Karnataka High Court
Raju Reddy vs Commissioner, Bda on 8 February, 1995
Equivalent citations: ILR1995KAR2514
Author: R.V. Raveendran
Bench: R.V. Raveendran
ORDER R.V. Raveendran, J.
1. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of Survey No. 52 of Hennur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring 1 Acre 33 Guntas; that he had put up six structures in the said property during the year 1980; that the Village Panchayat had assessed the structures to property tax by assigning the No. 235/A (1 to 6) in the Assessment Register for the period 1989-90 and had received tax from him for 1990-91; that petitioner applied to B.D.A. (Respondent) for regularisation of the constructions on 10.11.1992 (vide Annexures E1 and E2) and the said application is not yet disposed of; that though the property was acquired by BDA, as he has already put up constructions prior to 31.3.1990, the petitioner was entitled to regularisation having regard to the provisions of the Karnataka Regularisation of Unauthorised Constructions in Urban Areas Act, 1991 ('Act' for short); and that inspite of it BDA was attempting to demolish the structures in his property. On these averments, the petitioner has filed these Petitions on 12.2.1993 seeking a direction to BDA to regularise the constructions made in Survey No. 52 described in the Schedule to the Petition, under the provisions of the said Act. The learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner had made not made any application for regularisation to the Screening Committee constituted under the Act, as no such Committee had not been constituted at the time of filing the Petition.
2. The BDA contends that Survey No. 52 of Hennur village measuring 2 acres 7 guntas was notified for acquisition under Preliminary Notification dated 27,6.1978 (published in the Gazette dated 20.7.1978) and final Notification dated 9.1.1984 (published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 14.3.1985), for the purpose of formation of Hennur-Bellary Road I Stage Layout; that wide publicity was given in respect of the acquisition by publication in Deccan Herald dated 17.5.1985 and Kannada Prabha dated 16.5.1985, and by other means; that petitioner filed his objections to the acquisition on 1.6.1985 contending that the land was being used for agricultural purposes; and that ultimately an Award was passed on 6.3.1987 and approved by the Special Deputy Commissioner on 9.3.1987 (Annexure-R-2); that BDA took possession of the said Survey No. 52 on 9.1.1987 (Annexure-R-2) and formed a layout in Survey Nos. 51 and 52 on 13.4.1987; and allotted sites to several applicants; and some of the allottees have also constructed houses; and thus the land has vested in BDA and thereafter disposed of by BDA to the members of public and therefore petitioner has no manner of right, title or interest in the acquired land after 1987.
3. The petitioner and his brother who was the owner of the remaining portion of Survey No. 52 filed W.P.Nos. 9365-66 of 1989 challenging the said acquisition and the said Writ Petitions were rejected by this Court by order dated 25.10.1990 (Annexure-R.3) on account of delay and laches holding that the Petitions have been filed four years after the acquisition, even though they were fully aware of the acquisition proceedings. The Court also held that as the objections filed by the petitioners had been fully considered by the respondents, there was no basis for petitioners' grievance. The petitioner and his brother filed W.A.475 and 476 of 1991 challenging the said order of the learned Single Judge. A Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 16.4.1991 (Annexure-R4) rejected the appeals on the ground that the petitioner and his brother had participated in the Land Acquisition proceedings and on the ground that there was delay of four years in challenging the acquisition; thereafter the petitioner filed O.S.5228/91 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore and sought an injunction against BDA from demolishing the houses existing in the suit schedule property. In that suit, an application for temporary injunction was filed. The Civil Court considered the matter and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to the temporary injunction sought and rejected the application on 3.2.1993 (Annexure-R5). Thereafter, the suit itself was withdrawn by the plaintiff. Nine days after the Civil Court rejected the application for injunction, the petitioner has filed these Petitions without even disclosing the earlier Writ Proceedings and the Original Suit, making it to appear as if there were no earlier proceedings. Be that as it may.
4. In fact, the Pahani (RTC) Extract produced by the petitioner relating to Survey No. 52 for the year 1991-92 (as Annexure-A) discloses that the BDA has become the owner of the land and the BDA is in possession of the land. The said RTC Extract does not show that the petitioner or his brother is in possession of any portion of Survey No. 52.
