Mobile View
Main Search Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 5 docs
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 23 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
The Code Of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1956
Commissioner Of Police, Bombay vs Gordhandas Bhanji on 23 November, 1951

View the actual judgment from court
User Queries
Karnataka High Court
M/S Remco (Bhel) House Building vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara ... on 13 February, 2013
Author: A.S.Bopanna
                          1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

 DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013

                      BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA

          W.P.No.21920/2010 (LB-BMP)
                      c/w
   W.P.Nos.14665-675/2012 & 20631-796/2012
                   (LB-BMP)

W.P.No.21920/2010

BETWEEN :

  1. M/S REMCO (BHEL) HOUSE BUILDING
     CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
     NO.364, 5TH MAIN, R.P.C. LAYOUT,
     VIJAYANAGAR, II STAGE
     BANGALORE-40.

  2. G RAVISHANKAR S/O V.K.GOPAL,
     AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
     NO.295, FM CARIAPPA ROAD,
     BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE NORTH,
     BANGALORE-98.

  3. N L MANJUNATAH SHETTY
     S/O ANANTARAMA GUPTA
     AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
     NO.17, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
     12TH CROSS, MTS LAYOUT
     KENGERI UPANAGARA
     BANGALORE-60

  4. C VINAYAK
     S/O CHANNASWAMY MUDALIAR,
     AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
     NO.28A, 3RD BLOCK, 7TH CROSS,
     GRAPE GARDEN, THYARAGARAJANAGAR,
     BANGALORE-28.

  5. L PETER D SOUZA
     S/O LATE LALLIS D SOUZA,
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
                             2


        NO.437, BAPUJINAGAR, MYSORE ROAD,
        BANGALORE-26.

  6. EJAZ PASHA S/O SHEIK MUSTAFA,
     NO.344, 1ST MAIN,
     2ND CROSS, GANGONDANAHALLI,
     MYSORE ROAD,
     BANGALORE-39.                     ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI M.R. NAIK, Sr. COUNSEL FOR
    SRI D R RAVISHANKAR FOR M/S. LEX NEXUS)


AND :

  1. BRUHAT BANGALORE
     MAHANAGARA PALIKE
     REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER
     HUDSON CIRCLE
     BANGALORE

  2. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER
     RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR SUB-DIVISIN,
     BRUHAT BANGALORE
     MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
     RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR,
     BANGALORE.

  3. P S MAHALINGAPPA
     S/O LT.SIDDARAMAIAH, MAJOR,
     R/AT PATTANAGERE VILLAGE,
     KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE-98

  4. SMT K B SHANTAMMA
     W/O P.S.MAHALINGAPPA, MAJOR,
     R/O PATTANAGERE VILLAGE,
     KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE-98

  5. SRI M R KANTHARAJU
     FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN,
     C/O VIJAYAKUMAR, R/AT NO.17,
     SIDDHARAMAIAH BUILDING,
     PATTANAGERE VILLAGE,
     KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE-98

  6. SRI P B VIJAYASHANKAR
     S/O.LT.BASAPPA,
     R/O BASAPPA BUILDING,
     PATTANAGERE VILLAGE,
                            3


     KENGERI HOBLI,
     BANGALORE-98                      ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI I G GACHCHINAMATH, ADV. FOR R1 & 2
    SRI P V CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R3 & 4
    SRI H T JAGANATHA, ADV. FOR R5
    SRI R S RAVI, ADV. FOR SRI B ROOPESHA FOR R6
    ARI P N MANMOHAN, ADV. FOR R3 & 4)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDERS PASSED BY THE R2 IN PROCEEDINGS DTD 19.4.10
PRODUCED AS PER ANNEX-J.


W.P.Nos.14665-675/12 & 20631-796/12

BETWEEN:

1.   M/S REMCO (BHEL) HOUSE
     BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD
     NO.364, 5TH MAIN,
     VIJAYANAGAR II STAGE
     BANGALORE-560 040
     REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
     SRI SHANKAR G BELLERY

2.   RAJU N. MORE S/O NARAYAN MORE
     AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
     NO.506, BHEL II STAGE
     PATTANAGERE SOUTH
     RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
     BANGALORE-560 098

3.   K BALACHANDRAN
     S/O KUNJUNNI NAIR
     AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
     NO.29, BHEL II STAGE
     PATTANAGERE SOUTH
     RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
     BANGALORE-560 098

4.   NARAGINGA RAO
     S/O KESHAWA RAO
     AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
     NO.433/3, BHEL II STAGE
     PATTANAGERE SOUTH
     RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
     BANGALORE-560 098
                            4




5.    ANWER ALI KHAN S/O KHADHAR
      AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
      NO.529, BHEL II STAGE
      PATTANAGERE SOUTH
      RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
      BANGALORE-560 098

6.    ASHOK MALLAPPA MODI
      S/O MALLAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
      NO.433/4, BHEL II STAGE
      PATTANAGERE SOUTH
      RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
      BANGALORE-560 098

7.    T P MANOHAR
      S/O LATE T S PUTTASWAMY
      AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
      NO.456, BHEL II STAGE
      PATTANAGERE SOUTH
      RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
      BANGALORE-560 098

8.    MAHARUDRA KAMMAR
      S/O DEVENDRAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
      NO.502, BHEL II STAGE,
      PATTANAGERE SOUTH
      RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
      BANGALORE-560 098

9.    G SUDHA W/O SRI S. GURURAJA RAO
      AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
      NO.204, BHEL II STAGE,
      PATTANAGERE NORTH
      RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
      BANGALORE-560 098

10.   R KALAVATHY KUMAR
      W/O SRI K A KUMAR
      AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
      NO.258, BHEL II STAGE, PATTANAGERE
      NORTH, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
      BANGALORE-560 098

11.   K A KUMAR
      S/O M K ARMUGHAM
                            5


      AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
      NO.259, BHEL II STAGE, PATTANAGERE
      NORTH, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
      BANGALORE--560 098

12.   KUBHER J
      AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
      S/O JAGANNATHA RAO
      RESIDING AT 479, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE- 560098

13.   MANOHAR B KULKARNI
      AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
      S/O BIDNU RAO
      RESIDING AT 504, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

14.   KARUNAGARAN
      AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
      S/O NARASIMHAN
      RESIDING AT 411, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

15.   MANJUNATH KAMATH
      AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
      S/O NARAYANA KAMATH
      RESIDING AT 349, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

16.   DILIP KUMAR JADHAV
      AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
      S/O APPASAHEB
      RESIDING AT 549, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

17.   DODDAMANI
      AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
      S/O KASHAPPA
      RESIDING AT 619, BHEL LAYOUT
                             6


      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

18.   ANTHONY DAS
      AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
      S/O CHINNAPPA Y
      RESIDING AT 643, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

19.   MAHADEVAPPA V TOTAD
      AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
      S/O VEERANA GOWDA
      RESIDING AT 600, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

20.   VIJAYABASKAR K R
      AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
      S/O RAMU
      RESIDING AT 518, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

21.   PRAKESH DESAI
      AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
      S/O DESAI K B
      RESIDING AT 213, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

22.   NEELAKANTAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
      S/O BASALINGAPPA
      RESIDING AT 433/5, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

23.   NAGARAJA R
      AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
      S/O RAMALINGACHAR
      RESIDING AT 247, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
                             7




      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

24.   DINNI N L
      AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
      S/O LAXMAN
      RESIDING AT 92, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

25.   MUKTAR SHARIEF
      AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
      S/O SHARIEF M D
      RESIDING AT 543, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

26.   JAGADEESH K
      AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
      S/O KRISHNAMURTHY S
      RESIDING AT 547, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

27.   BASAVARAJ C PYATI
      AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
      S/O CHANNAPPA
      RESIDING AT 244, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

28.   BALASUBRAMANYA
      AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
      S/O RAMASWAMY
      RESIDING AT 9A, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

29.   NAVAVEETHAM T
      AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
      W/O THALASINGAM K
      RESIDING AT 488, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
                             8




      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

30.   MANJUNATH K G
      AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
      S/O GURUMURTHY K
      RESIDING AT 448, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

