Karnataka High Court
Sri D V Krishnappa vs Seetharam on 5 March, 2020
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna, Suraj Govindaraj
-: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 05th DAY OF MARCH 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE Mrs. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
REVIEW PETITION No.463 OF 2017
[In Writ Appeal Nos.818-849 OF 2014 (LA-RES)
c/w. Writ Appeal No.958 OF 2014 (LA-RES)]
BETWEEN:
1. SRI D.V. KRISHNAPPA
AGE 51 YEARS,
S/O. SRI VYRAMUDIAPPA,
R/AT NO.23, 8TH MAIN ROAD,
PRAGHATHI LAYOUT,
BEHIND KHODAYS CALL CENTRE,
MANJUNATHA NAGAR,
RAGHUVANAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 062.
2. SRI SUDHEER .K
AGE 49 YEARS,
S/O. LATE K.V.S. RAJU,
R/AT NO.450/2, NARAYANA NAGAR,
2ND BLOCK, THIPPASANDRA,
KANAKAPURA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 062. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MADUSUDHAN R. NAIK, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI KESHAVA BHAT A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SEETHARAM
S/O. LATE BACHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT VAJARAHALLY,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
-: 2 :-
BENGALURU - 560 062.
2. SHEKAR
S/O. LATE BACHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF VAJARAHALLY
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
3. AMMAYAMMA
W/O. LATE ERA SWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT VAJARAHALLY,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
4. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O. LATE G.M. KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT VAJARAHALLY,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
5. BOMMAIAH
S/O. LATE SAREKKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT VAJARAHALLY,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
6. NAGESHAPPA
S/O. LATE CHIKKASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT VAJARAHALLY,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
7. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O. LATE CHIKKASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS,
R/AT VAJARAHALLY,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
8. THIPPAKKA
W/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT VAJARAHALLY,
-: 3 :-
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
9. KRISHNAPPA RETTAPPA
S/O. LATE RAMAIAH
BY HIS SON SRI K. REDDY
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR's
9(A) SMT. SHARADAMMA
AGE MAJOR
W/O. LATE K. REDDY,
9(B) SRI KESHAVA MURTHY @ BABU
AGE 35 YEARS,
W/O LATE K. REDDY,
9(C) SMT. MANJULA
AGE 37 YEARS,
D/O. LATE K. REDDY,
9(D) SMT. BHARATHI
AGE 33 YEARS,
D/O. LATE K. REDDY,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.40,
VAJARAHALLI, NEAR RAMA MANDIRA,
KANAKAPURA ROAD,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST, BBMP,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
10. NARAYANAPPA
S/O. LATE LOLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT VAJARAHALLY,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
11. MARAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR's
MUNIYAPPA S/O. MARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT VAJARAHALLY,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
12. NANJAMMA
W/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
-: 4 :-
R/AT VAJARAHALLY,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
13. HARISH .M
S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT VAJARAHALLY,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
14. NAGARAJ .M
S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
14(A) SMT. PADMA
AGED MAJOR
W/O. LATE NAGARAJU .M
RESIDENT AT NO.127,
VAJARAHALLY,
NEAR ASHWATHAKATTE,
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BBMP,
BENGALURU SOUTH,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
15. MUNIRATHNA
D/O. LATE MLUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT VAJARAHALLY,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
16. PUSUPA
D/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF VAJARAHALLY,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
17. B.K. NAGARAJ
S/O. KEMPANNA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT VAJARAHALLY,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
18. BYRANNA
-: 5 :-
S/O. LATE VAJRAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
SAVITHRAMMA
W/O. LATE BYRANNA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT VAJARAHALLY,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
19. VAJRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
S/O. LATE BYRANNA
R/AT VAJARAHALLY,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
20. V. RAJA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
S/O. LATE BYRANNA
R/AT VAJARAHALLY,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
21. NAGAVENI
D/O. BYRANNA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
R/AT VAJARAHALLY,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
22. RAMAKKA
W/O. LATE KEMPANNA
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRs.
