Karnataka High Court
Vishwabharathi House Building Co Op ... vs Bangalore Development Authority on 3 July, 2009
Bench: Manjula Chellur, Ravi Malimath
IN !E% HIGH COURT OE' Klfifhfih, BANGALORE ._
arm: mm mm 3'" my 03? JULY, 2009 "
PRESEH'1.'
was aownnm ms. wsarxcz
AND
THE'. newsma MR. JUSFEECE 'Raw: A"
WRIT APPEAL N§§%2a3z2oo%?{&r;v:»
BETWEEN :
B. H
VISHVRBRARATHI nous; s'uI:.nf--cm _
cow-o9zmT_I"-an sc:,r<':1f'x=.rxf _, ' 2 "
1310.35, ="R0aAD" ..
1!k'§GAI:OR5S'§5€i3V994
aEpax%sa1;fie::5' 'BY. 1'23 _
APP
(By sm. : ::.V -.9 .«a.V
ABE '
C W' I'I'$ f3(2'.%ll3SIO!§%
. nxnmcm or
AT;-IVISIOH' 103.3 , K.R.CIKIaE
'manmwsao om
K.
S/OR.
AG@ABOU'£36Y&'hRS
5.
140.55/55, 2'" mm, 2'" cnoss
vxmaznxmmam, mwaonz: POST
amszmonn
B. s. paasamm BAEU
5/0 3. V'. snmxvasa st:-mt
mm new 39 mans
RESIIJING M m.17
15'CMAIK, zwpnasn __
exnxmaan, a.nuaa_x.e;;a--a5A.v_ "
N. smma
son or x. _
mm: ABOUT' gsimms,
2zo.sos, 7"' 1aa:e.'--L_4'??ivcnoss,
amsamgz-5so"*a1'9 "
V '6§*i::,=:..
BGE'3EAB0i?3' 55«1'EaIas
E~IO.363,t'-».,14?" 'Ea£§LiN '
« usa:H:vas.zn~:n:%.ng_a'' «
913:»: COLONY', " atgmsnnoaz-50
B.
V. Wm': or'£:c. BHASKAR
,A3'E> ABOUT 30 mans
'reo'~..1"i-, 4" cause, :9" mm
1 ."'~3f"V.'$'s;h:as, 5" mass, w.c.mm
ammmm-44
té.' K. tram, .
gJ'w3:r:s or n.v.mx.'mnnnaoImA
new Aaotrr 36 mans
139.26/3, 13" moss, so 5-*2.n.enn
3"' mass, exnzmana.
amemaonz-as
H. K. KAIAYYA
SON 03' L313 KARIGMBA
19.
3.1.
12
13 Q
o
36% ABOUT 53 YEARS
210.252, 4" MAIN, K.G.!Ifi$sR
RB*19
31113.'. R1\3mfl.G
WIFE 01?' R. E33383
5% ABOUT 26 YIRRS
nao.1e5, 1*' yuzasn,
4*" 6305.3, s .TA.
smanzaonswso "
H. C. 1'.A:.z1'nAaen;y
mm or K.
mm ABOUT 46 "
no.2, ma nuxmxm. '
swmne 1=9}oL_,
15' mm 3"'
WIRE' at 'V
AGED P.;.30_U'1'. '
9'/4 ,,.'*--?"'"' '3'<'+.F~°'5V-'kn *W.\3'I-'ESE:-93*
.._n". .3;
wxrxs. OF-_H;._s.8§§Nah!l&!HA am
mm 11308156 rams
H0. 8 ," axmn
= sznzuo vzcvaxazmma. swoon
1. : =.;c.a;1*m5:reup9n norm
"'»..V_& RE--89
" 14,
. 'B: DASSHAYANI
mm or D.S.VIJAX'A
~~ gem ABOUT 40 'mans
15.
16/2, 4-'.E£'PE 3% QUARTER3
JBEVAN R
RE-75
5:. 125.3553
son or M. saxvazaamxan
new snow' 34 15%
E10 mo_sa4, 1*' (3 mm
11'" mass, ms couawzcmz
2'" puss, szaxmaaa
aamamoas
16. K
mm or B.C.
as Asour 55 man
RESIDING A5! 110.216/20' A A
5" mum mm, 5" cnass
r, V
17. E. snxvaaunmmn
sow org:-uasomn _
new mom' :56 _
1443, ,
1.6"' mm RQJfi.!3 . * i V
mmssnma ELOCK .