31.   RAJANNA K Y
      AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
      S/O KRISHNAPPA
      RESIDING AT 505, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

32.   SANKARA SUBBU M
      AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
      S/O MAYAK KOOTHAN S
      RESIDING AT 174, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

33.   RAMANATHAN B V
      AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
      S/O VASATH S N
      RESIDING AT 72, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

34.   JAYARAMAIAH M
      AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
      S/O MALARAYAPPA J S
      RESIDING AT 498, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

35.   SUDHAKARA SHETTY
      AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
      S/O KORAGA C SHETTY
      RESIDING AT 326, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
                             9




      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

36.   SOMAIAH C M
      AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
      S/O MADAIAH C S
      RESIDING AT 500, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

37.   VASANTHA K
      AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
      S/O RADAKRISHNA K
      RESIDING AT 21, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

38.   BASKER RAO S
      AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
      S/O SATHYANARAYANA RAO A
      RESIDING AT 485, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

39.   RANGARAO B M
      AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
      S/O MANJUNATH D S
      RESIDING AT 433/3, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

40.   MANJULADEVI G
      AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
      W/O GAGADHAR RAO D N
      RESIDING AT 45, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

41.   SUNDER RAJU S
      AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
      S/O SUBRAMANI
      RESIDING AT 534, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
                           10




      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

42.   RANGASWAMY A R
      AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
      S/O RANGUDHAIAH
      RESIDING NO.336, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

43.   SREENIVAS MURTHY
      AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
      S/O RAMACHANDRAIAH
      RESIDING AT 274, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

44.   MUNIRAJ V
      AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
      S/O VENKATARAYAPPA
      RESIDING AT 484, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

45.   MEENAKSHI S
      AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
      W/O SHARANAPPA K S
      RESIDING AT 515, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

46.   SYAM RESORIYA
      AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
      S/O LOUS MARTIN
      RESIDING AT 67, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

47.   NARENDRA KUMAR
      AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
      S/O SRINIVASMURTHY H R
      RESIDING AT 489, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
                            11




      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

48.   SREESHA B N
      AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
      S/O NARAYANA B N
      RESIDING AT 138, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

49.   RAGHU K
      AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
      S/O KALIDASAPPA
      RESIDING AT 621, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

50.   LAXMAN BADIGER
      AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
      S/O VEERAPPA
      RESIDING AT 571, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

51.   SHANKAR G BELERI
      AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
      S/O GURAPPA
      RESIDING AT 353, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

52.   BHARATH KUMAR K
      AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
      S/O KODANDA RAMA
      RESIDING AT 615, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

53.   MUTTAGI S A
      AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
      S/O AVVANAPPA
      RESIDING AT 25 , BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
                           12




      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

54.   LAKSHMIPATHI
      AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
      S/O VENKATESAN
      RESIDING AT 24, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

55.   ANJANEYA S/O NAGAPPA
      AGED 70 YEARS
      R/AT 14, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

56.   RATHNAMMA B W/O MURTHY M S
      AGED 69 YEARS
      R/AT 4, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR
      BANGALORE 98

57.   NAGARAJA DIKSHIT S
      S/O SHAMANNA DIXITH
      AGED 60 YEARS
      R/AT 1B, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
      BANGALORE 98

58.   JAYANTHI R
      W/O RANGANATHAN
      AGED 36 YEARS
      R/AT 75, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
      BANGALORE 98

59.   SHANKARI M. KAMATH
      S/O MANJUNATH KAMATH
      AGED 57 YEARS
      R/AT 39, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
      BANGALORE 98

60.   ASHOKA D S/O DASAPPA
      AGED 64 YEARS
      R/AT 65, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
                           13


      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
      BANGALORE 98

61.   CHETTY K.C.
      S/O CHANDRASHEKAR CHETTY
      R/AT 483, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
      BANGALORE 560 098

62.   THERESA MARTIN A W/O MARTIN
      AGED 62 YEARS
      R/AT NO 433/6, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560 098

63.   SURESH G J S/O GOPAL PILLAI
      AGED 63 YEARS
      R/AT 495, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR
      BANGALORE 98

64.   NARAYANA M S/O MARIYAPPA
      AGED 57 YEARS
      R/AT 468, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
      BANGALORE 560098

65.   SUDHINDRA A S/O APPAJAPPA
      AGED 55 YEARS
      R/AT 554, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 98

66.   MANJUNATH V.S. S/O SHASTRY V.S.S.
      AGED 57 YEARS
      R/AT 618, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 98

67.   VIJAYAPRAKASH B S/O BASAVARAJAPPA
      AGED 55 YEARS
      R/AT 624, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560 098

68.   PATIL T Y S/O PATIL Y K
      AGED 46 YEARS
      R/AT 628, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
                           14


      RAJARAJESHWARI ANGAR
      BANGALORE 98

69.   NATARAJ H L S/O SHASTRY H L N
      AGED 53 YEARS
      R/AT 558, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 98

70.   BASAVARU A S/O ANDANAPPA
      AGED 62 YEARS
      R/AT 433/16, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 98

71.   SHIVSHANKAR V S/O VEERASETTAPPA
      AGED 68 YEARS
      R/AT 433/13, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
      BANGALORE 98

72.   NARASIMIAH S/O NARASIMIAH
      AGED 61 YEARS
      R/AT 603, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560 098

73.   VIRGINEA ROBERTS
      W/O JAYATHEERTHA R A
      AGED 61 YEARS
      R/AT 627, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE, RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

74.   RADHA K N W/O NANJAPPA K A
      AGED 62 YEARS
      R/AT 519, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

75.   NAGARAJU V S/O VENKATARAM S
      AGED 47 YEARS
      R/AT 522, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

76.   SATHYA MURTHY H B
      S/O BINDHU MADAV SASTRY
      AGED 65 YEARS
                           15


      R/AT 591, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

77.   SHANKAR H R S/O RAMASWAMY H R
      AGED 62 YEARS
      R/AT 508, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

78.   TIMMAIAH B S/O BYRATHIMAIAH
      AGED 61 YEARS
      R/AT 573, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

79.   HUCHAIAH S/O NANJE GOWDA
      AGED 60 YEARS
      R/AT 433/15, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

80.   SUMA B T D/O THAMMAIAH B R
      AGED 48 YEARS
      R/AT 252, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

81.   SREENIVAS M S/O MUNIYAPPA
      AGED 50 YEARS
      R/AT 77, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

82.   PANKAJAM O W/O ACHUTHAN NAIR
      AGED 58 YEARS
      R/AT 93, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

83.   RAVINDRA L S/O LINGARADHYA
      AGED 49 YEARS
      R/AT 510, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

84.   PRABHAKARA M V S/O RAO M V V S
      AGED 51 YEARS
      R/AT 6, BHEL LAYOUT
                           16


      PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

85.   LAKCHMAN A S/O AMBIRATHNAM T V
      AGED 59 YEARS
      R/AT 524, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

86.   NAGALAKSHMI W/O VENKATARAMAPPA
      AGED 59 YEARS
      R/AT 270, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

87.   JAYARAM N S/O NAGARAJ SETTY
      AGED 51 YEARS
      R/AT 306, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

88.   MAHALINGAPPA N S/O NANJAIAH
      AGED 58 YEARS
      R/AT 501, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

89.   BHAGYALAKSHMI K W/O GOPALAN T
      AGED 49 YEARS
      R/AT 551, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

90.   SRIRAM T V S/O VAMANAN T R
      AGED 48 YEARS
      R/AT 612, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

91.   SURESH N S/O NARAYANAN A
      AGED 46 YEARS
      R/AT 352, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

92.   RAJESHWARI K N W/O BHATTA K G N
      AGED 56 YEARS
      R/AT 533, BHEL LAYOUT
                           17


      PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

93.   RAGHURAM G S S/O KRISHNAN GDS
      AGED 51 YEARS
      R/AT 562, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

94.   BALAKRISHNAN A S/O ANAMALAI M
      AGED 49 YEARS
      R/AT 475, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

