file a
report over the development activity over the areas
specified in the map and as particularized in the
earlier report and file an affidavit in that regard.
Learned counsel for the Pollution Control Board files
a report of what was noticed in the spot inspection
by the officers of the Board indicating gross
deficiencies in the sewage treatment plant, a copy of
which is made available to the learned counsel for
the Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewerage Board -
respondent No.21.
Learned counsel for the Bengaluru Water Supply
and Sewerage Board files a memo stating that the
STP was installed in the year 2003 under the
Cauvery IV Phase to the capacity of 10 MLD and that
the average inflow of sewage per day is about 8.9
MLD, as per the inflow meter which is functional and
other details of the capacity of the motors in the
pumps as well as discharge. Same is taken on
record.
The particulars furnished is as sketchy as it can
be and it is not what was expected of the Bengaluru
Water Supply and Sewerage Board. The report of the
Pollution Control Board is quite exhaustive and
195
therefore, the Bengaluru Water Supply and
Sewerage Board to answer over the points raised in
the report of the Pollution Control Board and if
possible, rectify the defects by the next date of visit
of the officers of the Pollution Control Board which is
to take place on 25.9.2015.”
119. Court passed the following order on
6/11/2015:
“In compliance with the order dated 11.9.2015,
the respondent BBMP files an affidavit of one
Mr.Jagadish, Assistant Executive Engineer stating
that the development activity proposed is appended
in a Compendium and seeks leave of the Court to
take necessary steps to implement such development
activity.
Affidavit along with Compendium is taken on record.
It is made clear that since BBMP is a civic authority
required under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation
Act, 1976, to maintain orderliness and also carry out
development activity for and on behalf of general
public, a statutory duty and obligation, there is no
necessity for orders of Court to carry out
development activity as proposed in the report.
Respondent-BBMP to file affidavit on a timely basis
over the development activity carried on.
196
Re-list on 20.11.2015.”
120. Respondent No.4 – Society filed a memo on
4/12/2015 furnishing a pen drive in which the contents
of the entire Layout plan are found. In addition to it, a
Hard Copy thereof is also filed. In the memo the
following information is furnished:
1 ENCROACHED AREAS 35,945.96 SQ.FEET
2 LAND ACQUIRED BY THE
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY
13,067.92 SQ.FEET
3 UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTIONS
41,381.76 SQ.FEET
4 VACANT SITE EAR-MARKED FOR THE PROPOSED TEMPLE IN THE
LAYOUT
3,721.18 SQ FEET
5 RESIDENTIAL AREA
6 THE PROPERTY CONCEDED IN
FAVOUR OF AND HANDED OVER
TO BBMP
4,36,847.57 SQ.FEET
7 UNACQUIRED LANDS DE-MARKETED
11,02,878.55 SQ.FEET
8 STORM WATER DRAIN 47,710.00 SQ.FEET
In the map enclosed to the memo, the legands read
thus:
197
LAND USE ANALYSIS
ACQUIRED LANDS 156 A – 26.75 GUNTAS
DESCRIPTION AREA IN SQMT
AREA IN SQMT
AREA IN ACRE &
GUNTAS
%
BBMP 40,584.12 4,36,847.57 10 A – 01 G 6.40
ROADS (INCLUDING
THE ROADS IN UNACQUIRED
LANDS)
2,22,322.83 23,93,082.94 54 A – 37.6 G 35.41
STORM
WATER DRAIN 4,432.36 47,710.00 1 A- 3.8 G 0.70
INDEX
ENCROACHED AREAS 33 G (35,945.62 SQFT
RESIDENTIAL ACQUIRED – 36,68,988 SQFT UNACQUIRED - 6,89,212 SQFT
ACQUIRED BY NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY 12 GUNTAS (13,067.92 SQFT)
BBMP AREA 10 A – 01 G (4,36,847.57 SQFT)
UNAUTHORISED
CONSTRUCTION 38 G (41381.76 SQFT)
UNACQUIRED LANDS 25 A – 12.75 G (11,02,878.55 SQFT)
PROPOSED TEMPLE SITE 3.41 G (3721.18 SQFT)
404 SITES (9,26,001.50 SQFT)
404 SITES IN UNACQUIRED LANDS (79,565.77 SQFT)
STORM WATER DRAIN (47,710 SQFT)
198
The memo further states that in so far as the
unacquired area of 25.12 guntas of land, a contiguous
part of the same layout, is concerned proceedings had
been taken under Sections 79A and 79B of the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and in the light of
the report of the Committee constituted by the
Government headed by Sri.A.T.Ramaswamy, the
proceedings culminated in favour of the Society which
paid the penalty imposed under Section 96 of
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, for diversion of
agricultural land for the residential purposes of the
Society.
121. In addition it is stated that prior to the
initiation of such proceedings and the levy of penalty
and the payment thereof made by the Society, the City
Municipal Council, Yelahanka Town, within the
territorial jurisdiction of which the layout in question
falls had resolved on 22/5/1996 to provide all the
facilities to the Society and even to levy and collect
199
Property Tax in respect of the sites formed by the
Society, from the respective owners thereof, and that
service charges and Development Charges have been
demanded and collected by the City Municipal Council,
Yelahanka Town, to which the Society has paid as early
as on 10/9/2008, a total sum of Rs.43,27,320/-.
122. On 11/12/2015, BDA has filed a memo
stating:
“Society has submitted Residential Layout Plan in
several Sy.Nos. of Allalasandra, Chikkabommasandra
and Jakkur Plantation villages to an extent of 156 Acres
26 ¾ guntas for approval.
Authority in its meeting held on 16/11/1992, vide
Sub.No.503/92, resolved to approve the Layout Plan in
Sy.Nos.9/1, 2B & 3, 11/1 and 2, 12/2A, 2B, 3, 4A,
13/1A, 1B and 2, 14/2, 3, 5 and 6, 89/1 and 2, 90,
91/2A, 4 to 6 , 94/3, 97, 98/1, 5, 6 and 9, 99, 100,
100/P, 101/1, 2 and 3, 102/2, 3 and 4, 104/1, 3A, 3B,
200
108, 108/P, 110/1 and 2, 3A, 3B and 4, 111/2 and 3,
112 of Allasandra Village and Sy.Nos.39, 41/2 and 42 of
Chikkabommasandra Village and Sy.Nos.3/1 and 2, 4P
of Jakkur Plantation, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North
Taluk to an extent of 156 acres 26 ¾ guntas in favour of
Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees HBCS
Ltd., subject to the following conditions:
1) To furnish possession certification from Revenue
Department before issue of intimation
communicating layout charges.
2) To furnish NOC from KEB and BWSSB authorities
before issue of work order;
3) To remit contribution of Rs.2.00 lakhs per acre
towards Cauvery Water Supply Schemes as per
the revised rates;
4) To furnish NOC from the Co-operation
Department before release of sites.
5) To entrust the civil works to the Society itself
under the supervision of BDA
6) To pay ring road surcharge @ Rs.1.00 lakh per
acre as per the Authority Resolution;
7) Other usual terms and conditions.
201
Now the Society has produced the Layout Plan as
built on the ground in an extent of 156 Acres 26.75
guntas and out of this extent, the area reserved for
roads, CA is to the extent of 67 acres 7.45 guntas. The
Society has already handed over an area of 10 acres 01
gunta to the BBMP to retain as Park.
As per the then Master Plan approved on
12/10/1984, the Society should have reserved upto
50% for residential purpose and remaining extent to
Park, open spaces, play grounds, CA, Road.
As per the prevailing Master Plan, the area to be
reserved for residential purpose is 55% and 45%
towards Park, CA and Road. Since the Society has
executed the Layout, the residential area is around 57
½ %. It means that Society has utilized the excess area
of about 2 ½ %.
In the earlier occasion BDA passed a Resolution
under subject No.140/2004 on 29/8/2004 in the case
202
of MPME HBCS Ltd., and therein the Authority
permitted excess residential area of 13.70% and also
considered 4.10% of Park and open space area which
was less than minimum prescribed in the ZR. The
above Resolution was passed after taking into
consideration all the facts and circumstances involved.