EANGAEHJRE--29" .
gzst=ozmmsr.s'_'-- -
(By $3:-xi." 333:. :3. s.
mvzsamucnn VF{j3..__Cf'R3*:fV1k'5v}' . '
(By 5::-1":__ K, '"0. Amer. mama son :21)
{By :f:..~:--:;.._: FOR R-17)
M, 3. ECGP more R--2)
':_ Reserved on 22.7.2003
~i~.:=;I's.: APPEAL IS Exam U/S 4 or arm
cotmzr mar Lmxyma '20 332': mm: m
omsn 9;;s'si$:a" IN rm flaw pmxrzcn m.1275a/zoos
_ nazram L8/3.?/2006.
Thi# Writ agpeal caning an for Sinai Hearing
'. " and *haying' been reserve: for' pronouncement of
. judgment, this day, mmuauna CKELLUR J, delivered
' the follovring:
......§..€.;.%~1""'*W"..;i.i.;..'~'
nae %J.J.ant herein 5%; to be a
registered under the provisions of *
operative sociatiea Act £03; .....t;_l_1e of:'-_
layaut and sites under tiise V.'-ifs!;*i«fx_:
Bharathi Housing Societyf
2. '.E'he present... refiétem 3rd
phase of Vislwa In the
said. phase, 1;he.__ :7 s#.i.d. to have
formed s;te§ in am:-way
uos.2a:*,_ 129 fivalahalli Village of
Utta.rah$.1;£L.:fi.= £i¢bJ:.i , South as per the
lay§>:§t" uplaxwz V' An nexura--C. According to the
*:i,;z Annexture---C in the area. mxked
9' formed 24 site: bearing site
No}.'§§§3 apart firm two civic %nity sites
in the plan. The said layout was
in the year 1975 and the sites were
aiilatted to mspeative m%rs of the Soaiety,
who are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the same. In the year 2000, when the first
' No.1'?/1" one.
res;:o:zdent--BD3L authority tried to interferg
the peaceful. possession and enjoyment o.f
property, its mamnbers filed
ua.5aa2/2ee1 and obtained :§§fi§¢:g#ye $§agg 7§§
injunction. The said suglt »2:§'
81311 filed the written stmfzaflantvn 'V
it has actqilired suz;-vghy N;2';"1*$_'_"3.'V"f9r iiiiev-AAfo;:rmt.1on
of asx :1: Stage and £gegyh%§e figtfixng to do with
the layout o£ fth e it was
learnt _: nc; of survey
V V V V MI a
9:? to the first
respondént44auti1§fi§t3,f;' .. _ alleged nonwexisting
suxvfsyv :_¢o.14.u'3/3'.'i§ fiitiiateel to the western side to
. '*:.'nVe7.i&§*bu£M' plan fnnnexurewc .
V * _.f::hg trial court itself the %J.J.ant
t5 to <:.'Laa.r the fact that
I the2:;e.. rm survey 130.17/1, in existence,
..tha3:g£e§.-e, queation of soaiety indicating the
-- not arise.
4. According to the appellant-society, the
Society has developed the existing villago E
which was the western boundary of survey
29 and so of Avalahalli leaflng to 3 7' "
To the west of said road, sum-v1_ay :.?.''7t_
a portion of survey No.1? is én--.3.:io ut:Ti.:3.-;ix:od.' £orV V
the formation of said road "the
332:1 phase layout. of the
3PI£>e11ant relies Vtttett issued 13.'!
