Karnataka High Court
Poornaprajana House Building vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 March, 2019
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU R
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION Nos. 51417-51433/2016 (LA-BDA)
C/W
REVIEW PETITION Nos. 512/2016 & 513/2016
IN W.P. Nos. 51417-51433/2016:
BETWEEN:
1. POORNAPRAJANA HOUSE BUILDING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
NO.552, POORNAPRAJNA SUVARNA BHAVANA,
UTTARAHALLI-KENGERI MAIN ROAD,
POORNAPRAJNA NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 061,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
SRI. L.NANJAPPA
2. SRI. B RAMEGOWDA
S/O SRI. BUDI GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
NO.1284, 39TH MAIN,
48TH CROSS, POORNAPRAJNA NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 061.
3. SRI. RAMAIKRISHNA
S/O H. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
NO.1285, 39TH MAIN,
48TH CROSS, POORNAPRAJNA NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 061.
4. SRI. K. THIMMASETTY
S/O LATE. THIMMASETTY
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
NO.1294, 39TH MAIN,
48TH CROSS, POORNAPRAJNA NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 061.
5. SMT. M. NIRMALA
W/O G.N. MURALI KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
NO.1292, 39TH MAIN,
2
48TH CROSS, POORNAPRAJNA NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 061.
6. SMT. M. VANAJAKSHI
W/O SRI M. RAMACHANDRA RAO
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
NO.1305, 41ST MAIN,
48TH CROSS, POORNAPRAJNA NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 061.
7. SRI. R N PRASAD
S/O. LATE. SRI. G. RAMACHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
NO. 1281,48TH CROSS, 38TH MAIN,
POORNAPRAJNA NAGAR, UTTARHALLI,
BENGALURU 560061
8. K N SUDHARSHAN
S/O. LATE. K L NARASIMHAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
NO. 1198,29TH MAIN, 47TH CROSS,,
POORNAPRAJNA NAGAR, UTTARHALLI,
BENGALURU 560061
9. SMT. VASANTHA VISWANATH
W/O. SRI. VISHWANATH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
NO. 237, II-D-CROSS, 1ST PHASE,
GIRINAGAR, BENGALURU 560085
10. SMT. L. KAMALAKSHI
W/O. SRI. V. LAKSHMINARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
NO. 39,3RD MAIN,
BASAVSESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU 560079
11. SMT. B S SOUMYA
W/O. SRI. SATISH S,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
NO. 68, "SREEVASA"
NEAR BUS DEPO. 21, BEHIND,
R K MESS, SAI LOTUS LAYOUT,
CHANNASANDRA,
BENGALURU 560068
12. SRI. L. RAVI PRASAD
S/O. V. LAKSHMI NARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
NO. 91/1, GANDHI BAZAR MAIN ROAD,
3
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU 560004
13. SRI. M. KRISHNAMURTHY RAO
S/O. LATE. SRI. M. MADHAVA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
NO. 250/I,1ST PHASE
ADDITIONAL IIND-C-MAIN,
HEMAVATHI ROAD, GIRINAGAR,
BENGALURLU 560085
14. SRI. GOPALA
S/O. A. CHOWDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
NO. 22, 8TH MAIN, ANANDNAGAR,
HOSAKEREHALLI, BSK-IIIRD STAGE,
BENGALURU 560085
15. SRI. MAHESH G
S/O. GATTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 29 EYARS,
NO. 975, 7TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK,
BENGALURU 560050
16. SRI. K O MAHADEV
S/O. K ODHALINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
NO. 142,15TH MAIN,
RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK,
KALIDASA LAYOUT,
BENGALURU 560050
17. SRI. M. NARASIMHA MURTHY
S/O. LATE. M. MADHAVA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
NO. 250/I,1ST PHASE ADDITIONAL,
IIND-C-MAIN, HEMAVATHI ROAD,
GIRINAGAR, BENGALURU 560085
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. G KRISHNAMURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI K N MOHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
4
2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU-560 020.
REPRESENTED BY IS COMMISSIONER
3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU-560 020.
4. M. SREENIVAS
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.8, 4TH CROSS,
7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 082.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B J ESWARAPPA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. K KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & 3;
SRI. S M CHANDRASHEKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. LOKESH K M, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
CALL FOR RECORDS IN W.P.NO.35912/2016 C/W
W.P.NO.35913/2016 AND PERUSE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 15.7.2016 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN W.P.NO.35912/2016 C/W W.P.NO.35913/2016
VIDE ANNEX-P AND REHEAR THE MATTER AFRESH AFTER
DIRECTING THE PETITIONERS TO BE IMPLEADED AS PARTY
RESPONDENTS AND GIVING THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUT
FORTH THEIR CASE.
IN R.P. No. 512/2016:
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020
2. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020
5
BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY THE
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BDA,
BANGALORE
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. M. SREENIVAS
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA
R/AT NO.8, 4TH CROSS,
7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 082
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S M CHANDRASHEKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. LOKESH K M, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. B S ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R2)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47
RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED
15.07.2016 PASSED IN WP NO. 35912/2016(LA-BDA).
IN R.P. No. 513/2016:
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020
2. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020
BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY THE
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER BDA, BANGALORE
IN THE ABOVE REVIEW PETITION. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
6
AND:
1. SRI. M. SREENIVAS
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA
R/AT NO.8, 4TH CROSS,
7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 082
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S M CHANDRASHEKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. LOKESH K M, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. B S ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R2)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47
RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED
15.07.2016 PASSED IN WP NO. 35913/2016(LA-BDA).
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The 1st petitioner-House Building Cooperative Society and rest of the petitioners being its members are knocking at the doors of this Court invoking writ jurisdiction, in essence, for reviewing the judgment and order dated 15.07.2016 (hereafter "subject judgment") entered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in 4th respondent's W.P.No.35912/2016 (LA-BDA) c/w his another W.P.No.35913/2016 whereby, the acquisition in question has been declared to have lapsed under section 7 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereafter "BDA Act") and section 24 (2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereafter "2013 Act").
2. R.P.Nos.512/2016 & 513/2016 are filed by the BDA and its Land Acquisition Officer seeking review of the subject judgment and order inter alia on the ground that the said respondent Sri.M. Sreenivas being the petitioner in W.P.Nos.35912 & 35913/2016 has procured the same by suppressing the material facts from the Court and that he having sold the subject lands, did not have locus standi, in the absence of litigable interest.
3. In W.P.Nos.51417-51433/2016 and in Review Petitions, after service of notice, the 1st respondent-State has entered appearance through the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate Sri.B.J. Eswarappa; the 2nd respondent-BDA and the 3rd respondent-LAO of the BDA have entered appearance through their senior Panel Counsel Sri.K. Krishna; the 4th respondent Mr.M. Sreenivas has entered appearance through his Advocate Sri.Lokesh K.M. The respondent-BDA has filed Statement of Objections in the 8 Writ Petitions virtually supporting the case of the petitioners. The 4th respondent has filed his Statement of Objections resisting the Writ Petitions.
4. Brief facts of the case as urged by the petitioners are:
(a) Two lands which are the subject matter of the acquisition in question are: (i) the land admeasuring 0A-
37G in Sy.No.44/2 exclusively belonging to respondent- Sreenivas and (ii) the land admeasuring 4A-09G in Sy.No.97/1A, jointly belonging to the said Sreenivas and his brother Krishnappa M K; both the lands are situate at Uttarahalli hobli and village, Bangalore South Taluk.
