Karnataka High Court
Sri Aurobindo Complex Trust vs The Bangalore Development Authority on 18 September, 2012
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A S Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.23201/2011 (BDA)
Between:
1. Sri Aurobindo Complex Trust
A reg trust Sri Aurobindo Bhavan
No.39 and 38 P, 9th Cross
1st Phase, J P Nagar, Bangalore
Rep. by its Trustee
Sri Rajanikanth
2. Pradeep Narang
Sri Aurobindo Society
Pondicherry Beach Office
Beach Road
Pondicherry - 605 002.
3. Ajit S Sabnis
S/o Srinivasa Rao Venkata Rao
Sabnis, age 52 years
Managing Trustee, No.496
"Auroshr" J.P. Nagar III phase
Bangalore-560 078
4. Vijay K Poddar
S/o Kishen Lall Poddar
Aged about 77 years
Trustee JCL International Ltd.,
No.206, South Ex.Plaa 1
389 Masjid Moth
South Estn III New
Delhi-110 049.
5. Vijay N Poddar
S/o Keshav Dev Poddar
Age 65 years, Trustee
C/o Sri Aurobindo Society
2
Beach Office
Pondicherry - 605 002
6. Nataraju M Kasetty
S/o M.B. Kasetty
Aged about 61 years
Trustee, Near Bus Stand
B.H.Road, Shimoga-577 201.
7. D.N. Anand, IAS (retd.)
S/o Dasa Nagappa
Age 77 years
Trustee, 'Aparna' No.624
37th Main, Sri Rajarajeshwarinagar
Bangalore-98.
8. AVM Sri SS Lahiri (rtd.)
Sasanka Sekhar Lahiri
Age 61 years, Trustee
Flat No.216, Jal Vayu Towers
Near NGEF, Indiranagar Post
Bangalore-7
9. Dr. K.S. Amur
S/o Sri Samacharya
Age 78 years
Trustee, Shivgiri
Dharwad-580 007 ...Petitioners
(By Sri M.B. Nargund, Adv.)
And :
1. The Bangalore Development Authority
T Chowdaiah Road, Bangalore
Rep. by its Commissioner
2. Sri Aurobindo Society Karnataka
Rep. by its Chairman Sri S.V. Sabnis
No.523, Anandamayee
8th Cross, J.P. Nagar III Phase
Bangalore - 560 048
3. Sri S.V. Sabnis
No.523, Anandamayee
3
8th Cross, J.P. Nagar III Phase
Bangalore - 560 048
4. State of Karnataka
By its Secretary
Urban Development Department
M.S. Building
Bangalore
5. State of Karnataka
By its Secretary & Ex-officio Trustee
of Aurobindo Complex Dept.
(Extension) Finance Dept.
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore-1
6. State of Karnataka
By its Secretary & Ex-officio Trustee
of Aurobindo Complex Dept.
(Extension) Finance Dept.
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore-1
7. The Deputy Registrar of
Co-op. Societies
Deputy Registrar of Societies
Bangalore Central
Margola Road
Malleswaram, Bangalore-3
... Respondents
(By Sri P.N. Rajeswar, Adv. for C/R2 & R3
Sri K Krishna, Adv. for R1
Sri Prabhuling K Navadgi, G.A. for R4-7)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, with a prayer to quash the
resolution passed by the respondent No.1 in resolution
No.168/2011 dated 25.05.2011 vide Annex-L.
This Writ Petition coming on for hearing, this day, the
Court made the following :
4
ORDER
The petitioner herein is assailing the resolution passed by respondent No.1/Bangalore Development authority in resolution No.168/2011 dated 25.05.2011. The same is impugned at Annexure-L.
2. The case in brief is that the petitioner claims to be a Trust which is registered for the purpose of carrying on the activities as indicated in the Trust deed which is at Annexure-B and the amended Trust Deeds at Annexures-B1 to B3. The history of the formation of the Trust is indicated by stating that initially there was an organisation known as Aurobindo Society and thereafter it was Aurobindo Society Karnataka (Regd). It is in that context, the Trust in question was also formed. It is in that regard, the properties bearing Nos.38 (part) and 39 in the civic amenity sites in the BDA layout measuring 277' x 220' in J.P. Nagar I Phase, was allotted initially. I am conscious at this juncture that I should not be referring to the fact with regard to the manner in which it was allotted either to the Society or to the Trust since the same should not be construed 5 as the position have been accepted by this Court since the parties are litigating with regard to that aspect of the matter which will need consideration in an appropriate proceeding.