the Assistant Settlanant
of Land ;s%.%2.2_a§:§ wherein the
msistatt stated that there
is no 17/2 and the said
doc%~..1: L is
A the appellant sought local
__ measurement of the properties
_ 'Andi?' c3u'osc~:£'ibed at Axznezure-C, an Offioor of the
1.e., the Director of Land
.1.-$5 and sway Settlement conduata
.Vt"".:V:_LM:_3}estigation on 28.5.2004 and sent a report to
.."the Government along with the sketch prepared by
him. This was acne after issuing notices to the
as walk. as the first raspondent
appellant
authority. At the time of inspection
invastigation, the first Division survtgogu
informad the first respondent authoritg*§V;fiQ§i"V--. ~
there is no survey No.1'?/1
authorities left the spot 3
above said documents _
non-existence of survey
Village, the BDA %#§a c5m;§n§;§g_ that tit has
acquired and is in poiaostioo No.17/1,
which is in the air
without an
6. '' .__Tiae authority notifying
the:.'a.1._.1.otraa;v1t"'.v"of- '"¢1m; menity sites for
,,om:ta1$a1.i.shi'a,g ainiiospital in the nonwexisting
not at all justified, as it in
not1uiingv_ of misrepresentation of facts to
i ' gnisleodi the innocent publio .
/' ,
existence,
7. In the writ petition the first
authority said to have filed objaat;cn;gV:'__'__a§.§"
additional objections affirming ané
the existence of survey «ting
acquired along with other prop} __
objectian stataments ."c>1.:'.
fhe abjeation statmagt
along with Annexuteaiéihvttht '.26 that survey
No.17 of gnaw and
sub---d.'i.vide<_1,. 397! _ Tha relevant
Annexuii-tea --. '.'£f. ' anti» ; "t
9. may 'petition No.12'I58/05(B!3A)
was f:Sending"' A.._V_V1V.4é:sp<V::»ndenta 3 to 6 filed an
get th%e1vea inpleaded and the
As this appellant did not
sei':i.¢u.#_3.y' for the same for the siwle
ultimately the appellant could get a.
free: the learned Single Judge that in
ttife event of survey 1~'io.17/1 being held as non»-
suitable direction could be given to
those allottms of the responfient.
_ the. case
9. In the meanwhile, respondaen1:' s
Association filed. os.2953/2005 ~
injunéstion in respect of sites.
Hos.28, 29 and so marked as
and in the said suit, t:1 1e'2.._V ap;ié.3.ia;;t--§6<:%;Lva1;3;
also inpleadad as 3"'
injunction was -'_c;>n againat the
first respondent, in
ma. 451/2005;' gtthe The Hon'h.1e
High Cou~ """ said appeal Qiving'
certaiig azgxeacgitigzgi' the schedu.1e of the
suit pzéjiegty considering the mxits of
grant of tirary
A special leave petition cm to he
1fi1:é,-_d: Petitien Ho. 18612/2006 before the
Cami", which was also disposed of with
.V bbservationa .
Hcvwever, the instant writ petition is
with 1:115 main purpose of quastioning the
Waizthority of law and constitutional validity of
the ac.-titan of the first respondent authority in
appellant: ought to
1}
issuing endorsements as per Annexm.-es 'A' _
wherein survey No.1?! 1 (nonw-existing one} _
have been aaqxaired by the then
In the writ petition quashingie
sought as no such survey 3»:!<>_.1'7;"".:. »¢':$£ 'V
in existence. V' __ i
11. According te...the:a;.ޤ11agts, " the learned
single Judge consideii:eg- _procluc& by
" ' " erroneo'as1.y
the appellani;-&__pet.i'£ia$.e,f " ._ has
dismissed _t:3.1ie " is furthm:
:3j."e::; r:3e(1';_"V§:£Vngle Judge did not
look me' .the.. :£§i§::1;' gtatutory authority lune'
the £31;-31;' authority exercising any
No.17/1 without having
*pm¢9g.%¢,;§ "authority over the said land as said
.. eziisting.
".12 -Vriaving regard to the facts and
the learned Single Jmdge according
have quashed
.«:§pfiem:rea~A and B in so far as same relate to
survey No.1?/1 mentioned at serial
Annexurewh and as S.1.!¢o.22 in
further contended the learned V "
eontnitted a great error I;Ln
existence or otherwise of: _surv3 V
be dmided by the ine V"'gea§Vd1ng
original suit. Accoi:d;_.ng_.="£§'* when
survey No.17/1 is nei '_»__question of
acquiring Lagpczyy will
not arisee of survey
No.17 and 11: would only
indicate that '!'~};5:v_w.._ at all in
existence. If in existence,
the eesternfijbbundae-y» . no.1? in the
have been survey
29 am 30. It is
reggae: the new Single Judge
in saying' that the ellantw
V' awxiztted the existence of survey
" ' 1% L ' "at ;anne.:r:ure-C.