22(A) SMT. JAYAMMA
D/O. RAMAKKA,
AGE MAJOR
22(B) SMT. MUITHAYAMMA
D/O. RAMAKKA,
AGE MAJOR
22(C) SMT. RATHNAMMA
D/O. RAMAKKA,
AGED MAJOR,
-: 6 :-
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.87,
VAJARAHALLI,
MARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD,
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BBMP,
BANGALORE SOUTH,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
23. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O. AKALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT VAJARAHALLY,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
24. GOWRAMMA
D/O. LATE KEMPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT VAJARAHALLY,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
25. MUNITHAYAPPA
S/O. LATE ANNAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT VAJARAHALLY,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
26. JAYAMMA
W/O. LATE LAKSHMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT VAJARAHALLY,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
27. NAGAMMA
W/O. B.C. KRISHNAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY HER LR's
27(A) SRI NAGARAJA
AGE 49 YEARS,
S/O. LATE B.C. KRISHNAPPA,
27(B) SRI NANDAKUMARA
AGE 47 YEARS,
S/O. LATE B.C. KRISHNAPPA,
-: 7 :-
27(C) SRI KUMARA
AGE 45 YEARS,
S/O. LATE B.C. KRISHNAPPA,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT VAJARAHALLI,
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
28. VENKATAMMA
W/O. LATE MUNIRAMASWAMAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED BY LR's
RATHNAMMA
W/O. LATE CHANDRASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT VAJARAHALLY,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
29. BYRANNA
S/O. LATE MUNIRAMASWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT VAJARAHALLY,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
30. BHAGYAMMA
W/O. LATE GOPI,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT VAJARAHALLY,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
31. MANJUNATH
W/O. LATE MUNIRAMASWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT VAJARAHALLY,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
32. NAGESH
S/O. LATE MUNIRAMASWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT VAJARAHALLY,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
-: 8 :-
33. VENUGOPAL
S/O. LATE MUNIRAMASWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT VAJARAHALLY,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
34. PRAKASH
S/O. LATE MUNIRAMASWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT VAJARAHALLY,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
35. CHETAN
S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT VAJARAHALLY,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
36. B.C. SUNIL
S/O. LATE CHANDRASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT VAJARAHALLY,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
37. YOGESH
S/O. LATE GOPI .M
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT VAJARAHALLY,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
38. PARVATHAMMA
W/O. LAKSHMANA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/AT VAJARAHALLY,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
39. A. NANJAPPA
S/O. LATE AVALAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR's
39(A) SMT. ASHWATHAMMA
-: 9 :-
W/O. LATE NANJAPPA,
AGE MAJOR,
39(B) SRI PRAKASH
S/O. LATE NANJAPPA,
AGE 41 YEARS,
39(C) SMT. SUNITHA
D/O. LATE NANJAPPA,
AGE 38 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
VAJARAHALLY,
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
40. SRI AKKALAPPA
S/O. LATE NARASIMHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/O. VAJARAHALLI,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
41. MUNIRAJU
S/O. LATE NARASIMHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/O. VAJARAHALLI,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
42. SMT. KAMALAMMA
D/O. LATE NARASIMHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/O. VAJARAHALLI,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
43. SRI V.N. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O. LATE NARASIMHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/O. VAJARAHALLI,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
44. SRI PUTARAJU .V.N
S/O. LATE NARASIMHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
-: 10 :-
R/O. VAJARAHALLI,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
45. SMT. CHANDRAMMA
D/O. LATE NARASIMHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/O. VAJARAHALLI,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
46. SRI LOKESH
S/O. LATE NARASIMHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/O. VAJARAHALLI,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
47. SRI KEMPANNA
S/O. LATE NARASIMHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/O. VAJARAHALLI,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
48. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO
THE GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
49. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
VISVESHWARAIAH MINI TOWER,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
50. THE BENGALURU CITY CO-OPERATIVE
HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
SEETHAPATHI AGRAHARA
CHAMRAJPET,
BENGALURU - 560 018.