Similar decision was also taken in the case of
Vishwabharathi HBCS as per Court order in WP
Nos.18496/2007 c/w 6945/2008, 10377/2008,
10343/2008, 9990/2008, 11127/2008, 9832/2008,
19026-87/2010, 16108-16112/2010, 16113-
16123/2010, 2182/2008 and 18960-19025/2010 (LA-
BDA) dated 16/11/2010. In the present case, Layout is
fully developed, residential buildings have come up. On
humanitarian grounds, BDA is prepared to approve the
Layout Plan keeping in mind the procedure followed in
the earlier two cases referred to above it there is a
direction by the Hon’ble High Court.”
203
123. On 14/12/2015, Petitioners No.f, h, j, k, l, m
and n (6, 8, 10 to 14 have filed Memorandum of Written
Submissions stating:
“The Writ Petition was filed by the Judicial Layout
Residents & Site Holders Association (Regd), on the
premises that the 4th respondent House Building
Society had obtained a sanctioned layout plan from the
competent authority the BDA the first respondent
herein and the 4th respondent society is alienating the
civic amenity area reserved in the said layout plan.
Now from the latest build layout plan submitted
by the BBMP and from the 4th respondent society it
transpires that the acquired area is 156 acres 26.75
guntas and out of that 67 acres and 7.45 guntas road
and 10 acres 01 gunta civic amenity area is handed over
to the BBMP the first respondent herein, in compliance
with the interim directions issued in the case.
As per the Master Plan existing as on the year
204
1992, the year in which the 4th respondent society
applied for sanctioned plan, it was required to utilise
not more than 50% for residential purpose. However as
per the Master Plan now prevailing, the area to be
utilised for residential purpose is 55% and remaining
45% is to be utilised for roads and civic amenities,
resulting in excess utilisation by the 4th respondent
society for residential purpose to an extent of 2.5% even
if the present Master Plan requirement norms are
considered.
Now the 4th respondent society claims that it has
substantially complied with the legal requirements of
the Zonal Regulations as existing now in respect of the
layout plan executed by it.
Considering the absence of sanctioned approved
plan from the planning authority, the BDA and under
the changed circumstances and keeping in mind the
welfare of the bonafide members the 4th respondent
205
society who have secured sites in the layout, including
the members in 404 sites, the relief claimed by the
petitioners in the writ petition may kindly be suitably
moulded so that a sanctioned plan is obtained from the
BDA by the 4th respondent society.
Hence the petitioners are filing this submission
requiring the BDA, the first respondent to issue
sanctioned plan to the 4th respondent society in respect
of the layout, the subject matter of the writ petition on
such terms as this Hon’ble High Court deems just
under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,
in the interest of justice.”
124. On 4/12/2015 the 4th respondent filed a
synopsis of this case.
125. On 18/12/2015, this Court passed the
following order:
“Sri Subramanya Jois, learned senior Counsel
submits that a synopsis of the case, in brief, is filed
on 14.12.2015 furnishing relevant information, in a
206
nutshell, about the case put-forth by the society, in
defence, and further that the actual extent of
shortfall in the civic amenity areas is 2½% of 156
acres 26.34 guntas of land acquired and handed
over to the society for formation of the layout.
Learned senior Counsel further submits that this
extent of land could be considered by the Bangalore
Development Authority (for short ‘BDA’) so as to
forward a recommendation to the State Government
to condone the shortfall as has been done in the
previous past in respect of similarly circumstanced
House Building Co-operative Societies, numbering
more than 5. According to learned Senior Counsel,
the layout plan submitted to the BDA for approval
under the Bangalore Development Authority Act,
1976 when placed before the Board, in its meeting
held 16.11.1992 resolved to approve the layout plan
subject to certain conditions, of which condition No.3
and 6 relating to payment of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre
towards Cauvery Water supply Schemes and
Rs.1,00,000/- towards legal right surcharge when
subject matter of writ petition 11144/1993 instituted
by Aircraft Employees Co-operative Societies Ltd.
and others subjected to very similar conditions, a
207
Division Bench of this court by order dated 20th April
2001, quashed the said two conditions and applying
the very same principle, the BDA cannot insist on
compliance with the aforesaid two conditions, by the
4th respondent-society.
In addition, it is asserted that the Board of the
BDA did not, subsequent to resolution No.503/1992
dated 16.11.1992, accord sanction to the layout plan
nevertheless, the civil works carried out by the
society to form the layout is well within the four
corners of the policy of the State government relating
to percentages of land to be put to use for residential
purposes, roads, civic amenities etc.
Learned Senior counsel points to paragraph 8 of
the statement of objections dated 24.5.2004 of the
BDA admitting the fact of there being no sanction
accorded to the layout plan while also pointed to the
memo dated 10.12.2015 filed by the BDA signed by
the Commissioner and Town Planning Member
interalia admitting that the shortfall is 2½% i.e.
42½% instead of 45% towards park, civic amenity,
road and on humanitarian ground BDA would
approve the layout plan as has been done in earlier
cases.
208
It is lastly submitted that the society has, over
twelve years, complied with all the directions issued
by the Court, time and again, to reduce the short fall
in the civic amenity area to 2½%, hence necessary
directions be issued to the State Government and the
BDA.
Sri K.Krishna, learned counsel for the BDA
reiterates the averments set out in the memo dated
10.12.2015 to submit that 2½% deficit in the civic
amenity areas could be considered in the like
manner as has been done at the instance of the
State Government in respect of other House Building
Co-operative Societies.
Sri A.Krishna Bhat, learned counsel for
petitioners No.6, 8, 10 & 11 to 14 submits that memo
dated 9.12.2015 is filed and the same be taken on
record and reiterates the averments setout therein.
In other words, submits that considering the absence
of the sanction to the layout plan by the BDA and in
the changed circumstances over a period of twelve
years and keeping in mind the welfare and benefits
of members of the 4th respondent-Society who are
allottees of sites in the layout, the relief in the
petition be moulded suitably so as to sanction the
layout plan submitted to the BDA by the 4th
209
respondent.
Sri G.Papi Reddy, learned counsel representing
the petitioners 1, 3, 4 & 5, submits that in the
changed fact situation of the layout providing civic
amenity areas, the shortage being 2½%,
nevertheless, I.A.6/2013 is for a direction to the BDA
to consider survey of the entire extent of land and
submit a report, over land in possession of the
society, which if released would further reduce the
shortfall. Learned Counsel submits that having
noticed, in the report of BBMP, that 32 guntas of
land from out of 1 acre 15 guntas is since
relinquished, I.A.6/2013 does not survive for
consideration. As regards the merit of the petition,
learned counsel very fairly submits that the changed
circumstances coupled with the fact that shortfall of
2½% in the area for civic amenities would be
considered by the BDA or the Government, nothing
further survives for consideration in the petition.
Learned counsel for the BWSSB submits that he
would file an affidavit of the Chairman relating to
establishment of Tertiary Treatment Plant of capacity
of 10 MLD in the 41 acres of land allotted to it
210
though presently what is commissioned as a
secondary treatment plant existing over an area of
10 acres. Affidavit to be filed within a week.
Learned counsel for the BBMP, submits that an
affidavit dated 6.11.2015 is filed enclosing
Development Plan/Scheme in relation to properties
released and relinquished in its favour by the 4th
respondent-society.
Learned counsel responding to the query,
submits that item No.17 measuring 15785 Sq.ft.
described in compendium of BBMP dated 6.11.2015,
at page 43, is used by the people in the vicinity as a
burial ground and that Section 393 of the Karnataka
Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, applies to burials
and its management under bye-laws.
Learned counsel hastens to add if granted a
week’s time he would file the affidavit of the
Commissioner enclosing copy of the bye-laws over
the management of the burial ground.
Government Advocate submits that affidavit of
the Principal Secretary, Urban Development would
be filed within a week clarifying the power of the
State Government to condone the deficit of 2¿% of
land for Civic amenity and other common areas.
211
Learned counsel for the Pollution Control Board
respondent No.20 maintains that it is for the BWSSB
to ensure proper treatment of sewage flowing into
the Secondary and Tertiary treatment plants by
establishing necessary infrastructure of STPs since
41 acres is allotted to BWSSB.