13. From the above facts pleadad. in the
appeal, the entire controversy seems ta be i:3,th
regard to existenae of alleged survey 3
14. According to the
survey No.17/1, as there was $30
concerned authority. In at"
the first respondent authfifléty
acquired nanwexistixig V4 virtue
of the acqtxisitiofiwé survey
119.17/1, 'ffiuthority has
vixtuailjf' 29 and 3-0
belcngipg' fzo' H
;1--5L.A arises for court's
. V. °*c*.oxi:a5:dnéi~,at'i9n iii' """
'_j"z;z wfie§§ax the judgment of the learned
' « V '_j3.j.ngla Judge warrants intaxfarenco?
.*;_ V During the pendency of these
A we note that there was a direction
'fhe High Court in the above writ @741 an
'a:"é.1o.2ee7 which read: an undax:
«NV
«At the request of all the .
<:ounse3.s the director of mad
under his personal supervision '7'
notice to Bangalore _ V
Anthcrity and to: 3.11 1-.heJ'p}$s.-'t.ma¥, is': L"
writ appeal and to ;'i-.'he;5F'-_ArT:" K
conduc:-.t survey of Sig}.-1!__1'.o.2§A,,V_ 29 _
of Avalahalli v111agé-Lt
Taluk to note t~.1;e 1¢3<::a.*.:.:i_;onV;-. arid
boundaries and ' tos.j_ .ޤy_ gj1e_f:her the
two of the c.1;~:;" V «'.j';-maes at
A::nexur_e,-£3 '1-in Athfi .. _ forms
part aifi :;ij_f.--;;:o.f2a 2.5 ij;a'n<Vi""3o. The
Direci*;9r'i:. shall also
* :§én:i'2.i:deré;£i6:i: any of the
rélwzanfi out by their
at the time
aui-hreg?y.. _
"the fiérties represented through
are antitlad to file mam of
'.'-.V'§..1i3'.1:§"'!v".'_.'I"Z»"l3<'.'t{LVi'.k>I13 to guide the Director of
mud . i?.eAc:orda for conducting the survey.
*i'he';. Director of Land kecarda to submit
A' thé report of the survey along with the
-Fsketch. 'Elie regort to be submitted
wi. thin cane month .
16
official ccncerned who was the
owner of the land bearing ~
nos.17, 17/1 at the reaevant poifié g£7T="
time, rejfgnua
available and whether c~§mp §usg;i:1o:; -- "
paid to the respéctivé: T'a§naxs"jf
concerned. lie 1a: ".:.ag..so
secmre the original _re§is§ie£s
asperthe
well as mtampn 1£"'-Aaisy,
pertaining to thefie,
List the xgatter ifajgzition, 2008.
1?. Sq. tlisfi '«£iz5;3i;v. ééirection dated
3.10.2007 __x':ond:I:ct survey of
Sy. nag. _23;' -"29._ 'aga«._:3-a__ of Avalahalli Village to
d:m:arc:a§ie._ i:he' 'a:V:i§*i:\f14.ii9iLV"4i:$;>undarias with the exaczt
3.o<:a.*.f.':i.'«-'.~1; of :.1;e- fiaiéi nmmers. As a nutter
. "ofV V"i:.h'_e Sufi """ or conducted the survey and
$3.30 given along with the survey
Vi.1§6.fi:;.£:$Lt1ng the dAata:i.1s. when the matter
before the Bach on 15.4.2008 having
"ii to the aatual controversy between tm
' pégrties, seaond order dated 1.5.4.2008 diractinq
Goverit Advocate to furnish tha details
with regard to survey nuxnbar 17/1 of
Village was given .