5. The petitioner has produced some photographs of structures alleged to be existing in his property. The mere existence of some structures, even if true will neither invalidate the acquisition nor give a right to petitioner to seek regularisation. If there are any structures in a land acquired by the BDA, the owner of the said structures will get compensation not only for the land but for the structures also. If the structures have been put up unauthorisedly, after the acquisition and vesting, the owner will not be entitled to any compensation for such structures.
6. In these Petitions, the petitioner relies on the provisions of Section 3 of the Act to seek regularisation. The Section reads as follows:-
"3. Regularisation:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, but subject to such rules as may be prescribed, any unauthorised construction made in any urban area, except those specified in Section 4, made prior to the Thirtyfirst day of March, 1990, by any person, on land.-
(i) belonging to the State Government; or (ii) which is a revenue site owned by him; or
(iii) belonging to him which is proposed to be acquired in connection with any development scheme of an Authority, in relation to which a notification under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, or under Section 17 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, or under Section 15 of the Karnataka Improvement Boards Act, 1976, is published and which has not yet vested in favour of any Authority for which the acquisition is proposed, may, on the application of such person made within sixty days of the commencement of this Act, be regularised in accordance with the provisions of this Act."
7. Section 3 is subject to Section 4. In cases of construction covered by Section 4, there can be no regularisation under Section 3. Section 4 is extracted below:
"4. Unauthorised Constructions which shall not be regularised:-The following unauthorised constructions shall not be regularised; namely, -
(i) unauthorised constructions coming in the way of existing or proposed roads and railways lines, communications and other civic facilities or public utilities;
(ii) unauthorised construction or any portion thereof falling within the required set off, if any, from roads, railway lines, communications and other civic facilities or public utilities under the rules, bye-laws or regulations governing buildings;
(iii) unauthorised constructions made in forest land or on tank bed;
(iv) unauthorised constructions made in the area specified as green belt in the comprehensive development plan or outline development plan prepared under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act 11 of 1963) or declared as green belt under Sub-section (3A) of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964; (Karnataka Act 12 of 1964);
(v) unauthorised constructions made by any person on the land belonging to another person over which former has no title;
(vi) unauthorised construction having more than two floors including ground floor;
(vii) unauthorised constructions made in violation of Urban (Land Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Central Act 33 of 1976);
(viii) unauthorised constructions made on the land belonging to or vested in any Authority or a local authority; and
(ix) unauthorised constructions on any land reserved for parks, playgrounds, open places or for providing any civic amenities."
8. If a case falls under Section 4, Section 3 will be inapplicable. It is evident from Section 4(viii) that if the land on which the unauthorised constructions are put up, has already vested in an Authority (which includes BDA) such unauthorised constructions cannot be regularised. Hence, in these cases, Section 3 is inapplicable and petitioner is not entitled to seek regularisation and the Petitions are liable to be rejected.
9. But the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that once an application is made to the Screening Committee for regularisation, the applicant gets a right for consideration of his application under the provisions of the said Act, and until such consideration and disposal, the applicant is entitled to protection against dispossession and demolition; and if an applicant for regularisation, approaches this Court seeking exercise of power under Article 226 for protection against demolition pending consideration of his application for regularisation, this Court should grant such protection without going into the question whether the applicant is entitled to claim regularisation or not. He contended that the jurisdiction to examine whether the regularisation is permissible or not being one that is vested with the Screening Committee, this Court should automatically give protection against demolition pending consideration of the application for regularisation. He contended that if the structure is demolished even before the application for regularisation is considered and decided, the very purpose of making the application for regularisation will be defeated. He relied on the following observations of this Court in FATHIMA BI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA :
"The Act has specifically created a forum called the Screening Committee to go into the relevant factors. It is for the Screening Committee to consider the various factors which would entitle or which would disentitle an applicant for the regularisation as stated in Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. The Jurisdictional fact and the ground to grant relief are interwoven under the Act. It is difficult to separate the Jurisdictional fact from the facts which would entitle the petitioner to seek the relief from the Screening Committee except where it is shown that the application was filed beyond the prescribed time or the applicant lost his right for any other reason. Till these or any of the basic questions are decided under a speaking order, the authorities of the respondents shall not interfere with the possession of the applicants in case the applicants are found to be in possession."
10. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for BDA relied on two Division Bench Decisions of this Court in M. RAMACHANDRA v. THE COMMISSIONER, BDA W.A. No.2240 of 1993 DD 9.11.1993 and SRINIDHI NANDINI LAYOUT REVENUE SITE OWNERS AND HOUSE OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION v. STATE OF KARNATAKA W.P.No. 12751 of 1991 DD 27.11.1994 and contended that unless a petitioner approaching this Court satisfies that he will be entitled to regularisation, this Court should not grant an order staying demolition pending consideration of the application for regularisation. He pointed out that acceptance of petitioner's contention would encourage persons having no right in a property to put up unauthorised structures and prevent lawful owners from enjoying their properties, even in regard to properties falling under Section 4. He contended that when a person claiming to be the owner of an unauthorised construction, seeks stay of demolition or dispossession, if the BDA is able to demonstrate that the case fell under Section 4, the Court will necessarily examine whether petitioner is entitled to regularisation, as a question incidental to the question whether such a person is entitled to an order staying demolition; and if the respondents in a Writ Petition were able to satisfy that the matter was one to which Section 4 applied, then the jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised to prevent demolition of unauthorized structures, merely on the ground that an application for regularisation was pending consideration before the Screening Committee.
11. The rival contentions canvass extreme positions. On the one hand, this Court cannot accept the contention that mere pendency of an application for regularisation, automatically entitles an applicant to obtain an order, in a Writ Proceeding, prohibiting demolition pending consideration of such application. Nor is it possible for this Court in every Petition that is filed under Article 226 to examine in detail whether the petitioner before the Court, would be entitled to regularisation, and grant a stay of demolition only if the petitioner is found to be entitled to regularisation; that would involve examination of disputed questions of fact and would be duplicating the work of the Screening Committee. That is neither the intent nor scope of the Act or Article 226. Neither of the extreme views is feasible or just. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the legal background to reach a proper perspective.
12. The Act was enacted to provide for regularisation of certain unauthorised constructions in urban areas. The intention of the Act is not to encourage encroachment of properties belonging to others. Protection of life, liberty, reputation and property of its citizens has always been considered as one of the fundamental functions of a democratic Government. The very notion of any statute or Government Order permitting or encouraging any person to illegally encroach on another's property and then claim ownership thereto is anathema to the Rule of Law and will not be permitted to stand. The State while enacting the Act is careful to permit regularisation only in two kinds of unauthorised constructions: (a) where the construction is put up by the applicant in its land, that is in State Government's land -vide Section 3(i); and (b) where the construction is put up by the applicant in his own land, that is a revenue site owned by him or in a land owned by him in regard to which the process of acquisition is not completed and ownership is not yet divested; - vide Section 3(ii) and 3(iii). Section 3 very rightly does not contemplate regularisation of unauthorised constructions either in lands belonging to others or lands which have already vested in any Authority in pursuance of any acquisition. This is made clear by Clauses (v) and (viii) of Section 4 by expressly providing that there can be no regularisation in case of unauthorised constructions in land belonging to others or in lands which have already vested in any Authority. Even in regard to lands covered by Section 3(i) and Section 3(ii) and (iii), certain exceptions are made in Section 4(i) to (iv), (vi), (vii) and (ix). It is made clear that unauthorised construction put up on roads or proposed roads and railway lines, communication and civic facilities or public utilities, forest lands and tank beds, green belt area, land reserved for parks, play grounds and open spaces or for providing civic amenities cannot be regularised.
13. Even if the unauthorised constructions fall under the said three categories of lands referred to in Section 3 and do not fall under any of the categories mentioned in Section 4, the applicant will not be entitled to automatic regularisation. Section 5 provides that, if the person seeking regularisation or any member of his family owns any building or site within the Urban Area in which the unauthorised construction sought to be regularised is situated, then the unauthorised construction will not be regularised. It also provides that no person will be entitled to seek regularisation of more than one unauthorised construction either in his name or in the name of any member of his family.