95.   PREMKUMARI G.S.
      W/O ARUNACHALAMURTHY,
      AGED 59 YEARS,
      R/AT 85, BHEL LAYOUT
      PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

96.   RAMESH BABU C S
      S/O SIDDALINGA RAO,
      AGED 56 YEARS,
      R/AT 310, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

97.   JAGANATHA RAO
      S/O NARAYANA RAO N.S.
      AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
      R/AT 419, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

98.   GAUTHAM SARKAR
      S/O KALACHAND SARKAR
      AGED 54 YEARS,
      R/AT 340, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098

99.   GANAPATHY K R
      S/O RAMAN K.R. AGED 58 YEARS,
      R/AT 635, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
      RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE 560098
                            18


100.   DWARAKANATH S/O KRISHNA IYER,
       AGED 54 YEARS,
       R/AT 60, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098

101.   GOPAL KRISHNA K
       S/O KAPINIPATHAIAH ,
       AGED 57 YEARS,
       R/AT 563, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098

102.   VENKATESHALU K S/O KRISHNAN S
       AGED 50 YEARS,
       R/AT 37, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098

103.   KAMALA DEVI M A
       D/O ASHWATHNARAYANA SETTY,
       AGED 52 YEARS,
       R/AT 433/7, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098

104.   HARISHKUMAR S/O RAJANNA P.N.
       AGED 52 YEARS,
       R/AT 136, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098

105.   KHALEEL KHAN S/O MOOSA KHAN
       AGED 50 YEARS,
       R/AT 98, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098

106.   NAGARAJA A
       S/O VENKATARANGAPPA,
       AGED 56 YEARS,
       R/AT 597, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098

107.   GIRISH T J
       S/O JAGADEESHA MURTHY T.S.
       AGED 44 YEARS,
                             19


       R/AT 523, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098

108.   MAHESH S/O VISHWANATH M.N.
       AGED 42 YEARS,
       R/AT 583, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098

109.   KESHAV S/O CHINNAIAH,
       AGED 60 YEARS,
       R/AT 599, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098

110.   SAMPATH KUMAR
       S/O SUBAIAH SHETTY,
       AGED 49 YEARS,
       R/AT 577, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098

111.   SANTHOSH S/O BALACHANDAR Y N,
       AGED 39 YEARS,
       R/AT 622, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098

112.   DODDAIAH N S/O NAGAPPA,
       AGED 55 YEARS,
       R/AT 426, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098

113.   MOHAN RAJ M S/O MUNISWAMY ,
       AGED 53 YEARS,
       R/AT 8, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098

114.   CHANDRAMMA W/O GANESH KULLAN,
       AGED 55 YEARS,
       R/AT 237, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098

115.   SATEESH B.S. S/O SUBRAYA BHAT K ,
       AGED 45 YEARS,
                            20


       R/AT 580, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098

116.   ARUN R MUSHIGRI
       S/O RAMACHANDRAIAH,
       AGED 52 YEARS,
       R/AT 212, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098

117.   JAYARAMA R S/O RAMU K,
       AGED 55 YEARS,
       R/AT 570, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098

118.   RAGHUNATH H N
       S/O NARASIMHA MURTHY BHAT,
       AGED 52 YEARS,
       R/AT 74/1, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098

119.   SHIVAKUMAR H C S/O CHENAPPA H V,
       AGED 56 YEARS,
       R/AT 491, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098

120.   BAGALI Y P S/O DASTAGEER PATEL,
       AGED 51 YEARS,
       R/AT 241, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098

121.   SATYAVATHI T R
       W/O RAMAMURTHY T G,
       AGED 47 YEARS,
       R/AT 62/1, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098

122.   BHEEMAPPA DASHYAL S/O PARAPPA,
       AGED 50 YEARS,
       R/AT 511, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098
                            21


123.   NANJAPPA S/O MUNISWAMAPPA,
       AGED 60 YEARS,
       R/AT 631, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098

124.   JAGADISH G S/O GIRIYAPPA,
       AGED 48 YEARS,
       R/AT 587, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098

125.   SHAKUNTHALA W/O SEETHARAMA IYER,
       AGED 54 YEARS,
       R/AT 474, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE 560098

126.   SHAMKUMAR S B S/O BHAGWAN S,
       AGED 34 YEARS,
       R/AT 626, BHEL LAYOUT,PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098

127.   VEERENDRA BHANU PRATAP
       S/O CHINNAPPA T L
       AGED 51 YEARS,
       R/AT 134, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098

128.   MALLU P S/O PUTAMALLAPPA,
       AGED 62 YEARS,
       R/AT 557, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098

129.   RAGHURAMA REDDY N
       S/O NARASIMIAH,
       AGED 43 YEARS,
       R/AT 560, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098

130.   SADAT U K S/O KHAN A B,
       AGED 49 YEARS,
       R/AT 4338, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098
                            22




131.   NAGARAJ RAO S/O NARAYANA RAO N S,
       AGED 75 YEARS,
       R/AT 639, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098

132.   BHASKAR S/O SEETHARAMAIAH,
       AGED 69 YEARS,
       R/AT 548, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098

133.   JAYAMMA W/O CHIKKA VARAM,
       AGED 63 YEARS,
       R/AT 649, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098

134.   MANJUNATH H S/O NARAYANAPPA,
       AGED 54 YEARS,
       R/AT 598, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098

135.   ANATHA RAMU C G
       AGED 52 YEARS,
       R/AT 499, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098

136.   MAHADEVAPPA V TOTAD S/O SHETTY C
       AGED 53 YEARS,
       R/AT 109, BHEL LAYOUT PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE 560098

137.   RAMA MURTHY N
       S/O NARASIMHALU NAIDU
       AGED 58 YEARS,
       R/AT 589, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE-560098

138.   SUBRAMANI M
       AGED 62 YEARS,
       R/AT 647, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098
                            23




139.   PRAMILA M W/O SUBRAMANI,
       AGED 57 YEARS,
       R/AT 648, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098

140.   GOPALARAJU V R S/O RAJU N V
       AGED 56 YEARS,
       R/AT 527, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098

141.   KRISHNA PRASAD B R S/O RAJAGOPAL,
       AGED 50 YEARS,
       R/AT 559, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098

142.   RAJANNA N S/O NAGAIAH,
       AGED 58 YEARS,
       R/AT 410, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098

143.   RAVI M R
       RAMASWAMIAH,
       AGED 51 YEARS,
       R/AT 7, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098

144.   FLORINE ANDRADE
       S/O FELIDX MENEZES,
       AGED 47 YEARS,
       R/AT 175, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098

145.   KOMALA BASAVARAJU W/O BASAVARAJU,
       AGED 53 YEARS,
       R/AT 10, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098

146.   SRINIVASA B S S/O SANJEEVAIAH B V
       AGED 59 YEARS,
       R/AT 273, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
                            24


       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098

147.   GIRISH T J
       S/O JAGADESHA MURTHY T S
       AGED 44 YEARS,
       R/AT 523, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098

148.   RAVEENDRA K A S/O ANANTHA RAO K,
       AGED 50 YEARS,
       R/AT 95, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098

149.   SHANTHAMMA B N W/O PRABHU S,
       AGED 48 YEARS,
       R/AT 542, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098

150.   UDAYAKUMARI K
       W/O AJITH K VASUDEVAN,
       AGED 51 YEARS,
       R/AT 486, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098

151.   PRABHAKAR K S
       S/O SUBRAMANYA IYER K B
       AGED 52 YEARS,
       R/AT 83, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098

152.   RAMU M V S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA
       AGED 64 YEARS,
       R/AT 82, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098

153.   RAVINDRANATH C M
       S/O SHARMA C V M,
       AGED 54 YEARS,
       R/AT 280, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098
                            25


154.   PARADKAR G V
       S/O VASUDEV PARADKAR V
       AGED 66 YEARS,
       R/AT 260, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098

155.   SUBRATHA KUMAR MANDAL
       S/O GURU PADA MANDAL,
       AGED 49 YEARS,
       R/AT 305, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098