18.The contention of_, the VV "
/appellant is to the effect that
no survey n1m'ber 1"1f1 in
respondent authority-EDA vvgsurvey
number 1'7/_1 a§:;:i;a:sas_'».»VVtAf::r_ atfifisiuon
along with the ghe learned
Single :3-.<'>n=i: by the
respondent; survey Ho.1'7/1
of in existence, said
opinior.:i'--w'--a.¥5 by him in View of the
notificatiefi - " 2..§.1o. 1971 acquiring survey
By 'A reigrring to observations made in
m§r§;».;~zo.;;27:5/Lzvsaege, the learned Single Judge cpines
of survey No.17/1 cannot be
--V strangely concludes that existence or
of survey Na.1'7/1 is a mtter which
=__'i:*.§<':f;ui§res to be thrashed out in the suit which was
-riled by the allottaes and therefore, no specific
vfinding could be given either way in the
proceedings as to the existence of ox-H. Vvx;io':>3:;V-
existence of survey 110.17]: of
on the basis of an
respondent Ho. 2 -» Asst. D:i.re»5..¥.toi_.':
and survey Settlement .
19. Having regard
between the parties, two ixitaf.-5&1; or.c'1e:r.:-5 It as} stated
above were issueiv ct' tha
sites have gong to the said
suit is
20;' ifituititixatitn collected from the
revegme '''at this stage would indiaate
.°'t1x;a"t"£2iexéA.__1s auxvey No.1'? of Av-a3.aha.11i
19. 19 acres and the said land
is Ina:-ab. as per the statement of
'*..the efticials of the Revenue Departzmant and it is
A "ii that thsare is no mtation whatsoersmr
' bfigfuxcating survey no.1'! by assigning new I-10.17/1
'*. Vz'neasur.i.n<; 4 acres. Inspxta of several rminéers,
the B.DA--first respondent was not able to prmfiica
any documents pertaining to suxvey No.17/1....g§,;§
erstwhile czrwn has mxged with am. 0;; '
hand, the learned Boveot .;
certain records . Un£ortunateiy__ pkzctox 'cop:'.a.«§ ~ "
R'1'C alone are furnished, V . ir:_fl::'v_:
In View of the fact» .j:11at..o-'F..cé§i.§t;:.nt ' of
Land Records that no
recoxds are of
survey from the
Revenue_ ____ the Govarmnent
Advocaiig. __ -Hgtated abova, no mutation
came to" survéy No.17
assigning a 1' ?'.i1T. The notification under
."sag£i<}g..."o1s(14; :>y "£iié erstwhile en-3 is a1m.;La.r to
1, _
This is dated 23.10.71. As
pct .1_44£hig,.."{-gag sexial so.225 is aowmnt xarab
V':.a.nd so ':.far survey No.17 measuring 15 acres 19
serial 130.226 A.I..Ch.i.kJca
At. one
Héin11mai.ah !3odda."!.a.nkaypa is shown in the colamx of
or anubhavadar to the extent of 4 acres.
21. The above said survey 30.1?/1 measuring
4 acres is the subject matter of this sal.
The boundaries to this are as under:
East: Survey Nos. 28, 29 md 30
West: mv li boundaries
North: Byatarayanwnura " '4 V'
Sotxth: Survey No.16
These details at e " V
was existence at s13;-veyVAs-:*£<.V$A.;'1.?)'J, said
boundaries . These " V '}j.4n"' _ notification
dated :2_8.--10-'based on either survey
reccrds "es:-' @és1i'ar.e The submission from
bothégtha. seams to be that there is no
"V"s1;3;~'V'V','s----fi, 1 ivrsmszistencze. (In all prabability
the fact that by nmae ans m.1.kka'
occupation at the land not being a
" jfiiila notifying survey Ho.1'?/1 ms: have
. 'me fact rsns tha survey 110.17
msgaaures abcmt 19.19 acres in total. on perusal
sf the xerox copy of the REC extract for survey
No.1'? furnished by the t, inspite of
instructions to pro-dame the original REC
onjky from 1973-74 onwards, the name
Hanumaiah is shown in the mxltivatorgf K V'
calmm No.12 of the RTC.
in the final notification '21a}1o.'i;.
be from the spot inajagfiqn
xm.i.ns Chikka Ea.ntm3;i.ah "Lnof:»..L 1:1:ae' 'demexfor the
said. land and thé' " 1111? Assistant
Cminssioner indicates
that jjc:1fi.i§i'iié1t1nq the said
land _' such pexmiamion
was %gi§gn" to what was the
amou:;t., is not before tin, so also
"'v=a-1j;«e*'§.+:a':i'e:x;:'-L'. "--?;h:i.s sammnaiah was given
"V.i'.:j.u also not befora us.