(b) During the period between 1983 and 1999, the Petitioner-Society had entered into Agreements to Sell for buying these lands by paying a huge sum of Rs.14,57,000.00, in all, to the land owners by State Bank of India cheques of various dates and that the same have been duly encashed; this was in addition to Rs.500/- initially paid in cash on 23.06.1983; the land owners had also executed Powers of Attorney and had put the Society in the exclusive possession too; the original title deeds comprising the lands have been delivered to the Society; 9 even the entries in the revenue records also came to be mutated in its favour.
(c) After the initial transactions as aforesaid, the Society had formed a Housing Layout; the said sites came to be allotted to the members and accordingly, sale deeds came to be registered by the land owners through their attorneys; khata also came to be transferred by the then Rajarajeshwarinagar City Municipal Council subsequent to the Agreements, these lands were brought into the acquisition vide Preliminary Notification dated 13.04.1989 followed by the Final Notification dated 07.10.1999, issued under the provisions of BDA Act. Petitioner-Society had unsuccessfully challenged the acquisition in Writ Petitions, Writ Appeals and S.L.P.
(d) The award comprising the land in Sy.No.44/2 was passed on 15.12.1999 and mediate possession was taken from the Society on 22.01.2000 and later, Government delivered the possession to the Engineering Section of the BDA on 31.01.2000. The award comprising land in Sy.No.97/1A was passed on 06.02.2008; the mediate possession of this land was taken by the Government from the Society on 17.03.2008 and on the 10 same day, the possession was delivered to the BDA. In respect of both these lands, the Possession Notification made under Section 16 (2) of 1894 Act, was gazetted on 08.10.2009.
(e) Since challenge to acquisition failed, the Petitioner-Society inevitably applied for bulk allotment and the Government of Karnataka on the recommendation of the BDA, issued the Bulk Allotment Order dated 13.05.2008 gazetted on 29.05.2008, reciting the aforesaid fact matrix. Then came the 2013 Act. The respondent- Sreenivas got issued a Legal Notice dated 16.12.2015 at Annexure - N, seeking to cancel the aforesaid Agreements and Powers of Attorney, as a step-in-aid for the clandestine resumption of lands from the Petitioners.
(f) The respondent-Sreenivas with intent to defraud the Petitioner-Society and its members, filed two cases i.e., W.P.No.35912/2016 and W.P.No.35913/2016, laying a challenge to the acquisition as having become bad since the scheme under Section 27 of the BDA Act allegedly had lapsed. He had also invoked the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. Neither the Petitioner- Society nor its members to whom the sites have been sold 11 by him were made parties to these Writ Petitions. Nothing is pleaded in the Petitions about the Agreements, Powers of Attorney, registered Sale Deeds obtained by the Petitioner- allottees and his Legal notice purporting to recall all these. The respondent-State or the BDA too in their Statement of Objections had not mentioned anything about all these factuals.
5. The learned Single Judge vide subject judgment dated 15.07.2016 allowed the Writ Petitions as under:
"25. In the result, I allow these petitions by declaring that the Scheme and the acquisition proceedings initiated vide the impugned notifications have lapsed by the operation of Section 27 of the B.D.A. Act and Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act and further that the provisions of Section 36 of the B.D.A. Act have become inoperative in so far as they pertain to the petitioner's lands."
6. Their interest having been threatened by the subject judgment, the Petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions seeking review of the same, the text of the prayer notwithstanding. The respondent-BDA too has filed the aforesaid Review Petitions contending that there are certain errors apparent on the face of the record and also the sin of suppressio veri perpetrated by respondent- Sreenivas and therefore, review of the said judgment is 12 eminently warranted. The Review Petitioners submit about the constraints the BDA had, in pointing out these things, in hearing of those Writ Petitions in which the subject judgment has been rendered, because of a kind of interdepartmental incommunicado that obtained in the organization.
7. After service of notice, the State has entered appearance through the learned Additional Government Advocate Shri. B J Eshwarappa and respondent-Sreenivas is represented by the Advocate on record, who has filed a detailed Statement of Objections, resisting the Writ Petitions.
8. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.G. Krishna Murthy and the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the B.D.A, Sri. K. Krishna, appearing for the Review Petitioners broadly made the following submissions:
(a) the respondent-Sreenivas has obtained the subject judgment by playing fraud on the Court inasmuch as he had taken up a false plea of continuing in possession of the lands when the petitioners were given the possession decades ago tat too after receiving the compensation/ consideration by SBI cheques under several Agreements to 13 Sell, registered Sale Deeds; Khatas were transferred in favour of the petitioners; taxes have been paid since the years; approved layout has been formed; several structures are built; the Government has made bulk allotment vide Order dated 13.05.2008; all these most relevant facts have been suppressed from the knowledge of the learned Coordinate Judge, with a culpable intent nursed by the respondent-Sreenivas, and thus, a grave fraud has been played on the Court and on the Writ Petitioners, clandestinely keeping them in utter darkness.
(b) the respondent-Sreenivas having received the entire price of the land and also other huge sums of money, all by State Bank of India cheques by way of compensation for the lands acquired, having executed the Sale Deeds through his lawful Attorney, did not have any vested interest in or right to the lands in question and therefore, lacked litigable right; he could not have maintained the Writ Petitions at all even if the allegations of fraud and abuse of process are held not established.
(c) The Writ Petitioners who have been in the possession, having absolute ownership over the petition lands were proper and necessary parties to the Writ 14 Petitions in which 4th respondent has obtained the subject judgment to their great prejudice; admittedly, in respect of land in Sy.No.97/1A, both the respondent-Sreenivas and his brother M.Krishnappa were the co-owners and therefore, the said Krishnappa too was a necessary party to the said Writ Petitions in which the subject judgment has been rendered, and therefore, it requires to be recalled on the ground of non-impleadment of necessary party or any explanation for not impleading him being offered.
(d) The subject judgment in review has been rendered with an error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as the acquisition of lands accomplished under the provisions of special Act like the BDA Act does not lapse in terms of Section 24 (2) of 2013 Act since it is not an acquisition done under the provisions of LA Act, 1894, especially when 4th respondent had parted with possession of the lands and the custody of the original title deeds, having taken the compensation amount albeit under the Agreements to Sell and the registered Sale Deeds which are admitted in his Legal Notice. This apart, the said acquisition was done with the consent of the land owners. 15
(e) The documents that have been acted upon by the Co-ordinate Judge for holding that the possession of the land was not taken by the Government or by the Review Petitioner from respondent-Sreenivas are only the spot inspection mahazars and not the documents evidencing the taking of possession; in fact, pursuant to Agreements to Sell, Powers of Attorney and registered Sale Deeds, the respondent-Sreenivas and his brother already parted with possession having accepted entire sale consideration by way of compensation/consideration with the stipulation that the Petitioner-Society should get back the compensation deposited in the court;
9. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent-Sreenivas makes the following submissions in justification of the subject judgment and in opposition to its recall:
(a) The respondent-Sreenivas or anyone has not received the compensation amount for the acquisition of the lands in question nor has he ever been deprived of the possession of the lands; the Government or the BDA or the Petitioner-Society never had taken possession of these lands from the land owners.16
(b) The Writ Petitioners lack locus standi to maintain the present Writ Petitions wherein, a prayer is made for setting aside the subject judgment; the Petitioners do not have any right to or interest in the lands in question even if the alleged Agreements, Powers of Attorney and such other contemporaneous documents are for argument sake, assumed to be genuine.
(c) The respondent-Sreenivas had laid a challenge to the acquisition proceedings on the ground that the Statutory Scheme having not been executed within the period prescribed under Section 27 of the BDA Act, has lapsed; absolutely no material is produced by the BDA to show that the Government had taken the possession and delivered the same to the BDA, which in turn gave the lands to the Petitioner-Society for development; that being so, the finding recorded in the subject judgment cannot be reviewed /recalled.