156.   HALDAR A S/O SIHURANJAN HALDAR
       AGED 56 YEARS,
       R/AT 270, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098

157.   DIWWAKAR M L S/O RAJU N V
       AGED 54 YEARS,
       R/AT 125, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098

158.   NAGARAJ K S/O KAPPINAIAH,
       AGED 54 YEARS,
       R/AT 26, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098

159.   ASHOK D S/O TATAIAH,
       AGED 60 YEARS,
       R/AT 9, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
       BANGALORE-560098

160.   M N KOWSTHABHA W/O NANDAKUMAR
       AGED 55 YEARS,
       R/AT 73, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098

161.   SHIVASHANKARAYYA S/O BASAIAH,
       AGED 69 YEARS,
       R/AT 74, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098
                            26




162.   SHIVEGOWDA S/O LAXMAN GOWDA
       AGED 67 YEARS,
       R/AT 71, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098

163.   MANJULA K C W/O MUDDARAJU K M
       AGED 42 YEARS,
       R/AT 78, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098

164.   JALAJA S W/O SHESHADRI,
       AGED 54 YEARS,
       R/AT 586, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098

165.   JANAKAMMA M C W/O MUKUND,
       AGED 50 YEARS,
       R/AT 588, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098

166.   GURUSHANTHAPPA S/O APPANAPPA,
       AGED 62 YEARS,
       R/AT 31, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098

167.   KRISHNA S/O PUTTASWAMY,
       AGED 46 YEARS,
       R/AT 3, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098

168.   SANGAPPA B G S/O BASAVALINGAPPA,
       AGED 52 YEARS,
       R/AT 414, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098

169.   KUSUMAKAR SHETTY V
       S/O MANJAIAH V
       AGED 55 YEARS,
       R/AT 601, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098
                            27




170.   PADMANABHA PUNJA S/O P S PUNJA,
       AGED 57 YEARS,
       R/AT 602, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098

171.   SHAKILA S SHETTY W/O SUNIL SHETTY,
       AGED 60 YEARS,
       R/AT 606, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098

172.   KANCHANA RAO W/O ANUP RAO,
       AGED 58 YEARS,
       R/AT 613, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098

173.   DAYANANDA SHETTY
       S/O KUSHALA SHETTY,
       AGED 52 YEARS,
       R/AT 107, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098

174.   SHEKAR SHETTY B
       S/O MANJAIAH SHETTY,
       AGED 54 YEARS,
       R/AT 393, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098

175.   NIRMALA SHETTY
       D/O MUTHAIAH SHETTY,
       AGED 46 YEARS,
       R/AT 394, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098

176.   LAKSHMI B W/O MANJAIAH SHETTY
       AGED 75 YEARS,
       R/AT 395, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
       RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560098

177.   CHARLOTTE MATHEW W/O MATHEW,
       AGED 48 YEARS,
                             28


        R/AT 397, BHEL LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
        RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
        BANGALORE-560098                ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI M.R. NAIK, Sr. COUNSEL FOR
    SRI D R RAVISHANKAR FOR M/S. LEX NEXUS)


AND :

1.      THE BRUHATH BANGALORE
        MAHANAGARA PALIKE
        HUDSON CIRCLE
        BANGALORE
        REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER

2.      ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER
        RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR SUB DIVISION
        BBMP, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR
        BANGALORE

3.      ASST. COMMISSIONER (REVENUE)
        BBMP, HUDSON CIRCLE,
        BANGALORE

4.      KRISHNAPPA
        S/O LATE PENTAGAPPA
        PATTANAGERE VILLAGE
        RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
        BANGALORE-560 098

5.      C NIRAJAN MURTHY
        S/O LATE CHANDRANNA
        PATTANAGERE VILLAGE
        RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
        BANGALORE-560 098

6.      R S GANGADHARAIAH
        S/O LATE PATEL NANJUNDAPPA
        PATTANAGERE VILLAGE
        RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
        BANGALORE-560 098

7.      K V RAMAIAH S/O LATE SEENAPPA
        NO.34, PANCHAVATI, 13TH CROSS
        KETHMARANEHALLI, I BLOCK
        RAJAJINAGAR,
        BANGALORE-560 010
                              29


8.    BASARAJAPPA
      S/O LATE PATEL NANJUNDAPPA
      OPP: DODDANNA VIDYA SAMSTHE
      SHILPA KRUPA, SUNKADA KATTE
      VISWANEEDAM POST,
      BANGALORE-560 091

9.    CHANDRAKALA
      W/O HEMANTH KUMAR
      NO.382, 9F MAIN ROAD
      VIJAYANAGAR,
      BANGALORE-560 040

10.   VENKATESH
      S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA
      PATTANAGERE VILLAGE,
      RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE-560 098

11.   MIRLE VARDARA
      NO. 544, 5TH MAIN
      KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN
      BANGALORE-560 060

12.   N R NAGARAJ
      S/O LATE RAME GOWDA
      HANUMANTH NAGAR
      NELAMANE POST
      SRIRANGAPATTANA
      MANDYA DISTRICT

13.   R MANJUNATH
      NO.1174, PADUVANA ROAD
      I CROSS ROAD IV STAGE
      TK LAYOUT, KUVEMPU NAGAR
      MYSORE-570 022

14.   GIRIJA V RAJ
      D/O LATE RAME GOWDA
      HANUMANTH NAGAR
      NELAMANE POST
      SRIRANGAPATTANA
      MANDYA DIST

15.   ANJANAPPA S/O LATE GALAPPA
      PATTANAGERE VILLAGE
      RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
      BANGALORE-560 098
                             30




16.   NOORULLA SHARIEFF
      ALIAS MASTAN SHARIEFF
      19/D, JP NAGAR,
      UMARBAGH LAYOUT
      BANGALORE-560 078

17.   V NAGARAJ
      NO.4, VADARAPALYA
      KENGERI POST
      BANGALORE-560 060

18.   T B JAYACHANDRA
      MLA, SIRA CONSTITUENCY
      TUMKUR

19.   SMT. VIMALA GOWDA
      DEPUTY CHAIR PERSON
      M L C, BANGALORE                ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, Sr. COUNSEL FOR
    SRI D L JAGADEESH, ADV. FOR R4,5,6,7,8,10-17
    SRI SUBRAMANYA R, ADV. FOR
    M/S. ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSOCIATES FOR R1-3
    SRI R THARESHA, ADV. FOR R18
    R9 & R19 ARE SERVED)


     THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO FILE
NO.DC(R)  PR-955/2011-12  AND   PERTAINING  TO   THE
PROCEEDINGS IN NO.BBMP/RaRaNaVa/05/2012-13 & QUASH
ANNEXURE-P THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 5.4.2012 AND ALSO THE PROCEEDINGS LEADING TO
THE ANNEXURE-P AS PER THE NOTE SHEET AT ANNEXURE-N.


    THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
                                    31




                             ORDER

The petitioners in W.P.No.21920/2010 are assailing the order dated 19.04.2010. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.14665-14675 & 20631-20796/2012 are assailing the order dated 05.04.2012. The orders which are impugned in both these batch of writ petitions are purported to have been passed under Section 114A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act ('the Act' for short) ordering revocation of Khatha standing in the name of the petitioners in respect of the sites owned by them.

2. The petitioners in both these petitions are the Housing Cooperative society and its members who have been allotted sites from the first petitioner-society. The private respondents are the erstwhile owners of the property, whereon the layout is said to have been formed. The official respondent is the authority who has passed the orders which are impugned in these petitions. The persons against whom malafides is alleged are also made the respondents. Since the issues 32 which arise for consideration in these petitions is with regard to the very similar order passed relating to cancellation of khatha, the petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. These cases have a chequered history. The first petitioner which is a House Building Cooperative Society with the intention of forming a layout and allotting sites to its members, had negotiated with the owners of the property in respect of an extent of 58 acres in Pattanagere village. Pursuant thereto, the owners of the property have entered into agreements with the Society. Based on such agreements, the Government has acquired the lands by issue of notification as provided under the Land Acquisition Act. When this was the position, similar acquisitions for different Housing Co-operative Societies as also the instant acquisition were questioned before this Court in several writ petitions. This Court was of the opinion that the acquisition made was not in accordance with 33 law and as such the acquisition was set aside. Ultimately the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 21.02.1995 upheld the order setting aside the acquisition. The order included the acquisitions which were made in favour of the first petitioner-society. It is in that circumstance, keeping in view the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to revert back the lands to the owners subject to the owners depositing the amount received as compensation, the further action was taken in the matter.