14. Thus an applicant will be entitled to regularisation of his unauthorised constructions under the Act only if the following conditions are fulfilled:
(a) The unauthorised constructions should have been made before 31.3.1990, in lands categorised in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 3;
(b) The unauthorised constructions shall not fall under any of the categories mentioned in Section 4;
(c) None of the conditions barring regularisation stipulated in Section 5 should apply.
Section 6 contemplates scrutiny of applications and holding of enquiry by the Screening Committee and ordering of regularisation of the unauthorised construction subject to payment in accordance with the Rules. It also provides that where the unauthorised construction is on land belonging to the State Government, the Screening Committee may recommend grant of the land appertaining to the said construction subject to the limit prescribed. The Act does not contemplate stay of demolition pending consideration of the application for regularisation. Section 8 provides that all unauthorised constructions which are not regularised shall be liable to be demolished and the persons who have made such unauthorised constructions shall be liable to be evicted summarily in accordance with the relevant law. Thus the Act does not lend any support to the contention of the petitioner that mere pendency of an application for regularisation entitles the applicant to an automatic stay of demolition or dispossession from the hands of this Court. Such carte blanche orders are unknown to law.
15. In Srinidhi's case, referred to above, the Division Bench of this Court observed thus:
"Admittedly, the petitioners have made constructions on the lands in question Regularly or unauthorisedly. If regularisation of unauthorised construction is to be allowed, it must be only in terms of the Karnataka Regularisation of Unauthorised Constructions in Urban Areas Act, 1991. Section 4 of the said Act excludes from the applicability of Section 3 in so far as construction made on land belonging or vested in any authority or local body. Inasmuch as the petitioners have purchased the property in question after the initiation of acquisition proceedings and no construction had been made prior to the vesting of the land in the local authority, the question of regularisation thereof in terms of Section 3 of the Act would not arise at all................. But in the case of unauthorised construction on lands which have already vested in the authority, regularisation of such construction would affect not only the authority who would have deposited the compensation awarded for the acquisition but also third parties to whom sites may have been allotted. The law could not have regularised the unauthorised construction put up by persons who had ceased to have title to the lands on which those constructions had been put up."
16. In M. Ramachandra's case, referred to above, the appellant filed a Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondents not to dispossess him from the Petition property (portion of Sy.No. 5/3A) and not to demolish the structure put up by him and to direct the Screening Committee of BDA to regularise the unauthorised construction in his site in terms of the Government Order dated 27.9.1990. A learned Single Judge of this Court rejected the Writ Petition holding that it was not possible to issue any direction for regularisation, as the land had already vested in BDA, particularly when the right, title and interest of third parties are involved in view of allotments by BDA. The Division Bench rejected the Appeal holding as follows:-
"Under Section 4 of the said Act, unauthorised constructions made in lands belonging to any Authority (wrongly mentioned as 'Government') or lands vested in any local authority cannot be regularised. It is not in dispute that the entire S.No. 5/3A came to be acquired in the year 1985 itself. In these circumstances, we do not find any substance in this appeal and no ground is made out to interfere with the order of rejection passed by the learned Single Judge."
17. In view of the said Decisions of two Division Benches of this Court, the observations in Fathima Bi's case cannot be construed as laying down a proposition that in all cases where an application for regularisation is pending, the BDA or other Authority owning the land shall postpone demolition or dispossession, till the decision on the application. The observations will apply only where the petitioner makes out a prima facie case for regularisation. BDA and other Authorities involved in formation of layouts and distribution of sites, acquire vast tracts of land* running into thousands of acres. It is virtually impossible to protect or safeguard lands vested in them, against encroachment or unauthorised construction. It is well known that considerable time elapses between vesting of land in an Authority, consequent upon acquisition and delivery of possession, and the formation of layouts and allotment of sites. An unscrupulous erstwhile owner who encroaches upon such land and puts up an unauthorised structure will not be entitled to an order of stay of demolition from this Court; grant of any such order would amount to permitting him to benefit from his unlawful and unscrupulous actions. The Supreme Court in NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY LTD. v. K.C. ALEXANDER , observed that the law does not countenance the doctrine of "finding, keepings" after quoting with approval the following passage from BURLING v. READ 1848 (11) QB 904 : "The parties might imagine that they acquired some right by merely entering upon land in the night, running up a hut and occupying it before a morning."