(d) The challenge by respondent-Sreenivas was not to the acquisition notifications but to the acquisition as already stated above on the ground of lapse of statutory Scheme and therefore, the Writ Petitioners 17 not being proper parties much less the necessary parties, were not arraigned as respondents to the said Writ Petitions in which the subject judgment has been rendered; the writ being a public law remedy, whatever private rights these Writ Petitioners now claim, could not have been adjudicated in the respondent-Sreenivas's Writ Petitions and therefore, their non-arraignment as parties to those Writ Petitions and non-narration of the Agreements to Sell, Powers of Attorney, Legal Notice etc., all pale into insignificance.
(e) The case of the Petitioners that they are in possession of the property, some of them having already put up construction and that whatever rights they want to urge herein on the basis of the Agreements to Sell, Powers of Attorney, Sale Deeds, Legal Notice of respondent-Sreenivas, etc., do not merit adjudication in writ jurisdiction; there is absolutely no justification to allege fraud or abuse of process of court against the respondent-Sreenivas.
10. I have heard the learned Senior Advocates Sri.G. Krishnamurthy and Sri.S.M. Chandrashekar appearing for the counsel on record for the parties; I have 18 heard learned Senior Panel Counsel for the BDA Sri.K. Krishna appearing for the Review Petitioners. Learned AGA Sri.B.J. Eswarappa, appearing for the Government has too assisted the Court. I have perused the record and read the Synopsis filed by the private parties.
11. Fact matrix of the case as emerging from pleadings and records is:
(a) The land in Sy.No.44/2 admeasuring 0A-37G exclusively belonged to respondent-Sreenivas, an Ex-MLA of Karnataka; the other land in Sy.No.97/1A admeasuring 4A-09G jointly belonged to the respondent-Sreenivas and his brother Sri.M. Krishnappa; these lands along with other were subject matter of acquisition, and awards having been approved by the Government, the compensation amount has been deposited before the Civil Court by the Petitioner-Housing Society which is the beneficiary of acquisition (all this is not in dispute).
(b) Respondent-Sreenivas, his brother Sri.M. Krishnappa and other family members of Sreenivas, having entered into several Agreements, Powers of Attorney and other collateral documents had parted with possession of these lands in favour of the Petitioner-Society having 19 received Rs.14,57,000/- by State Bank of India cheques and Rs.500/- in cash during the period between June 1983 and July 1999; they have also delivered original title deeds and the possession of the lands in favour of the Petitioners as mentioned in the said agreements; all this is substantiated by the documents at Annexures - A to E3 to the Writ Petitions; this apart, the respondent - Sreenivas has admitted these Agreements and the Powers of Attorney in his Legal Notice dated 16.12.2015 [vide paragraphs 2, 3 and 10 therein], whereby he purports to rescind the same but not with retrospective effect.
(c) The acquisition in question was with the consent of the land owners is also forthcoming from the said Legal Notice [vide paragraphs 10 & 12 therein] and the Agreements to Sell and GPAs whose execution is admitted in the same Legal Notice [vide paragraphs 10 & 11 therein]; respondent-Sreenivas specifically admits Society's unsuccessful challenge to the acquisition as well, up to the level of Apex Court; however, he never had laid challenge to the acquisition and he could not have laid one either, inasmuch as along with his brother Sri.M. Krishnappa and his own son Venkatesh babu, he too had given the consent to the acquisition vide Agreements to 20 Sell and GPAs that are admitted in his Legal Notice, having received the amount through bank cheques from the Petitioner - Society by way of compensation and not just as consideration for the Agreements.
(d) Petitioner-Society's challenge to the acquisition having been negatived by the Courts, the Government took mediate possession of the lands from the Petitioners and delivered the same to the BDA way back in March 2008 which in turn left it to Society, which was in actual holding; in the meanwhile, the Petitioner-Society had formed the layout after obtaining the approved plan by paying more than Rs.41,00,000/- including the development charges which fact is fully narrated in all the registered Sale Deeds executed by the land owners through the undisputed GPAs [several such Sale Deeds are at Annexure - G series].
(e) It is also established by cogent evidence at Annexures A to E Series and other documents which are part of the writ petitions that the sites earlier allotted in respect of which the allottees had taken the individual registered Sale Deeds from the land owners through their lawful Attorneys got the formal allotments confirmed as they were before. The khatas have also been transferred in 21 favour of the allottees and some of whom have already put up structures after obtaining the approved plan.
12. The above fact matrix that emerges by the pleadings of the petitioners as supported by the documents at Annexures thereto having not been disclosed by the respondent-Sreenivas in his Writ Petitions, the learned Co-ordinate Judge of this Court was fraudulently driven to render the subject judgment holding the acquisition as bad on the falsely asserted ground of respondent-Sreenivas' being in possession of the lands and the scheme having not been executed within the statutory period. To ensure that the true facts contrary to his false assertions are not revealed to the Co-ordinate Judge, he intentionally had not arraigned the present petitioners as parties to his Writ Petitions, though all they were proper and necessary parties to the adjudication of the lis since they held registered conveyances transferring the title in their favour. Therefore, the subject judgment obtained by fraud not only on the petitioners but also on the learned Co- ordinate Judge, eminently needs to be reviewed and recalled since fraud vitiates everything as roared by Lord Edward Cocke centuries ago and reiterated by the Apex 22 Court in S.P. Chengaluvaraya Naidu Case (1994) 1 SCC 1 and in Meghamala Case (2010) 8 SCC 383.
13. The contention of the respondent - Sreenivas that the petitioners had held only Agreements to Sell which do not create any interest in the suit lands vide Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 apart from being factually incorrect is legally untenable inasmuch as he has specifically admitted in his undisputed Legal Notice that he, his son Venkatesh Babu and his brother Sri.M. Krishnappa have executed the Agreements to Sell which mention their acknowledgement of receipt of compensation for acquisition from the Society itself through SBI cheques; the said Agreements dated 08.11.1989, 16.10.1993 & 31.07.1999 and the corresponding GPAs [all these are admitted in his Legal Notice] comprising the petition lands mention about their consent for acquisition and delivery of possession to the Society along with all title deeds.
(a) Some relevant paragraphs in the Agreement dated 08.11.1989 are extracted as under:
"EzÀgr À µÉqÆ À å°£À°è £ÀªÄÀ Æ¢¹gÀĪÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼Æ À gÀÄ zÀQët vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, GvÀÛgÀº½ À î ºÉÆç½, GvÀÛgÀº½ À î UÁæªÄÀ PÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀªðÉ 44:2 £ÀA§j£À ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀÄĪÀévÃÛÉ ¼ÀÄ UÀÄAmÉ (37 UÀÄAmÉ) «¹ÛÃtðªÀżÀî d«ÄãÀÄ vÁjÃRÄ 26.06.1978 gÀ°è 1720£Éà £ÀA§gÀÄ 23 jf¸ÀÖgÀÄ PÀAæ iÀÄ¥Àvz Àæ À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ±ÀÄzÀÞ PÀA æ iÀÄPÉÌ ¥Àqz É ÄÀ £À£Àß ¸ÀÄ¥À¢ð ü UÉ §AzÀÄ D ¯ÁUÁAiÀÄÄÛ £À£ßÀ ¸ÀéAvÀ ¸Áé¢üãÁ£ÀħªÀz° À ègÄÀ ªÀ ¸ÀévÛÀ£ÄÀ ß ¤ªÀÄUÉ F »AzÉ 1983-84£Éà E¸À«UÀ¼À°è JA§vÀÄÛ ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼A À vÉ (gÀÆ. 80,000-00) PÀA æ iÀÄPÉÌ PÉÆqÀÀ®Ä M¦à £À£ßÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ¯ÁåAqï CQéfµÀ£ï DPÀÖ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀAWÀPÌÉ ¸Áé¢üãÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸ÀÄ¥À¢üð ºÉÆAzÀ®Ä M¦àUÉ PÉÆlÄÖ ¤«ÄäAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ £ÀUz À ÄÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ CqÁé£ìÀ ¥Àqz É ÄÀ gÀ²Ã¢ PÉÆlÄÖ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
d«Ää£À ¸ÀÄ¥À¢ðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß F ¢£ÀªÉà ¤ªÀÄä ªÀ±ÀPÌÉ ©lÄÖPÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛãÉ, ¤ÃªÀÅ F d«Ää£À°è ¤ªÀÄUÉ C£ÀÄPÀÆ®ªÁzÀAvÉ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¥Àr¹PÉƼÀî®Ä £Á£ÀÄ M¦àgÄÀ vÉÛãÉ.
µÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀéwÛUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥l À Ö zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼£ À ÄÀ ß F ¢ªÀ¸ª À ÃÉ ¤ªÀÄä ¸Áé¢Ãü £ÀPÉÌ PÉÆnÖgÄÀ vÉÛãÉ. F µÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀévÄÀ Û AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà «zsÀªÁzÀ UÉÃtÂ, DzsÁgÀ, ¨sÆ É ÃUÀå, PÀA æ iÀÄ, zÀÁ£ÀU½ À UÉ CxÀªÁ PÉÆlÄð rQæ CmÁåZïªÉÄAmï ¨sÁUÁA±,À ªÉÄÊ£Àgï vÀAmÉ, vÀPÀgÁgÀÄUÀ½UÉ M¼À¥ÀnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
(b) Similarly, the relevant paragraph of General Power of Attorney dated 14.10.1993 is extracted as under: :
"(5) £À£Àß ¥ÀgªÀ ÁV ¨sÀƸÁé¢Ãü £Á¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÄÀ µÉqÀÆå°£À°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ½UÉ FUÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¥ÁªÀwAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀ ºÀtQÌAvÀ ºÉZÁÑV ªÀiÁgÀÄPÀmÉÖ ¨É¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤zsð À j¹ ¨sÆ À ¸Áé¢üãÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ C£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÀzjÀ d«ÄãÀÄ ¤«ÄäAzÀ¯ÃÉ ¸Áé¢üãÀ¥r À ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀA§Azs¥ À À lÖ ¸ÀºPÀ ÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ ªÀ»¹PÉÆlÄÖ ¥ÀjºÁgÀzÀ (PÁA¥À£ï¸ÉõÀ£ï) ºÀtzÀ ªÉÆvÀÛª£ À ÀÄß CªÀjAzÀ oÉêÀtA  iÀiÁV ¥ÀqÉzÄÀ PÉÆAqÀÄ PÉÆqÀĪÀ ºÀtPÉÌ £À£Àß ¥ÀgÀªÁV ¤ÃªÉà ¤ªÀÄä ºÉ¸j À £À°è ZÉPÌÀ £ÄÀ ß ¥ÀqÉzÄÀ PÉÆAqÀÄ CzÀPÌÉ ¸ÀA§Azs¥ À ÀlÖ gÀ²Ã¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ £À£ßÀ ¥Àgª À ÁV PÉÆqÀ®Ä ºÀPÀÄ̼ÀîªgÀ ÁVgÀÄwÛÃj."
(c) The relevant portion of Delivery of Possession Note at Annexure - C reads as under:
"The said Sri M. Srinivas has appointed me and authorized me to transfer the property in favour of the society by executing a General Power of Attorney dated 8.11.89. By virtue of General power of Attorney dated 08.11.89 I hereby deliver the possession of the property which is described in the schedule below for 24 development of the land on this 18th November 1989 to the society."
(e) Similarly, the relevant paragraphs of Agreement to Sell dated 31.07.1999 read as under:
"F d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼ÄÀ £ÉÃgÀªÁV ¸ÀAWÀPÌÉ PÀA æ iÀÄ ªÀiÁr PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvæÀ jf¸ÀÖgï ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä CxÀªÁ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ ¥ÀQæ A æ iÉÄUÀ¼À ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ¸Áé¢üãÀ ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ ªÀ»¸À®Ä ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ M¦àUÉ PÉÆnÖgÄÀ vÉÛêÉ. D ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ £À£ßÀ d«Ää£À ¸Áé¢üãÀª£À ÀÄß £À¤ßAzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ªÀ±PÀ ÌÉ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄwÛÃj.
¥ÀÄ£À: 1993£Éà E¸À«AiÀÄ°è F d«ÄãÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¨É¯A É iÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉaѹ J¯Áè ºÉZÀĪ Ñ j À ºÀtªÀ£ÄÀ ß MlÄÖ d«ÄäUÉ ¯ÉPÁÌZÁgÀ ªÀiÁr ¤«ÄäAzÀ ZÉPÀ̪Áj ¸ÉÖÃmï ¨ÁåAPï D¥sï EArAiÀiÁ ¨ÁåAQ£À ZÉPÄÀ ÌU¼ À À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉ®ªÀÅ ¨Áj £ÀUÀzÁVAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¥ÀqÉzÄÀ ¥ÀÆgÁ d«Ää£À ¥ÀÆvÁð ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÉèÁQAiÀiÁV ¥ÀqÉzÄÀ PÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. F d«Ää£À ªÀÄÆ® zÁR¯ÉU¼ À À£ÀÄß ¸ÀAWÀzª À ÀgÀ ªÀ±ÀPÉÌ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀAWÀzÀªgÀ ÀÄ d«Ää£À SÁvÉU¼ À À£ÀÄß, gÉ«£ÀÆå zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼° À è ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ªÀUÁð¬Ä¹PÉÆArgÀÄwÛÃj.
F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ M¥ÀàAzÀª£ À ÀÄß UËgÀ«¹, F jÃw DVgÀĪÀ ¸Élª è ÉÄAl£ÀÄß G¨sA À iÀÄvÀg æ ÀÆ M¦à F ¯ÁUÁAiÀÄÄÛ ªÀÄÄAzÉ CªÀgÄÀ UÀ¼ÄÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà «zsª À ÁzÀ vÀAmÉ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÄÀ ß PÉÆÃlð PÀbÃÉ jUÀ¼À°è CxÀªÁ d«Ää£À°è ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ ªÀÄÄZÀ½ Ñ PÉ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà «zsÀªÁzÀ vÀAmÉ vÀPgÀ ÁgÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀªg À ÄÀ £ÀqɹgÀĪÀ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ £ÀqÀª½ À PÉUÀ¼® É èª£ À Æ À ß £Á£ÀÄ M¦àgÄÀ vÉÃÛ £É. F ºÉZÄÀ ª Ñ Àj ºÀtªÁzÀ ºÀ¢£ÉAlÄ ¸Á«gÀzÀ LzÀ£ÀÆgÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼£ À ÄÀ ß(gÀÆ. 18,500-00) F ¢£À F PɼPÀ A À qÀ ¸ÁQëUÀ¼À ªÉÆPÀÛ ¤«ÄäAzÀ ¸ÉÖÃmï ¨ÁåAPï D¥sï EArAiÀiÁ ZÉPÄÀ Ì £ÀA§gÀÄ 795770 gÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ."