4. In the instant case, it is contended that in view of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the process of calling upon the erstwhile land owners to deposit the amount in compliance with the order, had been adhered. Thereafter the petitioner society is said to have entered into a separate ratification agreement with the land owners to ratify the earlier privately negotiated transactions, dehors the process of acquisition. It is in that circumstance, the first petitioner contends that the transactions which have taken place thereafter is due to 34 the agreement between the land owners and the petitioners and not in furtherance of acquisition of the property. Pursuant to such agreements, the petitioner has formed the layout and sites have been allotted to its members. It is in that circumstance the members who have been allotted with the sites have secured revenue entries and in certain cases have also put up construction after obtaining approval of the plan and are in possession and enjoyment of the said property.

5. When this was the position, in respect of certain of the sites owned by the members of the society, proceedings was initiated for cancellation of the khatha which was standing in their name. The said action had been taken by publishing the notice in the newspaper. The said site owners were before this Court in W.P.No 13169/2006. This Court while disposing of the said writ petition on 20.03.2007 was of the view that the notice issued by paper publication was not sufficient and therefore, reasonable opportunity be extended to the petitioners and thereafter appropriate orders be 35 passed in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the proceedings have been held and in the said proceedings in respect of certain of the site owners, the khatha has been allowed to be retained in their names. However, with regard to the four owners the khatha had been set aside.

6. In that circumstance, yet again further action had been taken in a separate proceedings for change of khatha. The society had assailed the same before this Court in W.P.No.2045/2007. The said writ petition was disposed of on 26.02.2007. Keeping in view the nature of the consideration by the Statutory Authority based on a direction issued by the Government, this Court had set aside such direction and further directed the Statutory Authority to reconsider the matter in accordance with law. Once over again the parties were before this Court in W.P.No.7364/2007 which was disposed of by order dated 18.01.2012. The said proceedings also ended in a similar fashion and the orders were set aside and the Statutory Authority was 36 directed to reconsider the matter. It is in that circumstance, the matter has been reconsidered and the present impugned order dated 05.04.2012 has been passed, the correctness of which is to be considered. The said situation would apply to the facts arising in the connected writ petition as well except that the order assailed therein was passed on 19.04.2010.

7. It is in the above circumstance, in the instant case, the issue for consideration by this Court is with regard to the manner of retention of the khatha. The respondents have however disputed the right as claimed by the petitioner-society and the allottees of the site who are claiming right for such retention. In the situation that the acquisition had been set aside, it is the contention on behalf of the respondents that the society does not acquire any right to form the layout and thereafter allot the sites in favour of its members. It is their contention that when the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the acquisition, all actions prior to the same wherein the petitioner-Society had entered into any agreement with the land owners, would also loose 37 its relevance and therefore, when there is no document of ownership in favour of the Society or its members, the khatha cannot be effected in their names. Hence it is contended that the ratification document relied upon by the petitioner-Society is of no consequence whatsoever. In that regard the validity of the document is also assailed. It is their further contention that the petitioners cannot also claim right under the suits said to have been decreed in favour of the society inasmuch as the compromise decree obtained is by fraud since the respondents herein had not been notified. On the other hand, compromise had been entered into by one of the representatives of the society claiming to be the power of attorney holder. It is therefore their contention that when the instant proceedings initiated is for giving effect to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no technical contentions can be advanced to defeat the right of the private respondents herein. Hence, they seek for dismissal of these petitions.

38

8. In the light of the above, I have heard Sri Madhusudan R.Naik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Sri Nanjunda Reddy, learned senior counsel, Sri R.S.Ravi, learned counsel, Sri Manmohan, learned counsel appearing for the respective private respondents, Sri R.Subramanya learned counsel, Ms.Asha Kumbargerimath, learned counsel appearing for the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and Sri Taresh, learned counsel for respondent No.18. I have perused the writ papers.

9. The question for consideration in the matter is relating to the khatha entries and such khatha entries would normally revolve around title and there would be not much to be decided in a writ petition except noticing that aspect relating to the existence of title documents. However, keeping in view the nature of the contentions which have been put forth and also the long history of the case whereunder certain rights are being claimed which are peculiar to the instant case, the arguments have been heard elaborately. Further, in the instant 39 facts, what requires to be considered is also the nature of right that is being claimed by the rival parties in the background of the manner in which the Society claims to have formed the layout and allotted sites to its members. Though in the instant writ petition there are several disputed questions of fact which have been raised and no finding could be rendered on that aspect in the instant proceedings since it can only be considered in an appropriately constituted suit, the basic issues relating to the manner of the right as claimed with regard to the right of the petitioners for retention of the khatha which is already in their name or otherwise in any event would have to be considered.

10. The fact that the petitioner- Society had initially entered into certain agreements of sale with the private respondents herein and such other owners of the properties for purchase of the lands relating to the formation of the layout cannot be in dispute. It is in that context, the land owners had also executed irrevocable Power of Attorneys in favour of the society 40 though the said transactions were prior to the process of acquisition. However, in view of the scheme for formation of the layout being approved by the State Government whereunder the properties were to be acquired keeping in view the fact that the society had entered into agreements with the land owners, the land was sought to be acquired. The fact that the matter relating to acquisition has been considered and has been ultimately decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its orders dated 21.02.1995 is a matter of record. It is in that context, the rights of the parties is required to be considered.

11. First and foremost, the legal position that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would bind all parties concerned needs no elaboration. Therefore, in the present facts, whether the said judgment becomes a bar for the society to lay further claim with regard to the property in all eventualities or not is required to be noticed. In the circumstance of the judgment being passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the land owners 41 including the private respondents herein had been called upon to redeposit the amount and complete the formalities as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not in issue inasmuch as the document at Annexure-B produced by the petitioners themselves would disclose this position. In such circumstance, whether the petitioners can still claim right in respect of the property is the question.

12. In that regard, the petitioners contend that though the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had been complied, the same was with an understanding with the landowners to continue with the private transactions which had been entered. The society and the landowners are stated to have entered into a declaration-cum-ratification deed in that regard. A copy of such document dated 10.11.2000 is at Annexure-C. The date of the document itself would indicate that the same is entered into subsequent to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said document no doubt is disputed by the respondents by contending that the 42 same has not been registered and a proper stamp duty has not been paid and would therefore not convey title. The said document in fact has been relied upon by the petitioners in the suits which were filed by them seeking declaration with regard to the ownership of the property. One such judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.15571/2004 is produced at Annexure-D1. In that proceedings, the said ratification deed and the circumstances in which the petitioners claim right to the property has been adverted to without suppression of any fact and in that circumstance, the suit has been decreed. It is contended on behalf of the private respondents that the very manner in which the judgment and decree has been obtained is fraudulent and therefore the said decree cannot be relied upon. The judgments in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs -vs- Jagannath (Dead) by LRs (1994) 1 SCC Pg.1; Grama Panchayath, Naulakha - vs- Ujagar Singh & Ors (AIR 2000 SC 3272); A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors -vs- Govt. of A.P. & Ors; T. Vijendradas -vs- Subramanian (2007 (8) SCC 751) 43 and Smt. Badami (Dead) by her LR -vs- Bhali (2012 AIR SCW 3560) has been relied on by the learned counsel for private respondents to contend that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the judgment and decrees obtained by fraud cannot be relied upon by the Courts or such other authorities and the same could be challenged even in collateral proceedings and therefore, the instant decree cannot be taken into consideration.

13. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners on the other hand has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankar Sitaram Sontakke & anr. -vs- Balakrishna Sitaram Sontakke & Ors (AIR 1954 SC 352) and in the case of Prakash Narain Sharma -vs- Burmah Shell Co- operative Housing Society Ltd. (2002 (7) SCC 46) to point out that such contention if raised, it would have to be with material particulars and a decree can only be challenged in an appropriate and properly constituted suit and the decree cannot be ignored by any other authority or in such other proceedings.

44

14. A cumulative perusal of the decisions will indicate that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred decisions has held that a fraudulent decree would not be sustainable as the well established position of law, but the circumstance under which it has been said is also relevant since in such cases, it was considered on the facts which made it evident and the facts therein leads to that situation. Since the position is also that there should be material particulars to do so, it cannot be ignored. The question that arises for consideration in the instant case is as to whether merely because the private respondents have contended that the judgment and decree has been obtained by fraud, that in itself would be sufficient for this Court to ignore the decree and also to discard the ratification deed. In that regard, the contentions as noticed would indicate that the petitioner-society initially after entering into agreements with the land owners in the year 1984 had taken possession of the properties. Pursuant thereto, a layout had been formed. The roads 45 and the common areas earmarked therein had in fact been relinquished in favour of the notified area committee i.e., the local authority which had approved the plan under the document dated 20.10.1995 (Annexure-A). The said fact would prima facie indicate that the layout had been formed round about the time when the Hon'ble Supreme Court had set aside the acquisition as the said document refers to the society having executed the civil work. No doubt, all actions would be subject to the order which had been passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and would yield to it if there was no further inter-se arrangement between the parties. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in fact while setting aside the acquisition has left it open to the parties to enter into any further understanding in the matter, dehors the acquisition so as to protect the interest of the site purchasers who were likely to have put up construction.

15. It is in that circumstance, the society claims to have continued in possession of the property and 46 allotted sites in the layout and in the absence of the property being acquired for the benefit of the petitioner- society, the agreements that had been entered into with the owners earlier were ratified by the land owners by receiving further amount and sites in certain cases. As such, the declaration-cum-ratification deed has been entered into so as to ratify the earlier agreements and such other transactions which the petitioner society had directly entered into with the land owners. Hence, the manner in which the document has come into effect would indicate that it is not as if the title is being claimed directly under the declaration-cum-ratification deed as a document of conveyance. Therefore, the registration and the stamp duty as contended by the learned senior counsel for the respondents by relying upon the decision in the case of K.B. Saha & Sons Pvt., Ltd -vs- Development Consultant Ltd. (2008 (8) SCC 564) and in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. -vs- State of Haryana and Another (2011 (6) Karn L J 69 (SC)) need not be an issue for consideration in a writ proceedings and the 47 said document when relied upon to be marked in an appropriate proceedings, if the need arises, such questions would remain open in the background of the other evidence that would be available.

16. In such factual situation, when the Civil Court in the said suit in O.S.No.15571/2004 has accepted the said document when all facts were brought before it and had decreed the suit in favour of the society, it cannot be said that the said judgment and decree is without any force though it could be assailed in appropriate proceedings. Further, neither the right or possession is being claimed based only on the ratification deed but the same is relied upon in furtherance of an earlier transaction and in that context, the right under Section 53-A of T.P. Act should also be another aspect to be considered which in fact has been observed in the latter of the above judgments referred. In that circumstance, merely because the sale deeds executed by the society to the members refers to the acquisition proceedings, the title would not be 48 defective. Even the non-mentioning of the ratification deed in the sale deeds executed subsequent to the date of ratification, cannot lead to the assumption that it was not in existence, but would have to be established in accordance with law and they are all matters of evidence.

17. It is another matter as to whether the said judgment and decree at this stage can be discarded as having been obtained by fraud in view of the contention put forth by the respondent's counsel. Insofar as that aspect of the matter, the same would have to be considered keeping in view the judgments which have been cited and the fact situation in the instant case. However, before adverting to the same, one other aspect which also requires to be noticed is that some of the land owners had at an earlier point filed Contempt Petitions in Nos.224-26/2005 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court complaining that its decision had not been implemented and as such contempt was committed. In the said proceedings, a counter affidavit 49 had been filed on behalf of the society which was a respondent in the said contempt petition. A copy of the affidavit and the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been produced by the petitioners along with their rejoinder statement as Annexures-R and S respectively. A perusal of the affidavit filed in the said contempt proceedings would indicate that as of August 2006 itself, in the said proceedings, the society had contended with regard to the subsequent understanding which had been entered into with the land owners after initially complying with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

18. It is in that circumstance, the petitioners had also pointed out with regard to the ratification deed which had been executed and the manner of having paid further amounts and sites to the land owners by way of settlement subsequent to the order of setting aside the acquisition so as to ratify the earlier transaction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court on having accepted the contentions was of the view that the 50 petitioners had not made out any case for contempt and the petitions had been dismissed though detailed order was not passed. This aspect of the matter would indicate that there were certain adjustments made between the parties for the purpose of complying with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thereafter to regularise the transaction which had been entered into between them for which liberty had been provided in the main order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while setting aside the acquisition. Therefore, to the said extent, the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court nullifying the acquisition was accepted by the parties and thereafter on regulating the transaction by adjusting the same by way of ratification, the further progress was made. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Singh -vs-S.N. Kanungo and Ors (2010 (4) SCC 504) relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners would indicate that such compliance would be sufficient. Even otherwise, by implication the Hon'ble Supreme Court 51 has accepted that position in the case of the parties herein also.

19. Therefore, in such circumstance, when the land owners have received further amounts from the society and also certain of the land owners have obtained sites from the society, the said aspect of the matter cannot be ignored in a writ proceedings while considering limited right for khatha entries unless certain other evidences are brought on record in a properly constituted suit. When several site purchasers, who are in possession have put up construction, if the land owners still had grievance that the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not been complied and further action was required, in that case, other course was open and mere change of khatha in the manner it is being attempted would not serve any purpose. Hence, the contention of the respondent that ratification deed is without sanction of law or not sustainable in law cannot be accepted in a writ proceedings when it was relied upon even before the 52 Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the civil suit. Though Sri R.S. Ravi, learned counsel specifically contended that his client has not signed any documents including the alleged ratification deed, it cannot be in dispute that all his other family members have signed. Further, the extent to which his client claims right is also a part of the layout and as such his contention at this stage in the instant proceedings cannot be accepted. In fact in the decision in the case of B.L. Sreedhar & Ors -Vs- K.M. Munireddy (Dead) by LRs. & Ors (2003 AIR Kant HCR 257 (SC)) relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners it has been held that when the transaction is for the benefit of all, one person is estopped from questioning the transaction.

20. Further, the said document has been accepted in a civil proceedings and a decree has been granted in favour of certain site owners and the society who were before the Court below in the civil suit. At the same time, the respondents have also relied upon the judgment passed in civil suit where the trial Court is 53 said to have dismissed the suit filed by the site owners who had sought injunction against interference. In the said suit also, the ratification deed relied upon was the subject matter for consideration and the civil Court in the said suit had not accepted the same. However, so far as the said judgments which have been passed in favour of the land owners and against the site holders, the site holders have filed Regular First Appeal in RFA No.770/2010 before this Court and the same is said to be pending and an order of status quo has been granted. Therefore, insofar as the validity of the said documents having been accepted in one set of civil proceedings and not being accepted in another set of civil proceedings, it would in any event be considered in appropriate proceedings which are still pending before this Court and in such circumstance, it was not open for the Statutory Authority to decide upon the right of the parties by commenting upon the document by observing that it is an attempt to cover up the earlier mistake.

54

21. However, so far as the contentions which arise for consideration in the instant petitions wherein the society having the benefit of the judgment passed by the Civil Court is claiming right to the property would have to be looked at from a different angle keeping in view the circumstances under which they have entered into such agreement with the land owners and have relied upon the same. In that regard, it is contended by the respondents that the decrees obtained by filing compromise petitions are fraudulent inasmuch as the society had filed the suit and the person, who is the ex- president of the society as a Power of Attorney Holder had represented the land owners and had entered into compromise. In another suit in O.S.No.5471/2002 filed against Sri Sadashivayya, the landowner was represented by Sri Bharath Kumar who is the paid Secretary of the Society as the power of attorney holder of the landowner and subsequently the sale deed dated 04.03.2005 executed by the society to the allottee is also by the said Sri Bharath Kumar. It is therefore contended this in itself on the face of it would indicate 55 that the judgment had been obtained by fraud, that too by entering caveat in the said proceedings and avoiding notice being issued to the land owners.

