Mobile View
Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 6 docs - [View All]
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
The Tripura Land Revenue And Land Reforms Act, 1960 No. 43 Of 1960
The Code Of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1956
Commissioner Of Police, Bombay vs Gordhandas Bhanji on 23 November, 1951

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