51. R.L.N. ACHAR
S/O. LATE KRISHNA ACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/AT NO.17/7, DATTATREYA NAGAR
-: 11 :-
BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 085.
52. SRI B. SAMAPTH KUMAR
AGE 54 YEARS,
S/O. K.G. BETTEGOWDA,
NO.58, 6TH MAIN, 40TH CROSS,
JAYANAGAR 5TH BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
53. SRI RAJ REDDY KALLAM
AGED 57 YEARS,
S/O. LATE LAKSHAMA REDDY KALLAM,
NO.2008, TBCCHSL LAYOUT
RAGHUVANAHALLI
KANAKAPURA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
54. SRI KRISHNAPRASAD .S.V
AGE 49 YEARS,
S/O. VARADARAJU .S.K
NO.G5, SHARAVANTHI REGENCY,
7TH CROSS, 2ND LANE, 1ST STAGE,
TEACHERS COLONY,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
55. SRI SANTHOSH KUMAR
AGE 48 YEARS,
S/O. LATE SRISHYLA MURTHY,
R/O. NO.2029, T.B.C.C.H.S. LAYOUT
RAGHUVANAHALLI GATE
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
56. SMT. S. SHRI VIDYA
MAJOR,
R/O. NO.2028,
TBCCHS LAYOUT
RAGHUVANAHALLI GATE
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
57. SMT. B.V. VASANTHA
MAJOR
R/AT FARM HOUSE
DEVARAYANA SWAMY TEMPLE STREET,
DEVANAHALLI - 562 100.
-: 12 :-
58. SRI G. RADHAKRISHNAN
MAJOR,
S/O. S. GANAPATHY,
NO.134, 17TH MAIN,
B.T.M. II STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 076.
59. SMT. NANDITHA .H.K
MAJOR,
R/O. NO.14/1, ANNAYAPPA GARDEN,
3RD CROSS, JARAGANAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
60. SRI KRISHNAMURTHY RAJENDRA
MAJOR,
S/O. RAJENDRA,
NO.20, 12TH A CROSS
HANUMAGIRINAGAR,
CHIKKALASANDRA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 061.
61. SRI ROHIT THIMMAIAH
MAJOR,
R/O. NO.29, T.B.C.C.H.S. LAYOUT
RAGHUVANAHALLI GATE
SHANIMAHATHMA TEMPLE ROAD,
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
62. SMT. M.G. RAMA
AGE 70 YEARS,
W/O. GURUNATH .M
R/O. NO.193, TULASI SHANKAR KRUPA
5TH MAIN ROAD, CHAMRAJPET,
BENGALURU - 560 018.
63. SRI RUDRESHAPPA
AGE 74 YEARS,
S/O. SIDDAMALLAPPA,
R/O. NO.203, 13TH MAIN,
R.B.I. LAYOUT J.P. NAGAR, 7TH PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
64. SRI S.R. GURUMURTHY
AGE 46 YEARS,
S/O. RUDRESHAPPA,
R/O. NO.203, 13TH MAIN,
R.B.I. LAYOUT J.P. NAGAR, 7TH PHASE,
-: 13 :-
BENGALURU - 560 078.
65. SMT. NEETU .H.S
AGE 39 YEARS,
W/O. GURMURTHY .S.R
R/O. NO.203, 13TH MAIN,
R.B.I. LAYOUT J.P. NAGAR, 7TH PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
66. SMT. RAJESHWARI .S
AGE 50 YEARS,
W/O. B. SAMPATH KUMAR,
NO.58, 6TH MAIN, 40TH CROSS,
JAYANAGAR 5TH BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
67. SMT. A.V. SHUBHA SHANKAR
AGED 65 YEARS,
W/O. A.G. VIDYA SHANKAR,
NO.125, SKANDA, 10TH MAIN ROAD,
(OPP: V.S.G. TEMPLE)
SHANKAR NAGAR,
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 096.