22. In that regard, what is to be noticed is that even though the rival judgments have been cited with regard to the fraudulent decrees required to be ignored as has been noticed above, the question is as to whether merely because the respondents have contended so, the judgment and decree can be considered to have been obtained by fraud while taking note of the decree in these proceedings when there is no evidence with regard to the validity or otherwise of the power of attorney based on which such actions have taken place. On the said aspect of the matter, what is relevant to be noticed is that though the land owners contend so, there is nothing brought on record or contended to the effect that the irrevocable Power of Attorneys which have been executed earlier in favour of the office bearers of the society had been revoked by the land owners. Hence, the reference to the Contract Act to say that the agency 56 did not subsist etc., is without assailing it in an appropriate proceedings. Hence when, the power of attorney was available, the holder of the same has acted pursuant to it. But, if there was any other fraudulent act by the POA holder, it was required to be pleaded and proved in appropriate proceedings. In fact the decision in the case of Shanti Budhiya Vesta Patel & Ors -vs- Nirmala Jayprakash Tiwari & Ors (2010 AIR SCW 2851) relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners would indicate that even in a situation where heirs of the plaintiff sought recall on the ground of fraud and coercion, when POA holder had entered into compromise, it was held that facts are necessary to be pleaded and proved as the registered POA has sanctity. When that is the position, in a collateral proceedings, it cannot be accepted merely because it is contended so and that too in a situation when the proceedings itself is being held by the Statutory Authority being guided by external source and Government order though it was a quasi judicial proceeding.

57

23. However, as noticed, the private respondents contend that in view of setting aside of the acquisition, all actions prior to are also deemed to have been set aside and wiped out. In my view, the said contention cannot be accepted in the instant writ proceedings unless the same is decided in a properly constituted suit. That is so for the reason that when the Hon'ble Supreme Court had set aside the acquisition, liberty had also been granted to negotiate with the land owners in that regard for private transactions. Such transactions are claimed to have been entered. If they are by valid documents, it will certainly bind the landowners. As such if the validity of such transaction is to be assailed, it cannot be done in the present proceedings as either the Statutory Authority or this Court in a proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution will not venture to decide the same. In fact in the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by the learned senior counsel for respondents, in the case of Bangalore City Co- operative Housing Society Ltd., -vs- State of 58 Karnataka & Ors (C.A.No. 7425-26/2002 DD. 02.02.2012), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the said case also allowed the society to enter into negotiations with the land owners notwithstanding the acquisition being set aside. That was to protect the interest of the site purchasers though the ultimate direction was to handover vacant land. In the instant case, as noticed, there was implementation of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thereafter the understanding is claimed to have been reached with the land owners and presently all the petitioners who are seeking for retention of the khatha are the site purchasers.

24. Therefore, in such circumstance, if the land owners were of the view that the entire earlier understanding between them had also been wiped out in view of the setting aside of the acquisition proceedings, the land owners ought to have refrained from entering into the further understanding with the society by receiving further amounts and in certain 59 cases by receiving sites in the layout formed by the society on their land. In fact, along with their rejoinder statement, the petitioners have filed the tabulation of the lands and the owners with whom understanding had been entered into. The said statement is marked as Annexure-'W' and the details with regard to the owners of the property and the suit filed against them is also indicated. The statement also shows that the additional payments were made after the year 1995 i.e., subsequent to setting aside the acquisition proceedings which only indicates that the landowners had negotiated further. In such circumstance, if the said land owners have executed the ratification deed on receiving the amount, certainly it would not be open for them to contend in a proceedings relating to khatha that the earlier documents have not been acted upon. Therefore, in such circumstance, when the power of attorney had not been specifically revoked, keeping in view the agreement and the earlier documents which had been executed, in furtherance of earlier transaction, when they have received additional amounts and acted 60 upon the earlier documents, the mere contention in a writ proceedings that the said decrees have been obtained by fraud cannot be accepted. If at all there are deeper questions of title to be decided based on the validity or otherwise of the existing documents or the non-existence of earlier documents as claimed, the same can only be agitated before a Civil Court. In fact, any proceedings for revocation of khatha can arise only after the rival claims relating to ownership of the property is adjudicated in the proper forum.

25. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat -vs- Patil Raghav Natha & Ors (1969 (2) SCC 187) relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners fortifies the above opinion that the Civil Court is the appropriate forum for such determination. In fact in respect of the very same first petitioner-Society herein, certain other landowners had approached this Court in W.P.Nos.11134-141 and 11183/1998 (Smt. Gowramma & Ors -vs- State of Karnataka and ors decided on 26.07.2000), seeking 61 protection of their possession based on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court setting aside the acquisition. While disposing of the writ petition, this Court had relegated the parties to their remedy before the Civil Court. By yet another order in W.P. No.20009/2010 (Kareshannaiah -vs- State of Karnataka & Others decided on 15.01.2013) wherein the landowner in relation to the same first petitioner-Society had sought direction to the authorities to remove construction put up by the allottee under the society, but the learned Judge of this Court had held that it can be considered in a suit and not in writ petition. The learned counsel for the respondents however contended that the said orders of this Court were passed when such direction was sought against the State and one Smt.

Janakamma, one of the landowners and as such, it is in personam and not in rem. The said contention cannot be accepted since the very fact that the State was made a party and a direction was sought, the relief claimed was based for implementation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court order. Therefore, the genesis for the relief sought 62 in those petitions and the subject matter herein are all by relying on the order setting aside the acquisition. Hence, I am of the opinion that even to seek reversal of khatha entries, the landowners would have to get their right decided in a civil suit in view of several subsequent developments leading to several complicated questions having arisen and thereafter approach the revenue authorities and not based only on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as the position has stood altered after complying with that order and this had also been brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in contempt proceedings.

26. In these circumstances, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for some of the private respondents in the case of Ritesh Tewari & Anr -vs- State of Uttarpardesh & Ors (2010 (10) SCC 677) and in the case of Amar Singh -vs- Union of India & Ors (2011 (7) SCC 69)) would not be of assistance since at this juncture, it cannot be said that any action of the petitioners is bad at the inception since there have been 63 developments subsequently and agreements in any event could have been entered at the earliest point. Though it is contended that the society could not have purchased agricultural land in view of the bar contained in Section 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and as such the contract is void under Section 23 of the Contract Act; further, compromise can only be of lawful agreements as provided in Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC, the same would not apply herein. The bar will apply only to the completed transactions by execution of sale deed to the society in respect of agricultural land. In the instant case, it is the members who have ultimately purchased the lands after formation of layout and there is no material on record to show that there is any sale deed in favour of the society. The second of the above noted decisions is only to the effect that persons coming with unclean hands are not entitled to relief unless full facts are disclosed, but it is not the position in the instant case since all facts have been pleaded in all proceedings.