22..'§ ' going through the records, it is
"that entire survey No.17 was shmrn as
1111112: banni". me question is whether
jzlriis notification dated 23.10.71 by the then
Govarmnent of Mysore was proper in notififiiiiig _
land. belonging to the t "
of the same and whether
its mm land is the question 'Ifisp;iA£e
of giving several on
record is brought this
survey Ho.17/1 was ova: which
said 7 aifiozuta right,
title or the" absolute
came: per the records,
be -'the land on temporary
basis om-raxds. The Eowble
Supggésné . fin occnion to deal with such
with refer.-am:a to section 30
f£.ar~,;quia1tion Act. they are as under:
:t:'=... (2093) 3 sec page 129 in the case air'
=--$:H.aRDA DEVI mm smrn or Bram «- Para-36
of the said decziaion reads as under:
" To sum up, the State is not at
"person interested" as defina in
section 3(1)) of the Mt. It is not a
party to the proceedings before the '_
which thv%ef~f "'j
exprassiun "parties to the 1itigati9n"j;_'
The Collector ho1qg""'-._Vgh:g . %
procaedings and makes an ~ayarfi,_§§ ax' M
representative of the state 7
the
Collector in sense,
carries.
Land or an intaxest.in 1an&_3re§¢wfied
by the state canndt, be tha 'aubjée£4='fi
matter of acqnisitiog';hy the .Staé.
The question cf decifiifig tfie_amh§£sh£p
of the State o:"'ho1di:;§§fo£"~$§a1i' interest
by the state 15; gszeqcsaeaings
before ;-t'1;g 1' 'Co1;_1.e{:téir axise in
the pmc;gé§i.ngs_; the collector
'-.S'efl<:tien"§ 3(a) of the
mt) land there
wa$uVh9 'qfi§stia§">b£ initiating the
proceéding; ffirwiacqniaition at all.
»iThé~ Gofiétnmentv wold. not acquire the
'~1§hich"m}:1rea¢y vest; in it. A
"diafiufeyag to the pre~existing right or
"»ifi£¢rgs§ §£ the state gnvaxnment in the
'uprépeity aught to be acqnixed is net a
&.i§gmte capable of being adjudiaaated
".upcn or referred to the civil aourt for
' detemm1nation either uader Section 18
or section 30 ¢f the Act. The reference
man by the Collector to the court was
24
wholly without jurisdiction and the
civil court cught to have refused
entertain the mference and "if
have rejected the sauna. 4'
p::o¢eed.ing'.-.1 under A
beqinxxing from the
adjucfication thereon thé'
suffer from '
jurisdiction and _:.?a.
nullity liable ta. Vim ;.m. H
(axphasis svupp1i§<_3V._) 7 ' ' "
xx. 1..2¢2'1§f.'V.5_',';V_' case of
of tha said
" 4.§"§ieL..have'''!1L_eV7a}i:d Vcounsel far the parties.
of Uttar Prafiesza has
the crder of tha iiigh
x whereby the High Catxrt
'directed the state to pay
ccllpenaation to the writ
mtitxoners for the lands said to
have been acquired by the state of
Uttar Pxadesh. Counsel fo: the
appellants submits that though
State authorities ought to 12a_vj_e. ~
taken pxonpt petiticn which
failed to do, the fact,' -
the State has brot;1"ght: '
documents in the recé*¢.11b'«.aA'ppJ..£c:z;.ti.o2a V'
which will snow-'T_t1;at 'thé ;a::§;V.{i._mm
question were soJ;€3;.a¥:o _ thé
the gram; .._£athie".'r- the' "'-w2:'5.t
petitioner _ and in
View Qt' 61? sale
in -4£i:é.'.j'V~.VVV_si;ate, the
teafiqnfiéfints right,
fliglé Vgox wthe property
""" "in not entitled
'ix: V V' » <'*.§s:_;s@4a'r:isation for the
1' a< :q1ms1ti¢n,. " the lands, which
béighq to thé" : State.
d:">=.:_no':: wish to express any
eggmgon in the mtter, but having
to the fact that in at 1%
of cases this problan has
noticed, we remit the matte: ta
" V _ *t1:e High Court to reconaidex the
same after giving an fitunity to
the state cf Uttar Pradash to file a
detailed counter affiéavit.