All learned counsel submit that they have concluded
their arguments.
Reserved for Judgment.”
126. In compliance with the order dated
18/12/2015, BWSSB filed an affidavit on 4/1/2016
stating the feasibility of the construction of a Tertiary
Sewer Treatment Plant at Jakkur. The Petitioners have
filed a detailed synopsis/written submissions on
20/1/2016 in addition to the written submissions filed
on 30/12/2011 ANNEXURE-‘A’.
212
CONTEMPT PETITION: CCC 87/2004:
127. Writ Petitioner filed a complaint invoking
Article 215 of the Constitution r/w Sec.11 and 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act 1971 alleging wilful
disobedience of the order dated 18/6/2003 in WP
40994/2002 arraigning 19 respondents as contemnors,
registered as CCC No. 87/2004.
128. Petition was opposed by filing statement of
objections of the 6th respondent Sri.C.Shivalingaiah
since deceased denying the allegations while specifically
asserting that the interim order dated 18/6/2003 was
passed exparte and that though Sri.B.L.Acharya learned
advocate had filed vakalath on behalf of the Karnataka
State Judicial House Building Society arraigned as 4th
respondent, nevertheless his name was shown in the
cause list nor was present when the order was passed
on 18/6/2003. It was denied that the site measuring
213
195 ft x 200 ft, subject matter of interim order dated
21/2/2003 in WP 40994/2002 directing not to change
the nature of land termed as a temple site, is infact not
a temple site but comprises of several residential sites in
the layout plan sanctioned by the Yelahanka Municipal
Council and that all those sites had been transferred
much before the interim order was passed. As regards
the plan of the layout submitted to the BDA and
directed to be produced by order dated 17/6/2003 in
the Writ Petition, it was stated that such a record was
not available with the society nor is aware of any plan
having been prepared and submitted to the BDA. While
the only layout plan prepared was submitted to the
Yelahanka Municipal Council. In addition, it was
asserted that the BDA had issued an endorsement
stating that a layout plan pertaining to the society was
not available. The further allegation in the contempt
petition that the interim order dated 18/6/2003
directed the society not to transfer any civic amenity
214
sites shown in the map was misleading statement while
what was directed was not to transfer the civic amenity
sites as shown in the plan submitted to the BDA. The
further allegation that the interim order dated
18/6/2003 was made in the presence of the learned
counsel for the society, it is stated, is false.
129. 1st respondent -BDA filed statement of
objections interalia denying the allegation of having
violated the interim order as complaint. In addition, it
denied that the layout plan annexed to the contempt
petition and marked as ANNEXURE-E is not the plan
submitted by the society to the BDA for approval. So
also, the endorsement on ANNEXURE-E that the BDA
had accorded approval to the said plan is not true. It is
stated that the recording in the aforesaid endorsement
of approval by resolution No. 506/1992 of the BDA is
false since that resolution related to utilization of land
in Sy.No.60 of Domlur Village for formation of 100 ft
215
inner ring road. It was asserted that by resolution
No.503/1992 the BDA had imposed certain conditions
for approval of the plan submitted to the BDA. In
addition, it is stated that the head note on ANNEXURE-
E plan states that the plans submitted to the BDA for
approval are not yet released. At Paragraph 6, it is
stated that the application dated 6/11/1992 of the
Society for approval of layout plan, was accompanied by
a layout plan, copy of which is annexed as ANNEXURE-
R-3(a) and that approval was with held till the fulfilment
of the conditions by the society, which was not pursued
further.
130. Respondents 4, 5,6, 7 and 8 to the contempt
petition jointly filed a reply dated 17/2/2006 interalia
denying the allegations while however admitting that
after 18/6/2003, 24 sites were sold from out of which 7
sale deeds were cancelled and the balance of 17 sale
deeds, notices were issued to the beneficiaries for
216
cancellation. In addition, it was mentioned that 2 sites
bearing Nos.859/C and 859/D were allotted and
conveyed in favour of two Hon'ble Judges on 8/11/2002
and 2/12/2002 respectively carved out of the land
measuring 195 ft x 200 ft while, site No.859/B1
measuring 10,000 sq.ft is kept vacant for a temple. It is
further stated that the 6th respondent Shivalingaiah
was not informed of the interim order passed in Writ
Petition on 18/7/2003 and respondents 5, 7, and 8
have not executed any sale deeds in violation of the
interim order. It is further stated that the party
respondents in WP 40994/2002 were the Bangalore
Development A; State of Karnataka; City Municipal
Council and The Karnataka State Judicial Department
Employees House Building Co-operative Society
represented by its Secretary. According to the
respondents, 5, 6, 7 and 8, were not parties to the Writ
Petition.
217
131. By memo dated 24/3/2006 of respondents 4
and 6 produced cancellation sale deeds dated
23/2/2006, numbering 16.
132. An affidavit of one Kempathimmaiah, the 6th
respondent and Director of the Society as also its
Treasurer was filed on 24/3/2006 disclosing that the
Secretary of the society by name S.Suresh Kumar was
placed under suspension and that the alleged wilful
disobedience, with due deference to the directions
issued by the court, the society would purge itself of the
contempt alleged by cancelling the deeds executed post
the interim order.
133. By order dated 29/1/2004, respondents 2
and 3 i.e. State of Karnataka, and City Municipal
Council, Yelahanka were deleted in CCC 87/2004.
Respondent 6, Sri C.Shivalingaiah was reported dead on
14/8/2014 as recorded in the order sheet dated
218
10/10/2014. In the order dated 28/4/2007, it is
noticed that Respondents 2 and 3 were deleted from the
array of parties by order dated 29/1/2004 and
contempt proceedings against Respondents 1, 9 and 19
were dropped by order dated 7/7/2006. Therefore
Respondents 4 to 8 were directed to be renumbered as
Respondents/Accused 1 to 5.
134. By order dated 28/7/2006, the following
charge was framed:
“That you accused 1 to 5 (Respondents 4 to 8 in the
complaint) being the Registered Co-operative Society and
office bearers of the Registered Co-operative Society have
sold sites in violation of the order dated 18th June 2003
passed by this Court in W.P.No.40994/2002 and thereby
you have committed contempt of this Court by wilful
disobedience of the order dated 18th June 2003 within
the meaning of Sec.2(b) of the Contempt of Court Act,
1971 which is punishable under Sec.12 of the said Act.
That we hereby direct you to be tried by this Court
on the said charge.”
219
135. So also the plea of the accused by name
Kempathimmaiah, Treasurer, C.M.Basavarya,
C.Shivalingaiah, representing the society and his
personal capacity as also that of M.Rudraiah were
recorded whence they pleaded not guilt.
136. B.V.Byra Reddy, Complainant No.1-a was
examined as PW-1 and marked documents Exhibits P-1
to P-3 and on being further examined on 30/03/2007
marked Exhibits P-4 to P-62. In the further
examination-in-chief on 13/4/2007, documents Ex.P-
63 to Ex.P-80(a) were marked. On 8/6/2007, PW-1 was
cross-examined in part and Ex.R-1 was marked. One
B.Mahendra Town Planner Member of BDA was
examined as PW-2 on 13/7/2007 and documents were
marked as Ex-P 81, 81-A, 82, 82-A, 83, 83-A, P-84 and
P-85. In the cross examination on 3/8/2007
documents R-2 to R-6 were marked. One
S.D.Venkataravanaiah, the member of the Society was
examined as PW-3.
220
137. The Court exercising jurisdiction under
Clause (b) of Sub section (1) of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C
recorded the statements of Accused No.2,3 and 4 on
24/8/2007 while the statement of Accused No.5 was
recorded on 31/8/2007.
138. The State Government having superseded
the society appointed an Administrator who took charge
and that order when called in question by the society in
writ proceedings were quashed.
139. On 9/10/2009, this Court recorded the
submission of the learned Government Advocate that on
verification from the office of the Sub-Registrar,
Yelahanka, that site Nos.362/6 to 11 are not allotted
and are vacant, unencumbered while the sale deeds of
22 sites executed after the interim order were cancelled
and are also unencumbered, by placing on record a
memo enclosing the Encumbrance Certificate.