The land owners had executed another Agreement on 16.10.1993 in respect of land in Sy.No.97/1A admeasuring 4A-7G giving the possession and consent for acquisition after admitting receipt of the entire compensation. The relevant paragraphs of the same are extracted as under: 25
"EzÀgr À µÉqÆ À å°£À°è £ÀªÄÀ Æ¢¹gÀĪÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼Æ À gÀÄ zÀQët vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, GvÀÛgÀº½ À î ºÉÆç½, GvÀÛgÀº½ À î UÁæªÄÀ PÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸Àªð É 97:1J ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 4 JPÀgÉ 07 UÀÄAmÉ «¹ÛÃtðªÀżÀî d«ÄãÀÄ vÁjÃRÄ 04-03-87 gÀ°è 119:87-88 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 120:87-88£Éà £ÀA§gÀÄ jf¸ÀÖgÀÄ PÀA æ iÀÄ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £ÀªÄÀ ä vÁ¬ÄAiÀĪÀgÄÀ ±ÀÄzÀÞ PÀA æ iÀÄPÉÌ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ, £ÀªÀÄä vÁ¬ÄAiÀĪÀgÄÀ vÁjÃRÄ 17-2-89 gÀ°è ¥ËwAiÀiÁzÀ ¯ÁUÁAiÀÄÄÛ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀÄ¥À¢ðUÉ §AzÀÄ D¯ÁUÁAiÀÄÄÛ £ÀªÄÀ ä ¸ÀéAvÀ ¸Áé¢üãÁ£ÀħªÀzÀ°ègÄÀ ªÀ ¸ÀévÛÀ£ÄÀ ß ¤ªÀÄUÉ F »AzÉ 1987-88£Éà E¸À«UÀ¼° À è £ÀªÀÄä vÁ¬ÄAiÀĪÀgÄÀ JPÀgÉ MAzÀPÉÌ MAzÀÄ ®PÀëzÀ LªÀvÄÀ Û ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼A À vÉ (gÀÆ. 1,50,000-00) PÀA æ iÀÄPÉÌ PÉÆqÀ®Ä M¦à d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ¯ÁåAqï CQéfµÀ£ï DPÀÖ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀAWÀPÌÉ ¸Áé¢üãÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸ÀÄ¥À¢üð ºÉÆAzÀ®Ä M¦àUÉ PÉÆlÄÖ ¤«ÄäAzÀ ZÉPÀÌUÀ¼À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¥ÀÆvÁð ºÀt ¥Àq¢ É gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ µÉqÆ À å¯ï ¸ÀéwÛ£À ¸Áé¢Ãü £ÀvA É iÀÄ£ÀÄß F ¢£ÀªÉà ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ªÀ±PÀ ÉÌ M¦à¸® À Ä ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ReÁAaAiÀĪÀgÁzÀ ²æà n.«. PÀȵÀª Ú ÀÄÆwðAiÀĪÀjUÉ £ÀªÄÀ ä ¥ÀgÀªÁV £ÀqÀª½ À PÉ £ÀqÀ¸®À Ä ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtðªÁV C¢üPÁgÀªÅÀ ¼Àî MAzÀÄ f.¦.J. C£ÀÄß §gÉzÄÀ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. E£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÉ F d«Ää£À ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÀªÀÄUÉ CUÀ°Ã CxÀªÁ £ÀªÀÄä ªÁgÀ¸ÄÀ zÁgÀgÀÄUÀ½UÁzÀgÆ À DUÀ°Ã AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà «zsÀªÁzÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ, C¢üPÁgÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÀÆ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É ¥ÀjºÁgÀzÀ ªÉƧ®VUÁV ¤ÃªÉãÁzÀgÆ À ¸ÀPÁðgÀz° À è ºÀt PÀnÖz° À è CªÉ®èªÀÇ £ÀªÀÄä ¥ÀgªÀ ÁV ¤ÃªÉà ªÁ¥À¸ÄÀ ì ¥ÀqAÉ iÀÄ®Ä ºÀPÄÀ ̼îÀªgÀ ÁVgÀÄwÛÃj.
µÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀéwÛUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥l À Ö zÁR¯ÉUR À £ÀÄß F ¢£ÀªÉÃ
¤ªÀÄä ¸Áé¢Ãü £ÀPÉÌ PÉÆnÖgÄÀ vÉÛêÉ. F µÉqÆ À å¯ï ¸ÀévÀÄÛ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ
«zsÀªÁzÀ UÉÃtÂ, DzsÁgÀ, ¨sÆ É ÃUÀå, PÀA
æ iÀÄ, zÀÁ£ÀU½
À UÉ CxÀªÁ PÉÆlÄð
rQæ CmÁåZïªÉÄAmï ¨sÁUÁA±ÀÀ, ªÉÄÊ£Àgï vÀAmÉ, vÀPÀgÁgÀÄUÀ½UÉ M¼À¥ÀnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
¸ÀzjÀ PÀgÁj£À°ègÄÀ ªÀ µÀgÀvÄÀ ÛU¼ À ÄÀ F ¢£ÀªÁ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ E£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÉAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÄÀ ß ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtðªÁV ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ªÀ±PÀ ÌÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄ À g À É«UÀÆ ZÁ°ÛAiÀÄ°ègÄÀ vÀÛzA É iÉÄ M¦àPÆÉ ArgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. F »AzÉ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆnÖgÄÀ ªÀ DVæªÉÄAmï f.¦.J. ¥ÀvæÀUÀ¼ÄÀ EzÀĪÀg« É UÀÆ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ°è ªÀeÁ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAvÀ®Æ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ »A¢£À ºÁUÀÆ FUÀ §gÉzÄÀ PÉÆzÀÄwÛgÄÀ ªÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼® É èªÀÇ (M¦àUÉ ¥ÀvÀæ DVæªÉÄAmï, f.¦.J.) E£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÁgÀtPÀÆÌ gÀzÀÄÝ¥r À ¸ÀĪÀÅ¢®èªA É vÀ®Æ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÀzÁÝUÄÀ ªÀÅ¢®èªA É vÀ®Æ M¦àgÄÀ vÉÛÃªÉ JA§ÄzÁV £ÀªÀÄä RÄzÀÄÝ ªÀÄ£ÉÆÃgÁf¬ÄAzÀ §gɹPÉÆlÖ RÄ¶Ì d«Ää£À ¨sÀƸÁé¢Ãü £ÀvA É iÀÄ ¥ÀÆvÁð ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ºÀt ¸ÀAzÁAiÀĪÁVgÀĪÀ DVæªÄÉ Amï ¥ÀvæÀ PÀæªÄÀ ¸À»." 26
14. On the same day i.e., on 16.10.1993, the respondent - Sreenivas, his brother Sri.M. Krishnappa and his son Sri.Venkatesh Babu, who were all parties to the aforesaid Agreements, have executed a General Power of Attorney at Annexure - E1, appointing the Honorary Treasurer of the Petitioner-Society Mr.T.V. Krishna Murthy specifically mentioning their absolute consent for acquisition and receipt of the compensation. The relevant paragraphs read as under:
"EzÀgr À µÉqÆ À å°£À°è £ÀªÄÀ Æ¢¹gÀĪÀ £À£ßÀ d«Ää£À eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀqÀØg¥ À Á¼Àå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ GvÀÛgÀº½ À î UÁæªÄÀ UÀ½UÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ EvÀgÃÉ PÉ®ªÀÅ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÄÀ ß ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸åÀ gÀÄUÀ½UÉ, ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ªÀiÁr ºÀAZÀ®Ä GzÉÝò¹ ¨sÆ À ¸Áé¢üãÀ¥r À ¹PÉƼÀî®Ä ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ £ÀqÀª½À PÉU¼À ÄÀ £ÀqA É iÀÄÄwÛgÄÀ vÀÛª.É EzÀgÀr µÉqÀÆå°£À°è £ÀªÄÀ Æ¢¹gÀĪÀ F d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÄÀ ß ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¸ÉƸÉÊnAiÀĪÀjUÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ ¨sÆ À ¸Áé¢Ãü £À PÁAiÉÄÝ jÃvÁå ¸Áé¢üãÀ¥Àr¹PÉƼÀî®Ä ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð M¦àUA É iÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr ¸Àzj À ¸ÉƸÉÊnAiÀĪÀgÉÆqÀ£É »AzÉ 1983-84gÀ°è £ÀªÄÀ ä vÁ¬ÄAiÀĪÀgÄÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¥ÀÆvÁð ºÀt ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
£ÀªÀÄä ¥Àgª
À ÁV ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÄÀ µÉqÆ À å°£À°è
£ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ½UÉ FUÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¥ÁªÀwAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀ ºÀtQÌAvÀ ºÉZÁÑV ªÀiÁgÀÄPÀmÉÖ ¨É¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤zsð À j¹ ¨sÆ À ¸Áé¢üãÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ C£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸Àzj À d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÄÀ ß ¤«ÄäAzÀ¯Éà ¸Áé¢üãÀ ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀA§Azs¥ À ÀlÖ ¸ÀºPÀ ÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀPÌÉ ªÀ»¹PÉÆlÄÖ ¥ÀjºÁgÀzÀ (PÁA¥À£ï¸ÉõÀ£ï) ºÀtzÀ ªÉÆvÀÛª£ À ÄÀ ß CªÀjAzÀ oÉêÀtA  iÀiÁV ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ PÉÆqÀĪÀ ºÀtPÉÌ £ÀªÄÀ ä ¥ÀgÀªÁV ¤ÃªÉà ¤ªÀÄä ºÉ¸j À £À°è ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ CzÀPÌÉ ¸ÀA§Azs¥ À l À Ö gÀ²Ã¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ £À£ßÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV PÉÆqÀ®Ä ºÀPÄÀ ̼îÀªÀgÁVgÀÄwÛÃj."