68. DR. EHRAR HABEEB
MAJOR,
D/O. LATE M.T. HUSSAIN PEER,
NO.1788, TBCCHS LAYOUT,
RAGHUVANAHALLI,
NEAR KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
69. SMT. A.B. PADMAVATHI
AGE 61 YEARS,
W/O. A.G. BALAJI GUPTA,
NO.507/2, 1ST FLOOR,
NEW DIAGONAL ROAD,
III BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 011.
70. SRI A.S. PRAMOD KUMARI
AGE 62 YEARS,
W/O. A.G. SUDHAKAR,
NO.40, 6TH CROSS,
WILSON GARDEN,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
-: 14 :-
71. SMT. B.S. CHANDRAKALA
AGE 65 YEARS,
W/O. B.N. SAMPATH KUMAR,
NO.215, MIDDLE SCHOOL ROAD,
VISWESWARA PURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
72. SMT. K.R. SHANTHA
MAJOR,
W/O. D.N. RAMESH,
NO.4912, SRI CHAKRA
5TH MAIN, II BLOCK,
III STAGE, III BLOCK,
BANASHANKARI III STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 085.
73. SMT. KRISHNA VENI
AGE 68 YEARS,
W/O. M.V. SRINIVAS MURTHY,
NO.774, 4TH MAIN,
1 A BLOCK, III STAGE,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 010.
74. SMT. S.R. MAMATHA
AGE 44 YEARS,
W/O. V.G. PRASANNAKUMAR,
R/O. NO.4, 4TH CROSS, RAMAIAH CITY,
J.P. NAGAR, 8TH PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
75. G. NARASIMHA MURTHY
MAJOR,
R/O. CHIKKATHIRUPATHI POST,
MALUR, KOLAR DISTRICT.
76. RAMESH DASARI
MAJOR,
8-3-988/34/11
SBH COLONY 2
SRINAGAR COLONY
HYDERABAD - 500 073
SITE NO.609.
77. V.D. KESHAVA MURTHY
S/O. LATE V.M. DEVAPPA NAIK
NO.14/4, OUT HOUSE
MANJUNATH NILAYA
-: 15 :-
NEAR RAGHAVENDRA TEMPLE
MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 023.
78. V. VISWANATHA HOLLA
MAJOR,
R/O. 17/4, 1ST FLOOR, 5TH MAIN,
BSK 3RD PHASE, ITTAMADU,
BENGALURU - 560 085.
79. MAHESH .M
MAJOR, R/O. 17/4,
BSK 3RD STAGE, ITTAMADU,
BENGALURU - 560 085.
80. A.R. MANOHAR
MAJOR,
R/O. NO.192/50,
SHANKAR MUTT ROAD,
CHAMARAJAPET,
BENGALURU - 560 018.
81. A.R. PRADEEP
MAJOR,
R/O. SRI SAI KRUPA
14TH CROSS, 32ND MAIN,
J.P. NAGAR, 1ST PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
82. VINOD KUMAR
MAJOR,
R/O.49/2, 1ST FLOOR, 10TH A MAIN
1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 011.
83. JAYANTHI SHIVARAM
MAJOR,
R/O. 49/2 GROUND FLOOR,
10TH A MAIN 1ST BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 011.
84. DR. M.R.V. PRASAD
S/O. LATE RAGHAVA RAO,
AGED 73 YEARS,
NO.63, 3RD CROSS,
3RD BLOCK, T.R. NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 028.
-: 16 :-
SITE NO.1290.