3. However, the only question which arises for consideration in the instant petition is with regard to the validity of the resolution dated 25.05.2011 which is impugned at Annexure-L. While assailing the said impugned resolution, the petitioner would however contend that in view of the earlier proceedings and the understanding between the Society as well as the Trust, the Trust was entitled to retain the said property and use it for the same purpose for which it was allotted by the BDA. However, the second respondent represented by the third respondent would contend that the allotment made by the BDA is in fact to the Society and except for there being certain change in the name, the said society was in existence and on complying with requirement of the Act, the Society has revived to remain in existence and all earlier rights would flow. It is therefore contended that the allotment made by the 6 BDA is to the Society and at present the BDA has taken note of this aspect of the matter.
4. Notwithstanding the rival contentions which have been put forth, what is to be noticed at this juncture is that the parties were before this Court in an earlier writ petition in W.P.No.21867/2009 which was disposed of by this Court on 02.11.2010. In the said proceedings, the prayer made was with regard to the cancellation of rectification deed dated 13.08.2009 and the resolution passed by the BDA which was in issue and was dated 21.05.2009. When the said writ petition was pending before this Court, the learned counsel representing the Bangalore Development Authority submitted before the Court that the said resolution dated 21.05.2009 regarding which the petitioner had made grievance would be withdrawn and fresh decision would be taken in accordance with law. On recording the said submission W.P.No.31867/2009 was disposed of as this Court found that there was no need to pass any further orders. Pursuant to the same, the BDA has 7 proceeded with the matter and ultimately the impugned resolution No.168/2011 dated 25.05.2011 is passed.
5. Though the learned counsel representing the respective parties submitted in detail with regard to the same and sought to justify their point of view, a perusal of the said resolution would at the outset indicate that it lacks application of mind. First and foremost, it is not an issue between the litigating parties with regard to the manner of usage of the property which had been allotted to them by the BDA. However, that aspect finds reference in the impugned resolution dated 25.05.2011 and it indicates as if the property which had been allotted, had not been utilised and that also had influenced its decision. Thereafter, though it had been indicated to this Court that the resolution dated 21.05.2009 had been withdrawn, the same has been reaffirmed by the BDA as if it had been kept in abeyance which was not permissible. That apart, in the second part of the resolution, the decision taken is to take into consideration the original allotment which had been made to Aurobindo Society Karnataka (R) and retain the 8 same in the records of the BDA which decision should be understood as a result of the first part. In fact the second portion of the resolution would contradict the earlier portion, if the earlier part was correct. Further, when the parties had not raised with regard to that aspect of the matter as an issue, all that was required to be considered by the BDA was as to whether the original allotment made would stand or as to whether the subsequent allotments recognised by them would be appropriate keeping in view the status of existence of the Society and the Trust, if it falls within their domain to consider. In that regard, the BDA was required to hear both the litigating parties and thereafter looking to the materials available on record was required to take a decision in the matter or relegate them to the appropriate forum. Since such a consideration is not indicated in the resolution which is impugned at Annexure-L, the same cannot be sustained.
6. Since I have already noticed that the BDA would have to hear both the parties and thereafter take into consideration all aspects and arrive at a conclusion 9 one way or the other, Sri Prabhuling Navadgi, learned counsel who represents the Government would also point out that the petitioner Trust consists of Trustees which includes two Ex-officio Trustees and their view also should be taken. Therefore, any decision to be taken by the Trust should include the consultation of all the Trustees. It is needless to mention that if the Trust is to put forth any contention by BDA, it should have the collective view of all the Trustees in the manner as provided in the Trust Deed. It is only such contentions would be admissible for the Trust to be put forth as a single view point on behalf of the Trust and it would not be necessary for BDA to hear each of the Trustees. Similarly, the second respondent-Society also would have to take into consideration the view of its members and thereafter put forth its contentions, hence the BDA need not hear all the Trustees nor the all the members of the Managing Committee of the Society, but the authorised representative of the Trust and a authorised representative of the second respondent shall only be heard by the BDA while taking its decision in the 10 matter. All contentions to be urged before the BDA are left open to the parties. Any of the observations made herein shall not be construed as effecting the rights of any of the parties but being relevant only for disposal of this petition. In order to enable the BDA to take its decision, the resolution dated 25.5.2011 with subject No.168/2011 as at Annexure-L is quashed. The matter stands remitted to the BDA to reconsider the matter in accordance with law.
7. Considering that the parties have been litigating the matter for quite some time, the BDA shall start the process of issuing notice to the parties immediately on receipt of the certified copy of this order. Thereafter on service being complete on all the parties, the pleadings and documents, if any to be filed by the parties, shall be filed within a period of one month from the date of service. Subsequent thereto, the proceedings shall be completed by the BDA as expeditiously as possible, but not later than four months to be computed from the period which is indicated for completion of pleadings.
11
The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE akc/bms