140. Having heard the learned counsel for the
221
parties, perused the pleadings, examined the evidence
both oral and documentary, the following points arise
for decision making:
I) Whether in the facts, circumstances and evidence
on record, the petitioner proves that:
(a) layout plan for sanction/approval was
prepared by the Society and submitted to the
BDA ?
(b) the layout plan Annexure-'E' to the petition
is the very same layout plan prepared by the
Society and submitted to the BDA ?
(c) the BDA in its Resolution No.503/1992
dated 16/11/1992 approved the layout plan
submitted by the Society?
(d) the Society altered the use of parks, civic
amenity sites and other open spaces as
specified in the approved layout plan duly
sanctioned by the BDA, as alleged ?
II) Whether the percentages of areas reserved for
residential use, civic amenities, parks, open spaces and
222
roads in the layout formed by the Society are in
accordance with the 'Old Policy' of the State
Government prior to the year 1992 as claimed by the
Society ?
III) If not, what order?
IV) Whether Petitioner proves that the Contemnors in
CCC 87/2004 are guilty of willful disobedience of the
interim order dated 18/6/2003 in WP 40994/2002?
141. POINT No.I (a)
The State Government acting on the
representation of the 4th respondent – Society proposed
to acquire large extents of lands comprised in
Allalasandra, Chikka Bommasandra and Jakkur
Plantation by invoking the LA Act. However, by
notification dated 28/2/1999, issued under 6(1) of LA
Act 169 acres 12 guntas as against 170 acres was
notified for acquisition for and on behalf of the society.
It appears from the records, more appropriately
223
Annexure-R4(G), layout plan that the actual extent of
land acquired and possession delivered was 154 Acres
11¾ guntas, although it is claimed that under the
possession certificates dated 13/11/1992 and
2/9/1994, a total extent of 156 acres and 26 ¾ guntas
was acquired and possession delivered. Without taking
possession of even a portion of said land, the Society
made a representation dated 6/11/1992 Ex.P-81 to the
BDA enclosing a draft layout plan Ex.P-82 for sanction
of the layout over an extent of 193 Acres 02¼ guntas
which when considered in the meeting held on
16/11/1992 vide Resolution No.503/1992 Ex.P-83(a)
resolved to approve the private layout to an extent of
156 Acres and 26¾ guntas subject to fulfilment of the
conditions as communicated to the Society in its letter
dated 28/11/1992. The factual matrix discloses that
the BDA in its resolution No.503/1992 did not accord
sanction to the layout plan submitted by the society
over an extent of 193 Acres 02 ¼ guntas nor was a
224
modified plan duly approved and furnished to the
Society over an extent of 156 acres 26 ¾ guntas, or 154
acres 11 ¾ guntas but subjected the approval of 156
acres and 26 ¾ guntas to compliance with the
conditions imposed. Fact remains that the society did
not pursue the matter of obtaining approval and
sanction of the layout plan since several other Co-
operative House Building Societies, similarly situated
called in question the conditions imposed by the BDA,
by filing Writ Petitions and further more since the
Special Land Acquisition Officer had not issued a No-
objection Certificate, one of the conditions imposed by
the BDA. That challenge to the said conditions when
considered by a Co-ordinate Division Bench in WP
11144/1993 and connected petitions by common order
dated 20/4/2001 quashed the conditions. Although the
Society did not challenge the conditions as had been
done by the other societies, nevertheless, the effect of
the order of the Division Bench was equally applicable
225
to the Society.
142. The factum of BDA having not approved the
layout plan as submitted by the Society is admitted in
its statement of objections dated 25/2/2004, at
Paragraph 8 which reads thus:
“It is submitted that the 1st respondent has not
sanctioned or approved a layout plan in favour of the
4th respondent as on date since the 4th respondent
failed to comply with the conditions laid down by its
letter dated 28/11/1992 as on date.”
143. In the evidence of PW-2, B.Mahendra, the
Town Planning Member, BDA in CCC (Civil) 87/2004, it
is elicited in examination-in-chief that Ex.P-82 is the
blue print of the proposed layout enclosed to the
application dated 6/11/1992 Ex.P-81 (the very same
plan copy of which is marked ANNEXURE -R-3(a) to the
statement of objections of the BDA and exhibited as P-
64(d). That witness further testified that the BDA
226
issued a communication dated 8/12/1993 calling upon
the society to comply with the conditions within a period
of 15 days for consideration of approval of the layout
plan over an extent of 156 acres 26 ¾ guntas which
was responded to by a reply of the society enclosing the
interim order in WP 1600/1994 directing the authorities
to hand over possession of 17 Acres 18 Guntas acquired
for formation of the layout, being part of the entire
extent 193 acres 02 ¼ guntas. PW-2 further states
thus:
“Thereafter till date the BDA has not sanctioned any
layout plan in favour of the 1st Accused Society”
144. In the light of the aforesaid statements, it is
obvious that the petitioner is able to establish a fact
that the Society prepared the layout plan Ex.P-82 over
an extent of 193 acres 02 ¼ guntas comprised in
Allalasandra, Chikkabommasandra and Jakkur
plantation and submitted the same for approval as
227
enclosed to its application dated 6/11/1992 Ex.P-81.
Hence Point I (a) is answered in the affirmative.
145. Point I(b) :
The plan Ex.P-1, annexed to the petition as
Annexure-E, the admissibility of which was directed to
be considered at a later stage, when introduced in the
evidence of PW-1 on 16/3/2007 as a copy of the very
same plan Ex.P-82 introduced in the evidence of PW-2.
Ex.P-1 is a copy of the draft plan which PW-1 claims
was exhibited in the 2nd meeting conducted by the
Society at the time of formation of the layout, in
connection with the development of the layout. Ex.P-1
has an index stating the total extent of land for
development in the 1st stage is 154 Acres 16 ¼ guntas
and the 2nd stage is 37 acres 30 ¼ guntas, totally
measuring 192 Acres 06 ½ guntas. According to PW-1
a certified copy of Ex.P-1 though applied for, the BDA
228
did not furnish a copy. In the cross examination of PW-
1 it is elicited thus:
“I am not aware whether the original of Ex.P-1 –
plan was produced to the BDA. I do not know
whether the original of Ex.P-1 – plan was
replicated, duplicated or triplicated. I do not know
if a duplicate, replicate or a triplicate of the original
of Ex.P-1 – plan was produced to the BDA. I do not
know which plan was produced to the BDA.” xxx
“ It is true that I have not obtained the certified
copy of the plan alleged produced by the 4th
respondent, either from the BDA or from the office
of the society xxxxx. I do not have copy of that plan
produced by the society to the BDA .”
146. The testimony of PW-2 in the cross
examination, a relevant fact is admitted as regards the
plan Ex.P-1 which reads thus:
“It is true Ex.P-1 shown to me now was not
submitted to the Bangalore Development Authority
by the society for approval. The witness volunteers
that another plan Ex.R-3(A) bearing the signature
229
of the President of the Society was submitted for
approval. The plan Ex.R-3(A) was enclosed to the
letter dated 6/11/1992 addressed by the society to
the BDA. The following endorsement “1st stage
layout plan approved vide Resolution No.506/92 of
BDA” found in Ex.P-1 is not found in Ex.R-3(A)
(Ex.P-64-D) filed by the society to the BDA for
approval.”
147. The aforesaid interpolation in Ex.P-1 not
found in the original blue print Ex.P-82 being the draft
of the layout plan submitted by the Society, coupled
with the facts noticed supra that the extents of land in
Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-82 are neither similar nor identical, it
is manifestly clear that the Petitioner is unable to
establish the fact that Ex.P-1 is a copy of the very same
Ex.P-82.
148. In the light of the aforesaid testimony of PW-
1 and the xerox copy of the plan marked as Ex.P-1
subject to objections over its admissibility, not being the
230
very same copy of Ex.P-82 since the extent of land
shown therein is 193 Acres 02 ¼ guntas as well as the
demarcation of the land are neither similar nor identical
to Ex.P-82, cannot but be said to be inadmissible in
evidence. In that view of the matter the point I(b) is
answered in the negative.