85. SRI B.S. NARENDRA
S/O. LATE H.A. SUBBA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/AT NO.900/3,
6TH MAIN, K.H.B. MAIN ROAD,
KAVALBYRASANDRA,
R.T. NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
86. S. RAGHAVENDRA RAO
S/O. LATE H.A. SUBBA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/AT NO.900/3,
6TH MAIN, K.H.B. MAIN ROAD,
KAVALBYRASANDRA
R.T. NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
87. B.S. BHASKAR RAO
S/O. LATE H.A. SUBBA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NO.900/3, 6TH MAIN,
K.H.B. MAIN ROAD,
KAVALBYRASANDRA,
R.T. NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
88. SMT. K. INDIRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
W/O. SHANKARA NARAYANA,
R/AT NO.252, 7TH CROSS,
7TH MAIN, RPC LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGAR II STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
89. SRI S. GOPAL KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,
S/O. LATE SRIKANTHAIAH,
R/AT NO.290,
SRI RAGHAVENDRA KRUPA
GODAVARI RIVER ROAD,
PIPELINE 5TH MAIN, SRINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 050.
90. SRI NAGESH .G.N
S/O. LATE NAGARAJ RAO .G
-: 17 :-
AGE 61 YEARS,
NO.27, 8TH MAIN,
DATTATREYA NAGARA,
HOSKEREHALLI, BSK 3RD STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 085.
91. SRI G.S. NAJUNDAIAH
S/O. G. SUBBAIAH,
AGE 88 YEARS,
SURABHI, NO.49, 3RD CROSS,
AKSHYANAGARA, BEGUR POST,
BENGALURU - 560 068.
92. SMT DODDAMMANI
W/O. KRISHNAPPA .H
AGE 60 YEARS,
NO.E-107, GOLDEN MAGIC
BRIGADE GARDENIA
RBI LAYOUT, J.P. NAGAR, 7TH PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
93. SRI B. SIDDE GOWDA
S/O. BYREGOWDA,
AGE 67 YEARS,
NO.262, 3RD MAIN ROAD,
ISRO LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
94. SMT. JAYANTHI VISHNU PRASAD
W/O. VISHNU PRASAD,
AGE 37 YEARS,
NO.192/20 SHANKARAMUTT ROAD,
CHAMARAJAPET,
BENGALURU - 560 018.
95. SRI V.N. PRABHAKAR RAO
S/O. V.N. NARAYANA RAO,
AGE 57 YEARS,
NO.544, SHASHWATHA
2ND CROSS, 29TH MAIN,
BTM LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 076.
96. SRI ARVIND .N
S/O LATE NAGARAJ SHETTY,
AGE 33 YEARS,
R/O. SRI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA,
NO.42/14, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
-: 18 :-
MOUNT JOY EXTENSION,
HANUMANTH NAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 019.
97. SMT. H.S. GAYATHRI
D/O. LATE H.T. SUBBARAO,
AGE 64 YEARS,
R/O. RISHIKA ENCLAVE,
SITE NO.64/65, FLAT NO.002,
GROUND FLOOR, 2ND PHASE,
ADJACENT TO ISRO LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
98. SRI ASHOKA .A
S/O. K.N. BASAVEGOWDA,
MAJOR,
NO.56, 3RD MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
NEW KEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT,
KATRIGUPPA,
BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 085.
99. SMT. MEENAKSHI
W/O. SANGAMESH BADAVADGI,
MAJOR,
NO.2478, 7TH MAIN,
7TH CROSS, R.P.C. LAYOUT,
(HAMPINAGAR),
VIJAYANAGARA 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
100. SMT. VIJAYALAXMI .C.S
W/O. B.Y. THIMMEGOWDA,
MAJOR, NO.57,
3RD MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
NEW KEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT,
KATRIGUPPE BSK 3RD STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 085.
101. SRI K.S. MADHUSUDANA
S/O. K.V. SHESHAGIRI,
AGE 42 YEARS,
REP. BY HIS
GPA HOLDER K.V. SHESHAGIRI,
AGE 88 YEARS,
S/O. VENKOBARAO,
NO.202, VENKATAGIRI
KUMBAR STREET, K.R. PURAM,
-: 19 :-
BENGALURU - 560 036.