15. Subsequently, on 24.10.1993, the Attorney of the land owners have delivered peaceful possession of the petition land in Sy.No.97/1A to the Society vide Delivery of 27 Possession Deed dated 24.10.1993, a copy whereof is at Annexure - E2. The relevant portion of the said document reads " ....... by virtue of General Power of Attorney dated 16.10.1993, I hereby deliver the possession of the property which is described in the schedule below for development of the land on this 24th day of October 1993 to the Society". The schedule to this describes "Sy.No.97/1A which measures 4A-07G.
16. Subsequently, the Society has entered into another Agreement dated 31.07.1999 at Annexure - E3 with the land owners in respect of Sy.No.97/1A enhancing the compensation by additional Rs.20,000/- per Acre and accordingly, the same has been paid by bank cheques. This was by virtue of mediation settlement so that whatever unlawful objections the land owners had filed against the Society before the jurisdictional officials were withdrawn unconditionally. This amount too has been paid by SBI cheque dated 31.07.1999.
17. It is relevant to mention that even in respect of land in Sy.No.44/2 admeasuring 0A-37G, there was a similar Agreement dated 08.11.1999 at Annexure - A, whereunder the respondent - Sreenivas being the absolute 28 land owner has delivered possession to the Society specifically mentioning about the receipt of entire sale price by SBI cheque that too by way of compensation specifically worked out according to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The relevant paragraphs therein read as under:
" EzÀgÀr µÉqÆ À å°£À°è £ÀªÄÀ Æ¢¹gÀĪÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼Æ À gÀÄ zÀQët vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, GvÀÛgÀº½ À î ºÉÆç½, GvÀÛgÀº½ À î UÁæªÄÀ PÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸Àªð É 44:2 £ÀA§j£À ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀÄĪÀévÃÛÉ ¼ÀÄ UÀÄAmÉ (37 UÀÄAmÉ) «¹ÛÃtðªÀżÀî d«ÄãÀÄ vÁjÃRÄ 26.06.1978 gÀ°è 1720£Éà £ÀA§gÀÄ jf¸ÀÖgÀÄ PÀAæ iÀÄ¥Àvz Àæ À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ±ÀÄzÀÞ PÀAæ iÀÄPÉÌ ¥Àqz É ÄÀ £À£ßÀ ¸ÀÄ¥À¢ð ü UÉ §AzÀÄ D ¯ÁUÁAiÀÄÄÛ £À£ßÀ ¸ÀéAvÀ ¸Áé¢üãÁ£ÀħªÀz° À ègÄÀ ªÀ ¸ÀévÛÀ£ÄÀ ß ¤ªÀÄUÉ F »AzÉ 1983-84£Éà E¸À«UÀ¼À°è JA§vÀÄÛ ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼A À vÉ (gÀÆ. 80,000-00) PÀA æ iÀÄPÉÌ PÉÆqÀÀ®Ä M¦à £À£ßÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ¯ÁåAqï CQéfµÀ£ï DPÀÖ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀAWÀPÌÉ ¸Áé¢üãÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸ÀÄ¥À¢üð ºÉÆAzÀ®Ä M¦àUÉ PÉÆlÄÖ ¤«ÄäAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ £ÀUz À ÄÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ CqÁé£ìÀ ¥Àqz É ÄÀ gÀ²Ã¢ PÉÆlÄÖ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
d«Ää£À ¸ÀÄ¥À¢ðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß F ¢£ÀªÉà ¤ªÀÄä ªÀ±ÀPÌÉ ©lÄÖPÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛãÉ, ¤ÃªÀÅ F d«Ää£À°è ¤ªÀÄUÉ C£ÀÄPÀÆ®ªÁzÀAvÉ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¥Àr¹PÉƼÀî®Ä £Á£ÀÄ M¦àgÄÀ vÉÛãÉ.
µÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀéwÛUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥l À Ö zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼£ À ÄÀ ß F ¢ªÀ¸ª À ÃÉ ¤ªÀÄä ¸Áé¢Ãü £ÀPÉÌ PÉÆnÖgÄÀ vÉÛãÉ. F µÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀévÄÀ Û AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà «zsÀªÁzÀ UÉÃtÂ, DzsÁgÀ, ¨sÆ É ÃUÀå, PÀA æ iÀÄ, zÀÁ£ÀU½ À UÉ CxÀªÁ PÉÆlÄð rQæ CmÁåZïªÉÄAmï ¨sÁUÁA±,À ªÉÄÊ£Àgï vÀAmÉ, vÀPÀgÁgÀÄUÀ½UÉ M¼À¥ÀnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
18. Subsequently, on 31.07.1999, a Settlement Agreement was entered into as per Annexure - C1 with the mediation of the villagers and accordingly, additional compensation was also paid by SBI cheque in respect of 29 land in Sy.No.44/2. The relevant paragraphs therein read as under:
" F d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼ÄÀ £ÉÃgÀªÁV ¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ PÀA æ iÀÄ ªÀiÁr PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvæÀ jf¸ÀÖgï ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä CxÀªÁ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ ¥ÀQæ A æ iÉÄUÀ¼À ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ¸Áé¢üãÀ ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ ªÀ»¸À®Ä ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ M¦àUÉ PÉÆnÖgÄÀ vÉÛêÉ. D ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ £À£ßÀ d«Ää£À ¸Áé¢üãÀª£À ÀÄß £À¤ßAzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ªÀ±PÀ ÌÉ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄwÛÃj.