149. POINT I (c):
It is indisputable that Ex.P-82 the layout plan
enclosed to the application Ex.P-81 of the society
addressed to the Bangalore Development Authority on
6/11/1992 was for according sanction to the private
layout over an extent of 193 Acres and 02 ¼ guntas
comprised in Allalasandra, Chikkabommasandra and
Jakkur Plantation specifying the boundaries thereof. It
is also an undisputed fact that the BDA having
considered the application passed a resolution
No.503/1992 dated 16/11/1992 approving a private
layout in several survey numbers in Allalasandra
231
village, some of them in Chikkkabommasandra village
and others in Jakkur Plantation of Yelahanka Hobli,
Bangalore North taluk to an extent of 156 Acres 26 ¾
guntas in favour of the Society without issuing an
approved layout plan over that extent which was less
than the extent of land proposed by the Society to form
the layout. That approval, it is undisputed was
subjected to certain conditions which were not fulfilled
by the society. It is also an undisputed fact that the
Special Land Acquisition Officer did not put the society
in possession of the entire extent of land proposed for
formation of layout as on the date i.e. 6.11.1992 when
the application along with layout plan was submitted to
the BDA for approval/sanction. The society was unable
to secure the No-objection Certificate from the Special
Land Acquisition Officer as on the date of filing the
application for sanction of the layout plan. Thus the
society without taking possession of all the lands from
the Special Land Acquisition Officer could not have
232
made the application Ex.P-81 and enclose a plan Ex.P-
82 for approval. When the plan itself was without
necessary particulars over acquisition of title to the
lands therein, it cannot be said that there was a valid
approval of the said plan by the BDA.
150. Much was made about Sec.32 of the BDA
Act asserting that Ex.P-1 was, infact, the plan that was
approved by the BDA and even assuming that such an
approval was not granted, nevertheless, in the light of
Sub Section 8 of Section 32, the said plan was deemed
to have been sanctioned. This submission having
regard to the facts supra is noticed only to be rejected.
The plan Ex.P-1 was not submitted to the BDA and
therefore resolution No.503/1992 did not apply over
sanction of the said plan by the BDA. The entire case of
the Petitioner is over the 'alleged' approval by the BDA
for the formation of a layout of residential sites in
accordance with the layout plan Ex.P-1 (marked as
Annexure-E to the Petition). Hence Point 1 (c) is
233
answered in the negative.
151. POINT I(d):
The testimony of PW-1 that the site meant for
'temple' and other civic amenity sites as shown in Ex.P-
1 were put to use for residential purpose, in other words
by altering its usage at the instance of the respondent
society is sought to be corroborated by the testimony of
PW-2 who in cross examination however admits that in
the original blue print Ex.P-82, there is a pencil entry
'temple' as against the site denoted as CA and that entry
was made for the purpose of working when the
authorities went for inspection to ascertain the nature
and usage of CA sites and further that the entry was
made by the Head Draftsman on the basis of statement
made by Petitioner and Accused although PW-2 was not
present at the time of spot inspection.
152. Regard being had to the testimony of PWs-1
and 2 and the material on record, coupled with the
234
finding on Points 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) the allegations that
sites earmarked for CA as well as temple in the plan
Ex.P-1 were diverted to use for residential purpose is
unacceptable. Petitioner is unable to establish the said
allegations and therefore Point 1(d) is answered in the
negative.
153. POINTS II and III:
In order to answer these issues, it is necessary to
refer to relevant materials relating to the exact extent of
lands with their boundaries comprised in Allasandra,
Chikkabommasandra and Jakkur Plantation in the
matter of making private layout by the society. Ex.P-82
the plan said to have been submitted by the society on
6/11/1992 is over an extent of 193 Acres 02 ¼ guntas
comprised in the aforesaid three locations. In addition
the material discloses certain portions of land
comprised within the said area were unacquired land,
since, acquired by private negotiation with the owners of
235
the said lands, excluded from the extent of land shown
in Ex.P-82.
154. It is borne out from the order sheet that the
society prepared and submitted to Court a
comprehensive layout plan comprising of the extents of
land both acquired by the State and those purchased by
the Society by way of private negotiations and that
litigation is pending before the Civil Court in respect of
lands purchased under private negotiations, more
appropriately in respect of 22 guntas in Sy.No.12/2C
and 22 guntas in Sy.No.12/4B belonging to decree
holders-respondents 5 to 16, the legal representatives of
deceased Marappa. All the parties have agreed that the
extent of land for the purpose of determining the
percentages of land to be put to use for residential, civic
amenities, open spaces, roads, and parks ought to be
156 Acres 26 ¾ guntas. The order sheet further
discloses that during the pendency of the petition,
approximately 6.4% i.e., 10 Acres and 01 gunta from
236
out of 156 Acres 26¾ guntas is handed over to the
BBMP towards parks, open spaces and civic amenities
while an extent of 35.41% equivalent to 54 Acres 37.6
guntas is utilised for roads some of which is included in
the unacquired lands and that storm water drain
measures 1 Acre and 3.8 guntas equivalent to 0.07%
totalling to 42.51% or 67 Acres 70.45 guntas. The
balance of 57.49% is said to be put to use for residential
purposes.
155. In this regard, the 4th respondent society
filed a Memo dated 4/12/2015 enclosing a layout plan
furnishing the description of the aforesaid utilisation of
various portions of the land including but not confined
to the unacquired land also, while highlighting the
following particulars:
1 ENCROACHED AREAS 35,945.96 SQ.FEET
2 LAND ACQUIRED BY THE
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY 13,067.92 SQ.FEET
3 UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTIONS 41,381.76 SQ.FEET
237
4 VACANT SITE EAR-MARKED FOR THE PROPOSED TEMPLE IN THE
LAYOUT
3,721.18 SQ FEET
5 RESIDENTIAL AREA
6 THE PROPERTY CONCEDED IN
FAVOUR OF AND HANDED OVER
TO BBMP
4,36,847.57 SQ.FEET
7 UNACQUIRED LANDS DE-MARKETED
11,02,878.55 SQ.FEET
8 STORM WATER DRAIN 47,710.00 SQ.FEET
156. The BBMP has filed its reports disclosing the
extents of lands which the society has handed over
under several relinquishment deeds duly registered and
the action taken by the BBMP to develop the said areas.
157. The BDA in its memo dated 10/12/2015
does not dispute the extent of land i.e., 156 Acres 26 ¾
guntas from out of which 67 Acres 7.45 guntas are
reserved for CA and parks, and handing over of
possession of 10 Acres and 01 gunta to the BBMP
towards parks and open spaces submits that in terms of
the Master Plan approved on 10/12/1984 under the
238
KTCP Act, the Society could have reserved 50% of land
for residential purpose and the remaining towards
parks., open spaces, play grounds, CA and roads.
However, it is also stated that under the prevailing
Master Plan the area to be reserved for residential
purpose is 55% and 45% towards parks, CA etc., and
since the Society having formed the layout reserving 57
½% towards residential, the excess utilisation is about 2
½%.
158. The statement of BDA is in contrast with the
claim of the society that prior to the year 1992 the
reservations to be provided in a layout plan for sanction
is 65% towards residential purpose and the balance of
35% towards civic amenities, parks, open spaces and
roads as was permitted by the State Government under
its “Old Policy”. PW-2 the Town Planning Member of
the BDA in his examination-in-chief in CCC 87/2004
testified over the norms prescribed by the State
Government during the year 1992 for approval of a
239
private layout were 50% of the area to be reserved for
residence; 15% for parks and open spaces; and 35% for
roads and civic amenities. Hence, in the absence of
relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence
of the fact asserted by the Society, it is not possible to
accept the percentages of reservation claimed by the
Society.
159. It is a matter of fact as admitted by the BDA
in its Memo dated 10/12/2015, that in the case of
MPME HBCS Ltd the BDA passed a resolution in
Subject No.140/2004 dated 29/05/2004 permitting
excess residential area of 13.70% and an extent of
4.10% less than the prescribed minimum extent for
parks and open spaces in the Zonal Regulations. So
also, it is admitted that in the case of Vishwabharathi
HBCS in terms of the order dated 16/11/2010 in WP
18496/2007 and connected petitions, similar such
resolution was passed by the BDA favouring the society.