64

27. The further question is as to whether the action initiated by the respondents is bona fide? The order impugned no doubt indicates that the same has been passed in exercise of the power available under Section 114-A of the Act. A perusal of the said provision indicates that the statutory authority has the power to review the entries relating to khatha. The provision also indicates that such review could be made within a period of three years from the date on which the khatha had been entered and in the circumstances indicated therein. In the instant facts, there can be no dispute whatsoever that the khatha had been entered in the name of the site purchasers much earlier to the area coming within the jurisdiction of the BBMP i.e., even before the said provision in Section 114-A of the Act being available to be exercised. Hence, there cannot be any dispute that it is beyond three years after the khatha entries were made. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decision in the case of Chet Ram Vashist -vs- Municipal Corporation of Delhi & another (AIR 1981 SC 653) and in the case of T.V. 65 Usman -vs- Food Inspector, Tellichetty Municipality (AIR 1994 SC 1818) to contend that the time limit prescribed should be considered as directory. However, the issue therein was different inasmuch as in the first decision, it pertained to deemed licence and in the second decision, the period for filing analysis report was fixed though no time limit was there to institute prosecution. Hence, since no limitation was fixed for exercising the power granted under the statute, it was held so in the said cases. On the other hand, in the case of Santhoshkumar Shivgonda Patil & ors -vs- Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Ors (2009 (9) SCC

352) relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, it has been held that even if the statute does not prescribe limitation, the revisional power should be exercised in reasonable time and ordinarily it should be within three years so that settled things should not be unsettled. Therefore, the review power if exercised beyond three years, it is not sustainable when the statute itself prescribed the time limit. 66

28. The contention on behalf of the respondents however is that the instant proceedings cannot be strictly construed as one under Section 114-A inasmuch as the entire proceedings was for the purpose of implementing the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, no fretters should be imposed but should be considered independent of the provision contained in Section 114-A of the Act. The learned counsel for the respondents has also relied on the decision in the case of Mohammed Shahbuddin - vs- State of Bihar & Ors (2010 (4) SCC 653) wherein it is held that a wrong provision quoted will not make the order invalid.

29. To consider the said contention of the respondents, what requires to be noticed is that the proceedings is not in the nature as if the land owners themselves had filed petitions seeking cancellation of the khatha as required under the provision. In that view, what cannot be ignored is that the acquisition was set aside in the year 1995. The process of implementing 67 the order took place in the year 1997 as seen from the official memorandum at Annexures-B1 to B3. Subsequent thereto, khatha has been registered obviously due to the understanding as claimed by the Society. The petitioners have produced a letter dated 22.06.2006 at Annexure-E and have alleged that the entire proceedings has been initiated at the instance of the persons who are interested in the land development and in that context, the letter has been written by the MLA who had addressed the letter to the Revenue Minister and had sought for action in that regard. This certainly indicates that a different process has been attempted as late as in the year 2006. On the said letter itself, the then Revenue Minister has ordered that the further action be initiated. Pursuant thereto a letter dated 16.09.2006 (Annexure-F) had been addressed by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department to the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District to initiate action to cancel the khatha. The said communication no doubt in letter appears as if the proceedings are being initiated in view of the acquisition being set aside 68 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but the spirit of it is different as seen from the course it has followed.

30. In the said circumstance, even if the respondents were to contend that the proceedings were initiated for implementation of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be accepted on face value when the very contempt petition which had been initiated by the land owners had been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 05.01.2007. There was no reason for the statutory respondents to proceed further in the matter on the said basis to indicate that the proceedings are for the purpose of implementation of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court since revocation of khatha alone at this stage would not have amounted to implementation of the order when at an earlier point orders had been passed calling upon the landowners to redeposit the amount and notional handing over of possession was over and thereafter the society claims subsequent transactions as also the possession and constructions 69 put up by the site owners was still in issue. This is also relevant when in the said contempt proceedings, as already noticed the Society had filed their counter affidavit and had also brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to the further understanding entered into with the land owners for the ratification of the earlier transaction and in that circumstance the Hon'ble Supreme Court had closed the contempt petition. The official and statutory respondents have also not relied upon any materials to indicate that similar action had been taken in all matters relating all societies in respect of whom the acquisition was set aside, irrespective of the fact whether there was subsequent understanding or not.

31. Therefore, to contend that the entire proceedings is only with the intention to implement the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would be far fetched and appears to be one instigated by certain other persons who are the persons interested in the said proceedings. Though allegations have been made by the 70 petitioners against respondent No.18 in particular, considering the affidavit which has been filed and keeping in view the nature of the proceedings, I am of the opinion that even if such issue had been raised by the said member, the authority who was required to apply his mind was duty bound to assess this aspect of the matter and should have arrived at his own conclusion. The necessity for application of mind by the authority is what has been emphasized in the case of Commissioner of Police vs. Gordhandas Bhanji (AIR (39) 1952 SC 16) relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Instead the impugned order in fact refers to the directions issued by the Government and the correspondences in that regard and not in the manner in which an application for review of the entry of the khatha is to be considered.

32. In the instant case, when it was also brought to the notice of the authorities, the civil decrees which had been passed and there being several other transactions subsequent to the judgment of the Hon'ble 71 Supreme Court, the respondents in any event cannot contend that the present proceedings is only with the avowed intention of the implementing the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. If that was the contention, it was certainly open for the land owners who were before Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said contempt petition to bring to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court all these aspects with regard to the non-acceptability of the ratification document to regularize a transaction which had been set aside in the writ proceedings and had been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself. When the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not find disobedience and the subsequent transactions were also brought to its notice, certainly the Hon'ble Supreme Court in such circumstance would have appreciated the said contention to come to a conclusion as to whether the ratification deed relied upon by the society was in contravention of its order passed while setting aside the acquisition proceedings. When that has not been done by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would not be open either for the authorities or for this Court to lightly 72 brush aside all the subsequent transactions which have taken place and merely because the land owners are now being supported by certain persons, the authorities could not have taken up the proceedings. The interest shown by such persons including respondent No.18 only in relation to the lands in this layout and the same being pursued indicates that there is more than what meets the eye but it is not necessary for this Court to advert further.

33. To sum up, what is to be re-emphasised is that the khatha in fact had been effected in the name of the site purchasers by the Pattanagere, City Municipal Council in the year 1998. It is in that circumstance the present revocation of the khatha is attempted. However, when subsequently the ratification agreement has been entered into and the change of khatha was made and the same not being objected to in the contempt petition, in such circumstance, when the contempt petition had been closed, it was wholly unnecessary at this juncture for either the 18th 73 respondent to intervene or the Government to pass such orders in the guise of implementing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, more particularly when there was a civil decree, which holds the field and when the same has not been set aside in accordance with law. Therefore, the authority who was considering this aspect of the matter in fact ought to have taken note of the judgment and decree passed in the civil suit which was still subsisting and ought to have concluded that the parties who were before it seeking revocation of the khatha would have to avail their remedies in accordance with law in a civil forum and thereafter approach the revenue office, if any change was required instead of exercising the power of review to decide upon the title, that too by brushing aside the judgment and decree which had been granted by the Civil Court and commenting upon the validity of the document which was accepted by the Civil Court and also placed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In that circumstance, if the fact that the khatha had been effected as far back as in the year 1998 is kept in view, the authority could 74 not have exercised the jurisdiction beyond the period of three years as contemplated therein or for purported implementation of orders. Furthermore, in the instant case, though the learned counsel for the statutory respondents seeks to bring it within time, while contending that the power exercised is within the period after the area came within the jurisdiction of the BBMP, such contention also cannot be accepted since the relevant point for exercising the said power would be the date on which khatha was made and not the period the BBMP had jurisdiction over the area.

34. That apart the members of the society who had been allotted sites had obtained sanction plan from the authority which had the jurisdiction to consider the same and had also put up construction therein. In such circumstance, when the said subsequent arrangements between the parties had been entered and the position stood altered, the proceedings by the authority being guided by Government letter and other external aid cannot be sustained. Further, the 75 petitioners have also filed an application on 17.09.2012 to produce additional document and have produced the proceedings of the Principal Secretary to Government whereunder the direction issued by the Government by letter dated 16.09.2006 based on which the proceedings was earlier being sought to be justified has been withdrawn. As such the basis for the proceedings is also eroded. Hence, for all the above stated reasons the impugned orders are not sustainable.

35. In the result, the following;

ORDER

(i) W.P.No.21920/2010 and W.P. Nos. 14665-

675/2012, 20631-20796/2012 are allowed.

(ii) The order dated 19.04.2010 (Annexure-J) and the order dated 05.04.2012 (Annexure-P) impugned in the respective petitions stand quashed.

(iii) Liberty is reserved to the parties to re-approach the revenue authorities for necessary orders 76 depending on the right that may be determined by the appropriate forum.

  (iv)    Parties to bear their own costs.



                                              Sd/-
                                             JUDGE



Akc/bms