102. SRI VENKATESH
S/O. CHANNAIAH,
AGE 72 YEARS,
NO.1101, SRI VENKATESHWARASWAMY NILAYA,
BCCH SOCIETY LAYOUT,
BAYYANNAPALYA,
THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
103. SRI K.C. CHIDANAND,
S/O. K.B. CHIKKABETTAIAH,
AGE 35 YEARS,
NO.589, 1ST CROSS,
K.G. LAYOUT, 3RD BLOCK,
3RD PHASE, BSK 3RD STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 085.
104. SMT. M. GANGAMMA
W/O. GOVINDA,
AGE 54 YEARS,
R/O. NO.31, KPA BLOCK,
CHANDRA LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
105. B.G. MANJUNATH
S/O. B. GUNDAIAH,
MAJOR,
R/O. SOMPEKATTE,
HOSANAGARA TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
106. GANESH MANE
S/O. G.S. MANE,
AGE 46 YEARS,
R/O. C-001, TERRACE GARDEN APARTMENTS,
BSK 3RD STAGE, 3RD PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560 085.
107. V.N. JAGADISHWARAN
S/O. V. NARAYANA IYER,
AGE 64 YEARS,
NO.1718, 31ST CROSS,
13TH MAIN, BSK 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 070.
-: 20 :-
108. RAGHUNATH .G
S/O. H.S. GOPINATH RAO,
AGE 57 YEARS,
NO.61, 13TH MAIN,
AGS LAYOUT, AREHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 061.
109. K.B. NARAYANA
S/O. K.N. BETTAIAH,
AGE 68 YEARS,
NO.31, 4TH CROSS,
KALIDASA LAYOUT,
SRINAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 050.
110. SRINIVAS PRASAD .K.A
S/O. K.V. ANANTHA KESHAVA,
AGE 48 YEARS,
NO.730, 17TH CROSS,
6TH PHASE, J.P. NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
111. SRI S.K. MURALIDHAR
S/O. S. KRISHNARAO
AGE 51 YEARS,
R/O. NO.106, 2 H MAIN ROAD,
11TH BLOCK, 2ND STAGE,
NAGARBHAVI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 072.
112. SRI C.S. MURALI
S/O. LATE C.S.S. MURTHY
AGE 59 YEARS,
R/O. NO.678-B, SEETHA 2ND STAGE,
3RD PHASE, 8TH MAIN, DOMLUR,
BENGALURU - 560 091.
113. SRI H.S. PRAKASH
S/O. LATE H.V. SURYANARAYANA RAO,
AGE 62 YEARS,
R/O. NO.7, A STREET,
EAST OF LINK ROAD,
MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU - 560 003.
114. SRI K. KEMPARAJU
S/O. KMEPEGOWDA,
AGE 44 YEARS,
-: 21 :-
R/O NO 70, DESAI GARDEN,
VALLABHANAGARA,
VASANTHAPURA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
115. SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O. KEMPEGOWDA,
AGE 62 YEARS,
R/O. NO.70, DESAI GARDEN,
VALLABHANAGARA,
VASANTHAPURA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
116. SRI RIZWANULLA,
S/O. SRI ISMAIL KHAN,
AGED 56 YEARS,
R/O. NO.6, LLAHI MANSION,
BASAVARAJ LAYOUT,
JARAGANAHALLI 6TH PHASE,
JEEVAN BHEEMA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
117. MADHU SHANKAR NARAYAN
W/O. SHANKARA NARAYAN,
AGE 50 YEARS,
NO.67, MOUNT JOY ROAD,
1ST BLOCK EAST, JAYANAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 011.
118. SRI RATHNAGIRI SWAMYNATHAN
S/O. LATE R. SRINIVASAN,
AGE 64 YEARS,
R/NO. 239/3, A CROSS,
BULL TEMPLE ROAD,
CHAMRAJPET,
BENGALURU - 560 018.