The Memo further states that the Society having carried
240
out all the civil works by fully developing the layout in
question and several residential buildings are
constructed, the BDA is prepared to approve the layout
having regard to and in the light of the resolution in
other societies, as may be directed by this Court.
160. Petitioner 1(f), (h), (j) to (l) being Directors of
the Petitioner Association, through their legal counsel
filed a statement dated 9/12/2015 interalia admitting
the fact of the Society having fully developed the layout,
the extents put to use for residential, CA, open spaces,
parks and roads as also the percentages of lands to be
reserved for the aforesaid purposes under the present
Zoning Regulations, submit that in the absence of a
sanction and approval of a layout plan by the Bangalore
Development Authority, in the changed circumstances
and keeping in the mind, the welfare of the members of
the society the reliefs in the Writ Petition may be
suitably modified so as to permit sanction of plan by the
BDA.
241
161. The Synopsis dated 20/1/2016 is filed by
the learned counsel for the Petitioner Association
interalia reiterating the allegations set out in the Writ
Petition as well as the Contempt Petition with a request
to allow the Writ Petition and also to recall the orders
dated 18/12/2015 on IA Nos. 6 and 7 and 15/3/2010
in respect of Site Nos. 859C, 859D and 670/H.
162. The Society filed its synopsis on 14/12/2015
while reiterating its averments set out in the statement
of objections as well as the correspondence between it
and the BDA including the non-approval and sanction
of the layout plan as well as the private acquisition of an
extent of 25 Acres of land from out the said villages in
addition to the demand and collection of development
charges by the City Municipal Council, Yelahanka from
the society coupled with the compliance of orders in the
Petition from time to time, there being substantial
compliance with statutory provisions in the matter of
forming the private layout in the acquired lands nothing
242
further would survive for consideration in the Petition.
163. Undoubtedly, the society without obtaining
prior sanction or approval for formation of a private
layout, did so which is contrary to the provisions of the
KTCP Act as well as the BDA Act. The development
works even according to the witnesses, was carried out
by the society without there being a plan released by the
BDA according approval and sanction for the private
layout. The allottees of the sites in the layout have
constructed buildings thereon presumably after
obtaining permission/sanction of building plans from
the local authority being the Municipal Council. The
petition presented in the year 2002 by members of the
Petitioner-Association, none other than the members of
the Society, being allottees of sites in the layout
complaining of certain illegalities is in itself at a belated
stage of development, though being under the
impression that the layout plan was approved by the
BDA in its resolution No.503/1992.
243
164. In the light of several orders passed in the
Petition extracted supra, and the layout developed
reserving areas noticed above, it would be in the best
interest of all concerned i.e., the Society, its members
and allottees to ensure that the comprehensive layout
plan d-alienating the areas put to use for residential,
parks, civic amenities, open spaces and road, is placed
before the BDA- the Planning Authority under the BDA
Act and as the area in question falls within the
territorial jurisdiction of the BDA, for sanction and
approval. Points II and III are answered accordingly.
165. Although a faint assertion was made by the
4th respondent society that the City Municipal Council
Yelahanka exercising the jurisdiction under the
Municipalities Act had accorded sanction and
permission for formation of the layout in question, that
Council arraigned as Respondent No. 3 in the Petition
filed an additional statement dated 11/3/2005 that the
244
Council when constituted for the villages of Allalasandra
and those adjoining were included in its territorial
jurisdiction by Gazette Notification dated 22/8/1995
and that elections to the office bearers of the Council
was held on 7/1/1996 while the elected officer bearers
took charge on 14/2/1996. In addition it is stated that
the 4th respondent Society submitted a layout plan with
a request to accept the layout formed and transfer the
Khata of the sites in the name of the members in
addition to sanction of building licences following which
the Council on 22/5/1996 resolved to transfer the
Khata and sanction building licences on compliance
with the rules and procedure of the Municipality. It is
further stated that the in-charge Commissioner was the
Chief Officer of the Town Municipal Council on
22/5/1996 who affixed the seal and signature to the
layout plan submitted by the society. That on
17/5/2002 the society executed a Registered
Relinquishment Deed in respect of roads, drainage, civic
245
amenity sites, parks, schools etc., ANNEXURE R-3(b)
and that the plan said to be annexed to the deed was
infact not done so; and that the society is due
Rs.47,04,568/- towards development and supervision
charges in respect of the layout.
166. To the statement of objections dated
9/7/2004 of the 3rd Respondent-CMC, is enclosed a
copy of the resolution dated 22/5/1996, ANNEXURE R-
1, which reads thus:
“There were detail discursions on the subject. The
Circular of Director of Municipal administration dated
17-4-1990, bearing No D.M.A.: A.D.M.: 89/90was
taken into consideration. The owners, that is the
house Building Co-0operative Society has carried out
the development work in the said Layout formation of
Road putting Tarr to main road and cross Roads,
drainage, underground drainage, electricity supply are
all carried out and same satisfies the conditions of the
circular. Subject to payment of 9% layout formation
expenditure by the Society, the transfer of Katha
Building license etc, may be granted subject to
246
payment of necessary fees, damages etc.”
167. Thus the inevitable conclusion is that the
CMC, Yelahanka did not accord sanction or approval to
the layout plan for the formation of a private layout
except to demand payment of 9% of the layout
formation expenditure from the society and permit
transfer of Khata, building licence etc., subject to
payment of necessary fees, damages etc.,
168. For the aforesaid reasons, it is impermissible
to accept as a matter of fact the claim of the Society to
have obtained sanction and approval of the layout plan
from the CMC, Yelahanka.
169. POINT NO.IV
The Complaint Petition is grounded on the
allegation of the Contemnors having caused wilful
disobedience of the order dated 18/6/2003 in WP
40994/2002. According to the complainant none other
247
than the Writ Petitioner when the Writ Petition was
listed for Preliminary Hearing on 22/1/2003, Emergent
Notice was directed and an interim order restraining the
Respondents in the Writ Petition from changing the
nature of land with regard to the temple side measuring
195 ft x 200 ft. That on 18/6/2003 the Court directed
the 4th respondent society, therein, to produce the map
submitted to the BDA along with a list of civic amenity
sites which were transferred within one month and the
BDA to place a report within two months thereof, while
continuing the interim order with a further direction to
the society not to transfer any civic amenity site shown
in the map. That on 2/7/2003 the Complainant served
a copy of the interim order dated 18/6/2003 on the
Secretary/Manager of the Society and that the interim
order was made in the presence of the Counsel for the
Society.
170. The Accused are the President,
248
Secretary/Manager and Directors of the Society
although only the society was arraigned as Respondent
No.4 in the Writ Petition represented by its Secretary. It
is said that the society filed a memo on 18/7/2003 in
compliance with the order dated 18/6/2003. It is the
allegation that despite service of notice of the interim
order the society deliberately sold residential sites in the
open area in wilful disobedience of the interim order. In
addition, it is alleged that the society changed the
nature of the civic amenity sites by converting them as
residential sites and selling and registering the same to
different persons after the interim order dated
18/6/2003, as disclosed in the Encumbrance
Certificates, ANNEXURE – C series while the list of civic
amenity sites as ANNEXURE-D and the layout plan
ANNEXURE-E said to have been submitted by the
society to the BDA for approval. In addition, it was
stated that the society furnished a modified plan
approved by the CMC Yelahanka ANNEXURE-F. Hence,
249
it is contended that all the respondents committed
Contempt of Court and being officer bearers of the
society are personally liable.