¥ÀÄ£À: 1993£Éà E¸À«AiÀÄ°è F d«ÄãÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¨É¯A É iÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉaѹ J¯Áè ºÉZÀÄªÑ j À ºÀtªÀ£ÄÀ ß MlÄÖ d«ÄäUÉ ¯ÉPÁÌZÁgÀ ªÀiÁr ¤«ÄäAzÀ ZÉPÀ̪Áj ¸ÉÖÃmï ¨ÁåAPï D¥sï EArAiÀiÁ ¨ÁåAQ£À ZÉPÄÀ ÌU¼ À À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉ®ªÀÅ ¨Áj £ÀUÀzÁVAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¥ÀqÉzÄÀ ¥ÀÆgÁ d«Ää£À ¥ÀÆvÁð ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÉèÁQAiÀiÁV ¥ÀqÉzÄÀ PÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
F d«Ää£À ªÀÄÆ® zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀAWÀzÀªg À À ªÀ±PÀ ÉÌ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀAWÀzª À g À ÀÄ d«Ää£À SÁvÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß, gÉ«£ÀÆå zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼° À è ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ªÀUÁð¬Ä¹PÉÆArgÀÄwÛÃj.
F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ M¥ÀàAzÀª£ À ÀÄß UËgÀ«¹, F jÃw DVgÀĪÀ ¸Élª è ÉÄAl£ÀÄß G¨sA À iÀÄvÀg æ ÀÆ M¦à F ¯ÁUÁAiÀÄÄÛ ªÀÄÄAzÉ CªÀgÄÀ UÀ¼ÄÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà «zsª À ÁzÀ vÀAmÉ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÄÀ ß PÉÆÃlð PÀbÃÉ jUÀ¼À°è CxÀªÁ d«Ää£À°è ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ ªÀÄÄZÀ½ Ñ PÉ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà «zsÀªÁzÀ vÀAmÉ vÀPgÀ ÁgÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀªg À ÄÀ £ÀqɹgÀĪÀ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ £ÀqÀª½ À PÉUÀ¼® É èª£ À Æ À ß £Á£ÀÄ M¦àgÄÀ vÉÃÛ £É. F ºÉZÄÀ ª Ñ Àj ºÀtªÁzÀ ºÀ¢£ÉAlÄ ¸Á«gÀzÀ LzÀ£ÀÆgÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼£ À ÄÀ ß(gÀÆ. 18,500-00) F ¢£À F PɼPÀ A À qÀ ¸ÁQëUÀ¼À ªÉÆPÀÛ ¤«ÄäAzÀ ¸ÉÖÃmï ¨ÁåAPï D¥sï EArAiÀiÁ ZÉPÄÀ Ì £ÀA§gÀÄ 795770 gÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ."
19. The land owners including the respondent - Sreenivas have executed and registered several Sale Deeds in favour of petitioner-allottees, to which the Petitioner- Society also joined as a Confirming Party. The copies of these Sale Deeds are produced at Annexures - G series. In 30 the sample Sale Deed dated 05.06.2004 at Annexure - G1, the relevant paragraphs therein are texted as under:
"WITNESS AS UNDER:
Whereas the CONFIRMING PARTY, is a registered Co-operative Society. Registered under Co-operative Societies Act 1959, having its object of procuring lands in and around Bangalore City and forming residential layouts. In furtherance of its object, has owned lands in Sy.no.1, 2/1A, 2/1B, 2/2, 3, 4/1, 2, 3, 5,5 Old No.8, 8D, (new Nos.32/P, 37(P)) 12, 13(P), 14, 15/1, 15/2, 22, 23/1, 23/2A, 23/2C, 23/3, 24/1, 24/2, 25, 26/1, 26/2, 27, 28(P) 30/1A, 30/1B(P) 31 situated at Vaddarapalya Village and Sy. Nos. 43, 44/2, 50, 51, 52, 53, 91(P), 92, 93(P), 94, 95/1A, 95/1B, 96, 97/1A(P), 97/1B, 97/2, 99, 100, 101(P), 102 situated at Uttarahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore through proceedings under Land Acquisition Act and also under sale agreements by paying full sale consideration and GPA in all totally measuring to an extent of 134 Acres 07 Guntas.
WHEREAS the vendor, having received the full sale consideration against the sale agreement in respect of said land has executed General Power of Attorney in favour of the lawful attorney herein i.e., First part and the General Power of Attorney holder has handed over the possession of the said land to the Confirming party herein for formation of residential layout. And WHERAS the Bangalore development Authority, Bangalore by its communication vide No. BDA/TPM/1493/97/98 dt.2/12/1997, has intimated the approval of layout plan in favour of the society in respect of the above lands. And WHEREAS the confirming party herein has formed the residential layout as per the approved layout plan in accordance with 31 specification and norms of Bangalore Development Authority in the said land by providing all the basic amenities like Roads, Drains, Under Ground Drain, Water Supply and Street Lights etc., WHEREAS the Govt. of Karnataka vide Notification # UDD/631/MWX/2000 dated 08- 01-2002, has handed over the entire layout of Poornaprajna House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., layout formed at Vaddarapalya and Uttarahalli village to Sri. Rajarajeshwari City Municipal Council Jurisdiction, and in pursuance of the same Sri. Rajarajeshwari City Municipal council, raised demand for the payment of developmental charges and conversion fee in respect of the said land, and the same has been paid by confirming party herein. And"
20. Not only suppressing the delivery of possession of the land to the Society pursuant to the Agreements, Powers of Attorney and other several registered Sale Deeds in favour of its members wherein, the formation of the layout with the approval has been accomplished and further after the Government vide Order dated 13.05.2008 has made Bulk Allotment, the respondent - Sreenivas had filed the Writ Petitions without making the Society and the allottees as parties thereto. He had taken up all pleas and contentions contrary to evidentiary material, and thereby obtained the subject judgment by fraud and duplicity. He has also misdirected the learned Co-ordinate Judge both in law and facts. This act and conduct of the respondent - 32 Sreenivas amounts to a gross abuse of process of the Court, apart from rank fraud and duplicity.
21. This apart, the Powers of Attorney which again are admitted, gave raise to registered Sale Deeds in favour of the petitioner-allottees, the 1st petitioner - Society being the confirming party. For the same reason, the contention that these petitioners were not necessary parties to his earlier Writ Petitions wherein challenge was laid to the acquisition only on the ground of lapse of scheme, is liable to be rejected. The reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Satish Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Haryana in C.A.No.1587-1636/2017 is misconceived since the members of the Petitioner-Society herein are not the post acquisition allottees but the buyers of sites by registered Sale Deeds executed by the lawful Attorney of the land owners.
22. The fraud, the suppression of material facts and the systematic abuse of law and judicial process perpetrated by respondent-Sreenivas on all the stake holders render this Court incapable of resisting reproduction of what the Apex Court in the case of 33 KRISHAN YADAV vs. STATE OF HARYANA, AIR 1994 SC 2166 at paragraph 17 had observed:
"Having regard to all the above, the irresistible conclusion is "fraud has reached its crescendo". Deeds as foul as these are inconceivable much less could be perpetrated.
We are reminded of the words of
Shakespeare:
"Thus much of these, will make Black,
white; foul, fair; wrong, right; Base, noble; Ha, you gods! Why this?" (Timon of Athens, Act IV, Sc.3)
23. The learned Co-ordinate Judge was misled to believe that the respondent - Sreenivas had never parted with the possession of the lands; the lands were not developed by the Petitioner-Society and thus, the scheme was not executed within the statutory period. On that premises, the learned Judge in all solemnity has entered the subject judgment. As already mentioned above, the lands have been the subject matter of acquisition by consent of the land owners as mentioned in the Agreements to Sell which are admitted by respondent - Sreenivas in his Legal Notice; the Petitioner-Society has developed a huge layout of more than 113 Acres after obtaining the approved Layout Plan which is fully described in the registered Sale Deeds that are not in dispute; allotments have been made in favour of the 34 members and some of them have put up the structure already after obtaining the approved building plan. Khatas have been transferred after the execution and registration of the Sale Deeds by the Attorneys of the land owners.