5. we so direct, in the interast of
justice and in pxzblic inter-eat, if"
the plea of tha state of (LP
found. to m justified, there
no question of giving '
co%nsation to persons .
respondents herein.
set aside the gt
arder of the aVnncEL'vV"a;'i.;31;§VIv
this appeal. rhfigattex ia
to the High. ".*n;a1c:;t~am.--':ox
Allahabad in-fF.:1;e'._
6. Ho order as 'V
III.' M in the case of
. vs. DEBT!
DISTRICT mu
7 and 8 read as
.....
2 V' --'.'4§a.zja----«'l: In the above connection, Vézxpropriate to quote Rule 168-1 _ 'o£ _!:i'xé$.v_Eiu1es, which reads as undm:-:-
..*g'.1ios-1; Certain lands not to he graiited: Notwithstanding anything
-_::onata.inec1 in this chapter , lands 'Aasamgnad for special purposes under Section 71 of the Act, and land 27 described in revenue rewards, Devarakadu, Urduve, gxmchahcp '4 Phat marab, amarab Ealla, burial grounds and such J.a.nd;, = the opinion of the required for public _ " A' para-8 : - Prgmt ":i.At clear that it 'not; for the unauthogiagagz. fj¢£ saga which is Ktsiia in the reven1iétttr:es?°-was respondent Dmtr »..iI::O'l'. held. that the disjiutéd, ia_:;a._ not aazazab Hana as thexgfirsenuée records. "
3 present appeal, the actual disgfifite I under the guise of forming layout "$.st'?.;rfiring to acroaah zrarvay 1:53.23, 29 and V' 't to the appellant-aoc:Lety the layout by the society on the waster.-n 1116:. 'me " sketch prepared from the warxnt oi Survey Settlement do not indicate: which is the Hosakereha11iRoadreferrM.tobythemaudwen the two layouts 3..e., one format by %1J._§nt-- aaciety and other by EDA first overlapping each other. 'me j _ claiming certain sites as part at 23 and 30 and the respondent 1:' as survey No.17/1. Hawgargr, of officials of survey tti'1efi'*ge°V§enue Departmaniz, 1; _.'h$ " !.~:IV6.1V'V':'/1 in existence 1:11.]. now.
shut its eyes to the reality?' the disputed area both the 'sbcxietf. and the first respondent A. tothaé-e allotted certain sites. the appellants, there is no auxvay Htigfifl the guise of auzvey No.1?/1, ththe ttixtsit vzespandent was trying to maroach land Hhfeiazagitng ta thm in survey 305.28, 29 and 30. the controversy is with regard ta "£é:Lctua.1 situation and the dispute has to be resolveci in a Civil Court and the civil suit is pending to which both the wpellant and the first respondent are parties. Whether encroachment of land as contended "
appellant by the first respondent H exiatenee of survey No.17/1 has to be thrashed out in the " . 2 V'
25. The fact of notification dated ' n§V;AA1'iV/1 was not in existence tn; to be notified. iio .. to be part of oouid not have ban acquiredttthgi J i t ' "a3;1onring construction on the-_ there would be clash between V. of the sites by the V. '_ a§p_ei;I.a:it-eooie-ty_ _____ M 'and also the respondent aethorivtgt,»: "*-In the interest of justice and also {an and order, it would be just and V _ profier both the ellant and the first Jjreegondkexfizt authority; to see that no eonstruetion is put up on this disputed area as survey No.17/3. by the first Vt respondent and claimed as part of survey 1303.28, 29 and 30 by the appellant society} pending disposal of the original units.
26. Under the preaant right. title and interest to the K V' i..e., survey No.17/1 is ccfifilétafir settled in a civil suit, nof§;a; _ the present appeal ':I,V-,A::;e_: ant' not anyone claiming first respondent authoritjr ' z 'zflaiming under the first 3;-gspdhtiesit. V " including 'iihia case, shall put up constru§:%:j.onv 6'21. area alleged to be mo. 1'?"'f-Il.._V_V.x V' I ' --V._l:"':V><3V:"'~ areasons stated above, the appwl is V A' Tiaavgccordingly .
Sd/-.
Judge Sfifm Efziégé