171. In the statement of objections of the 6th
respondent, by name C. Shivalingaiah, who was the
President of the society ever since the year 1999 denied
the allegations and contended that the society though
engaged Sri.B.L.Acharya, learned Counsel, Bangalore to
represent the society and had filed vakalath,
nevertheless, on 18/6/2003 when the case was listed
for orders, the counsel's name was not shown, hence he
did not represent the case. That the interim order dated
21/2/2003 though directed the respondents not to
change the nature of land in respect of site measuring
195 ft x 200 ft termed as temple site nevertheless, in the
layout plan sanctioned by the CMC Yelahanka, that
area comprised of several residential sites, some of
which were transferred before the interim order while
250
others remained as such. As regards production of a
copy of the layout plan submitted to the BDA, it was
asserted that the said respondent was not aware of the
same while the records maintained in the society
disclosed one layout plan submitted to the CMC
Yelahanka as also an endorsement issued by the BDA
stating that no layout plan is available in its records.
The assertion that the order dated 18/6/2003 directing
the society not to transfer any civic amenity sites shown
in the map is a mis-leading statement. And further that
the Board of Directors of the society having considered
the interim order were of the opinion that it did not
prevent the transfer of civic amenity sites reserved in
the layout plan submitted to the CMC Yelahanka. It
was admitted that certain residential sites sold were not
subject matter of interim order since not civic amenity
sites. The Encumbrance Certificates, it is said, relate to
sale of residential sites while the layout plan
ANNEXURE-E is not the plan submitted by the society
251
to the BDA for approval.
172. 1st Respondent BDA also filed its statement
of objections interalia denying the allegations stating
that they were not parties to any of the transactions of
sale. While ANNEXURE-E plan is not a copy of the plan
submitted by the society to it for sanction or approval
and that no sanction or approval was accorded to any
plan by Resolution No.503/1992.
173. The BDA by memo dated 22/2/2005 placed
on record a statement of number of sites formed by the
society in the area shown as CA sites and park area in
the layout plan submitted by the society to the BDA for
approval. It was specifically pointed out that in terms
of the layout plan the area reserved for the civic
amenities is 271248.12 sq.ft (3.97% of total area) and
area reserved for park as 13,99,782.39 sq ft (20.51% of
the total area). According to the BDA, in terms of the
directions contained in the order dated 8/7/2005, it
252
superimposed plan submitted by the society to the BDA
for approval with the enlarged plan since submitted to
Court on 8/7/2005 found that the society had formed
131 Nos. of sites in the area reserved for civic amenities
(271248.12 sq.ft) and 273 Nos. of sites in the area
reserved for park (1051768.41 sq.ft) totalling to 404
sites.
174. Respondents 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 filed their
objections denying the allegations, while however,
admitting the execution of sale deeds in respect of the
following 24 sites.
SL. NO.
SITE NO. DATE OF
REGISTRATION NAME OF ALLOTTEES CANCELLATION
DEED 1 2057 19.9.2003 MR.M.A.SURESH 9.2.2005 2 1976 19.9.2003 MR.SHEKHAR 9.2.2005 3 1970 19.9.2003 MR.G.R.NARAYANAPPA 9.2.2005 4 1973 19.9.2003 MR.S.RAVINDRA BABU 18.2.2005 5 2119 5.9.2003 MR.C.R.NARAYANAPPA 14.2.2005 6 701/C 23.8.2003 SMT.GEETHA
NARAYANASWAMY 9.3.2005
7 1971 19.9.2003 N.SREEDHAR 9.2.2005 8 2120 29.10.2003 B.ANITHA 9 2122 8.10.2003 PREMA.S 10 2117 22.11.2003 K.M.NATARAJ 11 2048 3.10.2003 G.RADHAKRISHNA 12 2023 4.11.2003 KRISHNAPPA 13 859/F 16.10.2003 H.P.LEELADHAR 14 859/E 16.10.2003 SHAMANTH 15 670/5 12.12.2003 B.RAMESH
253
16 670/4 12.12.2003 SHESHAGIRI 17 670/3 16.12.2003 B.MALLIKARJUNA 18 362/17 12.12.2003 K.S.MANJUNATH 19 362/15 12.12.2003 MUNINAGAPPA 20 308/B 12.12.2003 R.YATHISH 21 859/A 22.12.2003 HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE
B.K.SOMASHEKHAR
22 670/9 27.12.2003 B.BHAVYA 23 2047 29.9.2003 M.KRISHNAPPA 24 859/B 2.4.2003 R.N.NAGARAJ
175. The 6th respondent being the President of
the society, it is stated was a party respondent in the
Writ Petition and was not informed of the orders passed
in the Writ Petition while Respondents 5, 7 and 8 did
not execute any sale deeds as alleged nor were they
parties to the Writ Petition and were not aware of the
interim orders. The BDA filed a memo dated
17/2/2006 enclosing a joint inspection report along
with the statement of 404 sites and a layout plan.
176. Respondents 4 to 6 filed a memo enclosing
copies of 16 cancellation deeds dated 23/2/2006.
177. Charges were framed and plea recorded on
28/7/2006 in respect of the Accused who pleaded not
guilty. Evidence of three witnesses was recorded and
254
thereafter arguments were made.
178. For a better understanding of the allegations,
it is useful to extract the interim order dated 18/6/2003
which runs thus:
“Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that
despite the order dated 22/1/2003 the civic amenity
sites are being sold by the 4th respondent-Society
and in this way it is changing the character. The
Petitioners are directed to file the details of such
sites, which have been sold in violation.
2. Respondents 3 and 4 are served, but not
appeared despite service. Learning Standing
Counsel for the B.D.A., and the learned Government
Advocate are present, but no counter has been filed.
3. It is necessary to ascertain the facts.
Therefore, Respondent No.4/Society is directed to
submit a copy of the map filed to B.D.A., to this Court
and a list of transfer of civic amenity sites, if any,
within one month. Respondent No.1/B.D.A., shall
also submit its report within two months.
4. The interim order dated 22/1/2003 shall
255
continue and in addition it is also made clear that
during the pendency of this Petition, the Society shall
not transfer any civic amenity sites as shown in plan
submitted to B.D.A., until further orders. In the
meanwhile the respondents can file their counter.
Put up after two months.”
179. In essence what is complained of is wilful
disregard to the direction contained in Paragraph 4 of
the interim order, insofar as it relates to transfer of civic
amenity sites as shown in the plan submitted to BDA.
180. In order to sustain the allegations, the
indispensable requirements of the complainants are to
prove the act of Contempt. In other words, complainant
would have to prove the following:
a) Service of notice and knowledge of the
interim order dated 18/6/2003 on the
respondents/contemnors
b) Precise act of contempt
c) Date of alleged act of contempt
d) Responsibility of the contemnors.
256
(a) Service of notice and knowledge of the interim
order dated 18/6/2003 on the
respondents/contemnors:
As regard (a), it is not in dispute that the society when
arraigned as 4th respondent in WP 40994/2002 was
served with the notice as evident from the postal
acknowledgement dated 25/1/2003 pursuant to the
order dated 22/1/2003 and Sri.B.L.Acharya, learned
Counsel filed vakalath for and on behalf of 4th
respondent society on 10/2/2003. These facts are
admitted in the statement of objections dated 4/8/2004
of the society.
181. PW-1 in the further examination-in-chief on
13/1/2007 introduced in evidence the certified copy of
the Register for delivery of copies for the year 2003
Ex.P-80 and entry No. 8047 dated 19/6/2003 recording
257
the name of Suresh Kumar, Secretary of the society
having applied for the certified copy of the order dated
18/6/2003 in WP 40994/2002 marked as Ex.P-80(a).
This evidence remains unchallenged. The documentary
evidence discloses that Suresh Kumar received the
certified copy of the interim order on 24/6/2003. The
testimony of PW-3 that he personally served a copy of
the interim order on Suresh Kumar, the then secretary
of the society on 3/7/2003 as an enclosure to a
covering letter under an acknowledgment, though the
acknowledgement is missing, is not seriously contested
nor anything incriminatory ellicited in the cross-
examination. Infact, in the objection statement of the
6th respondent, contemnor by name Shivalingaiah, it is
stated that the interim order was considered by the
Board of Directors of the Society who opined that it did
not prevent the sale of residential sites. In Ex.P-61,
Memo dated 18/7/2003 filed by the 4th respondent in
WP 40994/2002 the heading reads thus:
258
“MEMO FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
PRODUCING DOCUMENTS AS DIRECTED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT ORDER 18/6/2003”
182. In the light of the aforesaid evidence both
oral and documentary there can be no more doubt that
the 4th respondent and its office bearers had not only
notice but also knowledge of the interim order dated
18/6/2003. The contention that the office bearers not
being parties to the Writ Petition were unaware of the
interim order pales into insignificance and deserves to
be rejected.