24. As already stated above, the acquisition of the land was accomplished by delivery of possession and payment of compensation through SBI cheques with the consent of the land owners. The respondent - Sreenivas having retained no right whatsoever in respect of these lands, had no litigable interest to maintain his Writ Petitions in which he succeeded by fraud, duplicity and abuse of process of Court. It is only these petitioners who have the vested interest in the petition lands and therefore, the litigable interest, too. That being so, the ground urged by Sreenivas in his Writ Petitions as to the lapse of statutory scheme apart from being factually incorrect, was legally untenable. Even otherwise also, merely because allegedly the scheme lapses, that per se will not result into reversion of the acquired land to the erstwhile land owners as held by the Apex Court in Chandrashekar's Case (2012) 12 SCC 133, paras 25 to 31 and also in the case of Offshore Holdings Pvt. Ltd vide (2011) 3 SCC 139, paras 36 to 39. The Rulings of this Court cited at the Bar 35 arguably voicing the contra, have not been specifically referred to, though they were adverted.
25. The above apart, the Government has made the bulk allotment of the petition lands in favour of the Petitioner-Society specifically narrating the circumstances repugnant to the case of respondent-Sreenivas and consistent with that of the Petitioners herein. Section 27 of the BDA Act reads as under:
"27. Authority to execute the scheme within five years - Where within a period of five years from the date of the publication in the Official Gazette of the declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 19, the authority fails to execute the scheme substantially, the scheme shall lapse and the provisions of Section 36 shall become inoperative".
This Section by its very text, structure and architecture becomes invocable only when the BDA is executing the Scheme by forming its own layout as contradistinguished from a private body/individual like the petitioner-Housing Co-operative Society herein which has formed a private layout with the approved plan and an ex post facto Bulk Allotment of the lands has been made vide Government Order dated 13.05.2008. In other words, the land acquired by the Government and allotted to a Housing Society does not fit into the frame of Section 27 for 36 invalidation of acquisition, may be subject to all just exceptions.
26. One more aspect relating to alleged lapse of Scheme is pertinent. In computing delay in the execution of the Scheme, the relevant date is the one when possession of the land is taken and not from the date of passing of the award. Thus the period of five years specified in Section 27 as from the date of publication in the official gazette of the declaration u/s.19(1) of the Act has to be construed as from the date of taking possession of the lands acquired vide M.B.RAMACHANDRAN vs. STATE, ILR 1992 KARNTAKA 174 (DB). Added to this, the lapse of Scheme for its non-execution within five years is not ipso facto. This Court has recognized certain circumstances as being the plausible explanation for the delay in the execution of the Scheme. When delay is attributable to the filibustering litigations challenging the acquisition by the owners of acquired lands or by the purchasers to whom owners allegedly agreed to sell the said lands, having parted with possession thereof on receiving the sale price by way of compensation for the consent acquisition, as has happened in this case, Section 27 does not avail for invalidating the acquisition on the 37 ground of lapse of Scheme vide ASHIT SHETTY vs. STATE, (2002) 3 KAR LAW JOURNAL 2408 and KANTHAMMA vs. STATE, ILR 1984 KARNATAKA 1494 (DB).
27. The learned Co-ordinate Judge was again mis-directed even in law as to the applicability and otherwise invocability of the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act to the acquisition in question, which admittedly was under the provisions of the BDA Act. The Apex Court in the case of Anusuya Bai, AIR 2017 SC 904, has ruled that the provisions of Section 24 of the 2013 Act do not apply to the acquisitions done under the legislations/ Acts other than the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
28. The argument advanced on behalf of respondent - Sreenivas that the present Writ Petitioners were not necessary parties to his Writ Petitions, challenge to the acquisition having been founded on lapse of statutory scheme and consequently, these petitioners now too lack the locus standi to seek the review/recall of the subject judgment, is too farfetched. Countenancing such a contention amounts to virtually placing premium on the 38 fraud perpetrated by respondent-Sreenivas not only on the Writ Petitioners herein but also on this Court. The Apex Court, time and again has reiterated that the party approaching the Court sans "clean hands, clean head and clean heart" and invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts should be non-suited at the threshold, on that ground alone, without going into merits of the matter. This principle of great sanctity to the adjudicatory process squarely applies to the respondent - Sreenivas.
29. In any circumstance, the magistra dicta vide Subject Judgment as to the lapse of scheme under Section 27 of the BDA Act and Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act even otherwise also presumably would have enured to the benefit of the petitioners and other allottees by virtue of doctrine of feeding the title by grant vide Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 inasmuch as, with them has been shown to be the possession of the petition lands all through, and in them lies the title thereto. Although Writ Court ordinarily does not take up adjudication of disputes involving private law, this Court so far as the applicability of the doctrine of feeding the title by grant has taken prima facie cognizance of the fact matrix as established by unimpeachable evidentiary material on record including 39 the admission of respondent-Sreenivas in his legal notice. However, this aspect of the matter does not need deeper deliberation because of the nature of the relief now being granted to the petitioners, herein below.
30. In the above circumstances, these Writ Petitions and the Review Petitions succeed; the common Judgment and Order dated 15.07.2016 made by the learned Co-ordinate Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.35912/2016 & 35913/2016 having been reviewed, stand recalled; the W.P.Nos.35912/2016 & 35913/2016 filed by respondent - Sreenivas are dismissed with costs as quantified down below.
31. CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTING IMPOSITION OF COSTS:
The respondent-Sreenivas is an Ex-MLA from the State and happens to be a former member of Bangalore Development Authority. He has obtained the subject judgment now recalled, by playing fraud not only on the Petitioner-Housing Society and the allottees of the sites, the BDA but also on the Co-ordinate Judge of this Court by militantly false assertions about possession of the lands and lapse of Scheme; he had suppressed about the 40 acquisition being with consent and he and other land owners having received huge sums of money by way of compensation for the acquisition and not just by way of consideration for the Agreements to Sell; this amount has been paid by State Bank of India cheques; he has also suppressed about the formation of approved layout of gigantic extent of 113 Acres inclusive of petition lands by the Society and execution & registration of several Sale Deeds in favour of the allottees, admittedly by his Attorneys and of his brother. Petitioners were not impleaded and so also the other land owners lest their impleadment should lead to revelation of true factuals to the Court. It can be presumed by the circumstances narrated hereinabove that respondent-Sreenivas could have had a role in Review Petitioner-BDA not revealing all the facts in its Statement of Objections to his Writ Petitions. He had used law and Court process as instruments of fraud and thereby, polluted the stream of justice.
No mitigating circumstances are notified by the learned counsel for the respondent-Sreenivas, when he was specifically heard as to the likely imposition of costs, his request for adjournment on the ground of 41 unavailability of learned Senior Counsel, having been not acceded to. Therefore, the costs are imposed as under:
The respondent-Sreenivas shall pay a sum of Two Lakh Rupees to the Petitioner - House Building Cooperative Society, and Fifty Thousand Rupees to each of the other 16 Writ Petitioners, and further, another sum of One Lakh Rupees to the Review Petitioner - BDA, by way of costs, within eight weeks.
Sd/-
JUDGE Snb/