119. SMT. SUGUNA SIMHA
W/O. K.G. JAYASIMHA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
NO.766, SRI NIVAS,
18TH MAIN, 36TH CROSS,
IV T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
120. SMT. S. PREMA
W/O. ANANTHA NARAYAN,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
-: 22 :-
NO.1553, 39TH F CROSS,
18TH MAIN, JAYANAGAR,
IV T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
121. SMT. APARNA ANANTH
W/O. C.S. VISHWANATH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
NO.1553, 39TH F CROSS,
18TH MAIN, JAYANAGAR,
IV T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
122. SRI T.N. MURALIDHAR
S/O. T. NAGABHUSHAN,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
NO.259, 1ST CROSS,
HANUMANTHANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 019.
123. DR. BHAGYANATHULU RAVINDRANATH
S/O. B.S. RAO,
AGE: MAJOR,
NO.610, 15TH CROSS,
VI PHASE, J.P. NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
124. SRI T.N. ANANTHARAMU
S/O. T.R. NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
NO.809, 19TH CROSS,
16TH MAIN, BSK II STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 070.
125. SRI M.N. NARENDARA RAO
S/O. M.L. NARAYANA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
NO.88, R.V. ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
126. SRI A.C. ARUN
S/O. A.R. CHARUDATHA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
NO.40, PRANAM C.R. LAYOUT,
J.P. NAGAR, I PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
-: 23 :-
127. SMT. PUSHPALATHA .K.R
W/O. S.G. LAKSHMI NARAYAN,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
NO.550, 2ND STAGE,
11TH CROSS, NAGPUR MAIN ROAD,
WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 086.
128. SRI SRINVIASA .N
S/O. LAKSHMI NARAYAN,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
NO.7, SRINIVASA NILAYA,
MUNISWAMAPPA GARDEN,
CHUNCHANAGHATTA VILLAGE
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
129. SRI BALAJI PRASAD .T.P
S/O. PRASANNA KUMAR .T.G
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
PLOT NO.403, SURAKSHA RESIDENCY
4TH FLOOR, WHITE FIELD, KONDAPUR,
SARELINGAMPALI MANDAL
HYDERABAD.
130. SMT. SUJATHA CHANDRASHEKAR
W/O. R. CHANDRASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
NO.42, DOCTORS COLONY
2ND A CROSS, KONANAKUNTE,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
131. SRI J. SHEKAR
S/O. T. JAYARAM,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
NO.491, BCCHS LAYOUT
VAJARAHALLI, KANAKAPURA MAIN
J.P. NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
132. SRI H.S. SHIVASHANKAR
S/O. H. SRIKANTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
NO.82/32B, B MAIN,
4TH CROSS, SARAKKI MAIN ARYA NAGAR,
VYSYA BANK COLONY J.P. NAGAR,
1ST PHASE,
-: 24 :-
BENGALURU - 560 078.
133. SMT. ANNAPOORNA
W/O. H.S. NAGABHUSHANA,
MAJOR,
100 FEET RING ROAD,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 076.
134. SRI RAVIKUMAR .J
S/O. PREMCHAND JAIN
MAJOR,
NO.120, 3RD MAIN, 2ND STAGE,
1ST BLOCK, RAJAMAHAL EXTENSION,
BENGALURU - 560 094.
135. SRI M. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
S/O. LATE MAHIMERAMGALAL,
MAJOR,
NO.2591, 8TH MAIN,
17TH CROSS, BSK II STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 070.
136. SRI K.S. RAMANATHAN
S/O. LATE R. SRINIVASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
FLAT NO.3E, PAVAN PARDESI, 63/A,
1ST CROSS, TYAGARAJANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 028.
137. SMT. MADHU MATHI
W/O. RAGHOTHAM .U.R
MAJOR,
NO.274, SRINIVASA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 050.