(b) Precise act of contempt:
The act complained of is that the society
represented by its President C.Shivalingaiah sold
various sites reserved for civic amenities and parks as
shown in the plan of the year 1992 submitted by the
society to the BDA. In view of this allegation, the layout
plan submitted by the society to the BDA assumes
259
importance.
183. PW-2 the Town Planning Director of the BDA
testifies to the filing of the application dated 6/11/1992
Ex.P-81 enclosed with a layout plan Ex.P-82 by the
respondent society for sanction and approval of the
layout plan in respect of development of 193 Acres 02 ¼
guntas reserving lands for residential, civic amenities,
parks, playgrounds etc., This fact is not in dispute
although, the complainant asserts that the layout plan
ANNEXURE-E marked as Ex.P-1 in the testimony of
PW-1 is a copy of Ex.P-82. For reasons already
recorded supra, Ex.P-1 is not same or similar to Ex.P-
82. Therefore, it can be safely assumed that the layout
plan submitted by the society to the BDA for sanction
and approval was Ex.P-82.
184. The fact that 24 sites of various dimensions
as extracted supra were allotted and conveyed under
several sale deeds executed by C.Shivalingaiah
260
representing the society, on and after the interim order
dated 18/6/2003 is not in dispute. These documents of
conveyance, including eight such documents at Sl.Nos.
2 to 8 in IA dated 4/2/2005 are found in the
Encumberance Certificates Ex.P-14 to Ex.P-41.
185. Both PW-1 and PW-3 having testified to the
aforesaid documents coupled with the statement made
by C.Shivalingaiah, there is no more dispute over
execution of sale deeds. However, it must be noticed
that in the affidavit of Shivalingaiah Ex.P-72, filed in WP
40994/2002, it is stated that the said documents have
been cancelled, although in the layout plan approved by
the CMC, Yelahanka, these sites do not form a part of
the civic amenity areas. In other words, the alleged act
of contempt stands purged.
(c) Date of alleged act of contempt:
The date of act of contempt as disclosed in the list of
documents executed, extracted supra is between August
261
2003 and December 2003.
(d) Responsibility of the contemnors:
The President of the Society by name
Shivalingaiah, since deceased having admitted to the
execution of the sale deeds, the defence is that the sites
conveyed under the sale deeds do not form a part of the
civic amenity area and even otherwise, the documents
as well as the allotment of sites are cancelled.
186. It is the assertion of the BDA that it held a
joint inspection of the area in the presence of the parties
and having superimposed the two plans i.e., Ex.P-82
and the plan submitted to the Court on 17/02/2006,
prepared a report Ex.P-75 (a) identifying 404 sites
formed in the civic amenity area and parks. In the
testimony of PW-2, there is not a whisper over the so
called superimposition of the maps, while, it is stated
that in Ex.P-82, there is a pencil entry 'temple' in the
site denoted as CA which entry was made by a Head
262
Draftsman at the time of inspection on the basis of the
statement of the Complainant and the Accused
although PW-2 was not present at that time.
187. It is noticed supra that Ex.P-82
encompasses an extent of 193 Acres 02 ¼ guntas of
land while resolution No.503/1992 is in respect of 156
Acres 26 ¾ guntas of which a rectified or modified plan
is not issued with an endorsement of either a sanction
or approval. Therefore, to say that the 404 sites
identified in the report Ex.P-75 (a) falls within the CA
site in Ex.P-82, in the given facts and circumstances is
far from acceptance.
188. It is matter of fact that C. Shivalingaiah one
of the Contemnors is no more.
189. Although learned Senior Counsel for the
complainant submits that the decision of the Co-
ordinate Division Bench in Subramani vs Union Of
India ILR 1995 KAR 3139 supports the case of the
263
Petitioners, we are afraid the decision is inapplicable
since what fell for consideration was over the challenge
to the acquisition of the land by the State Government
for and on behalf of the Society and whether the
acquisition was tainted on account of engaging a middle
man under an agreement for the purpose of acquisition
and allotment of sites to sitting and retired judges of
this Court and that of the Apex Court.
190. In the circumstances, since there is
substantial compliance with the formation of layout
reserving areas for residential, parks, open spaces, CA,
roads, etc., coupled with sufficient dispute over the
exact extent of land and their location as also the
reservation in the lands acquired and unacquired, while
Society has settled the dispute of the unacquired land
before the Civil Court in the Suits instituted against
respondents 5 to 16, there is a need to issue directions
to the BDA and the State Government over the sanction
of the layout plan.
264
191. In the result, though petitioner is not
entitled to the reliefs, nevertheless the writ petition is
disposed of with the following directions:
(a) The Society to prepare and submit on
or before 30th June, 2016 to the BDA a
layout plan over an extent of 154 acres 11 ¾
guntas since acquired by the State
Government and 28 acres 06 ¼ gunta being
the unacquired portion, totalling to 182
acres and 18 guntas comprised in
Allasandra, Chikkabommasandra and
Jakkur Plantation, as indicated in the plan
Annexure-R4(G) , for approval and sanction
in accordance with the KTCP Act as also the
BDA Act;
(b) The layout plan to depict the areas
reserved and handed over to the BBMP as
civic amenities and open spaces under the
Relinquishment Deeds executed by the
Society, and in the event of shortfall in the
area so reserved, in accordance with law, the
265
Society shall make available the deficit of the
land from out of the said layout or in the
alternative, pay penalty determined by BDA
as done in the case of Vishwa Bharati House
Building Cooperative Society and Mysore
Paper Mills Employees' House Building
Cooperative Society;
(c) BDA to consider the layout plan to be
submitted by the Society and pass resolution
after due inspection and verification of the
land and accord sanction, strictly in
accordance with law, within four months
thereafter;
(d) The State Government to consider the
resolution to be passed by the BDA strictly
in accordance with the KTCP Act and pass
orders thereon within one month from the
date of recommendation from the BDA;
(e) Respondents 5 to 16 are at liberty to have
their grievance redressed before the
competent Civil Court in respect of land
measuring 22 guntas each in Sy.Nos. 12/2C
and 12/4B, claimed to be subject matter of
266
Judgment and decree dated 9.7.2003 in
O.S.4361/2000 on the file of the City Civil
Court, Bangalore and as also in
W.P.3152/2002 DD 9.7.2003;
(f) This order shall not be construed as a
precedent or one of regularising allotment of
sites, if shown to be illegal;
(g) The Society to pursue all legal
proceedings pending before the Civil Court,
as also before the Authorities of the Co-
operative Department in respect of the sites
formed in the layout, including the evicting
of unauthorised occupants, taking
possession of the sites and allot them to
members who have lost the allotment due to
cancellation on account of reservation of the
sites for civic amenities and open spaces or
have not been allotted sites, in accordance
with their seniority in membership;
(h) The BBMP is directed to ensure the
development within 6 months and
maintenance of the layout including the
areas delineated as parks open spaces etc of
267
which they are put in possession by the
Society under several relinquishment deeds
and in accordance with the promise set out
in the compendium filed in 6/11/2015, so
as to show case the layout as a Model
Layout;
(i) All the statutory bodies namely the BDA,
BBMP, the BWSSB and KSPCB are directed
to act, in tandem, in the matter of ensuring
proper functioning of the sewage treatment
plan at Jakkur established during the year
2004, including its maintenance based on
established standards for treating the
sewage and to pump the treated water into
the water tank adjoining the STP;
(j) The State Government and all its
authorities are directed to consider, within
six months the establishment of a tertiary
treatment plant in the light of the quantity of
sewage flowing from the Judicial Layout and
surrounding layouts at Jakkur;
(k) The Society is directed not to allot or
alienate any site until the layout plan to be
268
submitted by the Society is approved and
duly sanctioned by the BDA and the State
Government;
(l) In the light of the aforesaid findings,
conclusions and directions, the Contempt
petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE
ln R$*