18. The right to obtain regularisation of an unauthorised construction is a special relief under the Act, It is different from the right to obtain an order prohibiting an Authority from demolishing an unauthorised structure. A Court will give such relief only if the action of the Authority is arbitrary, or mala fide. If an applicant makes out a prima facie or reasonable case showing a right to obtain regularisation under the Act, the Court may consider any action by an Authority, to demolish the unauthorised construction, as arbitrary and unreasonable and grant an order restraining demolition. But on the other hand, if a petitioner does not make out prima facie that he is entitled to regularisation under the Act or where the respondents prove that Section 3 is not applicable in view of the case falling under Section 4, the question of this Court issuing a direction prohibiting demolition or dispossession will not arise.
19. In this case, Petitioner has not made out a prima facie case that he is entitled to regularisation. The land in question has been acquired several years ago and title has vested in the respondent. The challenge to the acquisition by petitioner has been rejected by this Court. Petitioner filed a suit for injunction and that has been dismissed. The case clearly falls under Section 4(viii) and does not fall under Section 3. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought in the Petition. The interim order shall stand vacated.
20. Having held that Petitioner is not entitled to any relief in these cases, I find it necessary to generally advert to the filing of a large number of Petitions against BDA seeking orders restraining demolition. It is the ultimate aim of every Bangalorean to own a house. It is virtually impossible for a person, who does not own a site in Bangalore, to approach an Authority, Agency, Developer or Dealer and purchase a site across the counter by paying its price. The combined effect of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 and the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 is that owners of lands cannot normally form an approved Private Layout and offer sites for sale. The Land Revenue Act prohibits the use of agricultural land for residential purposes without conversion. The Land Reforms Act prohibits non-agriculturists from acquiring agricultural land and prohibits alienation of land in respect of which occupancy rights have been granted, for a specified period. The Town & Country Planning Act prohibits the land being used for a purpose other than the reserved land use. The Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act takes away any urban vacant land in excess of 1000 Sq.M. 20.1. A person can only acquire a site by either applying to the BDA and wait several years for allotment or by seeking Membership of a Housing Co-operative Society exposing himself to the risks, uncertainties, vicissitudes and delays in that behalf. But BDA and Housing Societies can however meet the requirements of very few of the large number of aspirants for sites. It is not possible to acquire a site otherwise, unless he is prepared to purchase a site from persons who already own sites in the City, at exhorbitant prices. A person belonging to a middle class or lower middle class or weaker section of Society cannot think of such purchase at exhorbitant price.
20.2. As the difference between demand and availability of sites is so great, it is virtually impossible for a common man to get a site. Hence, he is forced go to land sharks and middlemen who have created the pernicious system of sale of 'Revenue sites' and 'illegal sites' in and around Bangalore. The poor and the needy, anxious to own sites, are sold sites, which are portions of land which is either un-converted agricultural land situated in the green belt area, or land ear-marked for purpose other than residential use, or land which has already been acquired for some Authority or Society or land which is in the process of acquisition. As transactions relating to such sites is illegal and prohibited, no sale deed is executed and the unfortunate purchaser is given an 'Agreement of Sale' and a 'Power of Attorney' and 'possession of the site'. He gets no title, but doubtful possession. The dealer suppresses the true facts and informs the ignorant purchasers that they can put up sheds overnight and that if they are in possession and apply for regularisation, the Government will ultimately regularise their constructions and give them title to the sites. The several orders issued by the Government from time to time providing for regularisation and extending the cut-off date for regularisation of constructions, have come in handy to the unscrupulous dealers to persuade the purchasers that they will also get regularisation and title. Acting on the dealers' misrepresentations, anxious, gullible and ignorant members of the public, mostly from the lower middle-class or weaker sections, part with their hard earned money, in the hope of owning a piece of land and having a shelter, in an undeveloped or non-developed layout without amenities or facilities. The layout itself is imaginary and illegal and mostly exist only on paper. The result is mushrooming of small temporary sheds, thousands in number, erected without licences or sanctioned plans, all round Bangalore, in a haphazard manner, leading to a planner's nightmare.
20.3. Who is to be blamed for this state of affairs? The greedy dealers in unauthorised sites? The gullible public who purchase such unauthorised sites? BDA which has failed to make available adequate sites and failed to prevent the unauthorised structures? There can be no doubt that the dealers in Revenue sites and illegal sites are largely to be blamed for the existing state of affairs. The members of public, who in their anxiety to own a site, ignore the legal requirements and purchase illegal sites, are also partly to be blamed. The tendency to place the entire blame on BDA is however not proper. It is true that under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, BDA is empowered to acquire lands around Bangalore and form layouts and allot them to needy applicants. It may be true that if BDA had efficiently discharged its function by proper planning, by making available adequate number of sites and by expeditiously sanctioned private layouts, the market in revenue sites and illegal sites would not have come into existence at all. But formation of proper layouts is a time consuming and complex task involving planning, levelling of land and execution of development works like roads, drains, culverts, bridges in uneven and undulating terrain. The delay in formation of layout is aggravated by lack of adequate co-ordination and co-operation among several wings and departments of BDA as also other statutory bodies like KEB and BWS&SB. There is also considerable delays on account of litigations by land owners, unauthorised constructions by encroachers, ex-owners and revenue site holders and stay orders by Courts. Sometimes the acquired lands consist in its midst, clusters of habitations, and the owners/occupants of the buildings resist acquisition and also initiate litigation. The lay-out and development works cannot be completed unless the pockets of resistance involving lands which are subject matters of stay orders and lands occupied by unauthorised structures and inhabited clusters are removed. This results in the entire layout work being delayed for long periods and further developmental activities come to a grinding halt. When development work and activities are stopped for long periods, that gives room for further encroachments and illegal constructions followed by applications for regularisation. It is impossible for BDA to police its vast lands day and nights continuously for years to prevent overnight unauthorised constructions. Hence, the blame cannot be placed wholly at the doors of BDA, 20.4. The Government also has a difficult task. The number of members of public who have resorted to such illegal purchases and unauthorised constructions are too large to be ignored and the sheer number of public involved in such acts, has virtually converted what will be a law and order situation into a human and social problem. The Government has been attempting to find a solution by forming schemes for regularisation by several orders, followed by the Act, whereby several cut-off dates for regularisation have been fixed. But repeated extentions of such cut-off date for regularisation of unauthorised constructions have been counter-productive as repeated extensions send wrong signals to the persons indulging in sale of illegal sites and construction of unauthorised structures, to believe that it the persons involved are too many, after some time, there will be one more round of condonation and regularisation. Unless it is made clear that the date for regularising unauthorised constructions will not be further extended and effective steps are taken to prevent further unauthorised constructions and encroachments, the very purpose of regularisation will be defeated.
20.5. The outskirts of the City is now full of unauthorised layouts leading to unorganised, indisciplined and haphazard growth. The authorised and developed layouts of BDA and Societies are too few. The unauthorised constructions do not leave room for proper roads, drains, civic amenities, open spaces, parks or for providing proper infrastructural facilities. There is thus an urgent need to find a proper and satisfactory solution by forming a Comprehensive Programme involving at least a three pronged attack - (a) dealing with the existing unauthorised structures by disposing of the pending applications for regularisation without delay but without sacrificing or affecting the orderly and planned development of the City; (b) preventing further unauthorised structures and encroachments by strict preventive and punitive action; (c) making available sites and low cost houses in a large number, by BDA or other Authorities forming layouts so that the public do not find the need to resort to purchase of illegal sites or unauthorised constructions. The task is of course, Herculean. But failure to tackle it in time and in an effective manner will make a mockery of civic administration and make it a choking and horrifying experience for its citizens to live in Bangalore. The above observations and suggestions (in para 20 and onwards) are necessitated by the increasing litigation in this field. There may be several other facets to the problem which may require consideration and solution. It is for the Legislature and Executive to take necessary steps and find suitable solutions. Saying anything more may amount to overstepping the Judicial functions of this Court.
21. These Cases have no merit and are vexatious. Petitioner has suppressed earlier litigation. The Petitions are rejected with costs of Rs. 2500/- payable by Petitioner to respondents.
Let a copy of this Order be sent to the Chief Secretary, State of Karnataka for necessary action.