138. SMT. BHAVANI .V.L
W/O. RAVIKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
NO.41/1A, 3RD CROSS,
3RD BLOCK, TYAGARAJANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 028.
139. SMT. M.B. ROOPASRI
D/O. M.R. BALAJI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
NO.109, BHARGAVI, 4TH BLOCK,
4TH CROSS, R.T. NAGAR,
-: 25 :-
BENGALURU - 560 028.
140. SRI M.B. SHESHACHANDRA
S/O. M.R. BALAJI,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
NO.109, BHARGAVI, 4TH BLOCK,
4TH CROSS, T.R. NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 028.
141. SMT. RADHA NARAYAN
W/O. NARAYAN .M.R
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
NO.172/43, (UPSTAIRS),
5TH CROSS, II BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 011.
142. SMT. MANJULA
W/O. R. SHESHAGIRI RAO,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
NO.183/2, 2ND MAIN, CHAMARAJPET,
BENGALURU - 560 018.
143. SMT. NANDINI MURTHY
MAJOR,
NO.38, AKSHAYA 7TH MAIN,
SARASWATHI PURAM, MYSORE.
144. SMT. B.P. LATHA
W/O. C.J. BALASUBRAMANYA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
NO.56, GURUKRUPA, 2ND MAIN,
3RD BLOCK, 3RD STAGE,
WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
BENGALURU.
145. SRI RAMACHANDRA SHARMA KOTAGAL
S/O. K.S. KRISHNA SHARMA,
C/O. S. MANJUNATHA,
NO.12, 5TH CROSS, NAGAPPA STREET,
PALACE GUTTAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 003,
REP. BY GPA HOLDER,
K.S. KRISHNA SHARMA,
S/O. K. SRINIVASA SHASTRI.
146. SRI D. NARASIMHAIAH PAI
S/O. LATE DAMODARA PAL,
MAJOR,
-: 26 :-
NO.B28, 1053, BDA QUARTERS,
AUSTIN TOWN, 2ND STAGE,
NEELASANDRA,
BENGALURU - 560 047.
147. SRI NAGARAJ CHIKKAGOWDA
S/O. K.H. CHIKKA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
NO.317, 2ND MAIN, 4TH STAGE,
BEML LAYOUT, RAJESHWARI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 098.
148. SRI P.N. KOUSHIK
S/O. HRS NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
NO.778, 34 A CROSS,
9TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
149. SRI DEEPAK NAYAK
S/O. B.H. NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
NO.2018, GROUND FLOOR,
18TH A MAIN, J.P. NAGAR, 2ND PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
150. SRI B. R. SHANKAR,
S/O. RAMASHESHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
NO.279, 1ST FLOOR,
100 FEET RING ROAD,
KATRIGUPPA, BSK 1ST STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 070.
151. SRI H. BASAVESHA
S/O. M.B. HOSA GOUD,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
NO.1198/76, 6TH MAIN,
D BLOCK, ACES LAYOUT,
KUNDALAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 037.
152. SRI ANIL KUMAR MURALI
S/O. T.R. NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
NO.53/1, 1ST MAIN, 9TH CROSS,
V.V. NAGAR, VASANTHPUR,
BENGALURU - 560 061.
-: 27 :-
153. SRI DATTATRI .V
S/O. VENKATESHAN,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
NO.2335, 20TH CROSS, BSK II STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 070.
154. SRI SATHISH KUMAR NARULE
S/O. ASHOK RAO NARULE,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
NO.53/1, 9TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN,
VASANTHA VALLABA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 061.
155. SMT. ASHA .B.S
W/O. B.A. SRIDHAR,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
NO.2333, 20TH CROSS,
39TH F CROSS, BSK II STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 007.
156. SRI ABHIJITH .S
S/O. SHASHIDHARA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
NO.70, 11TH MAIN ROAD,
1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
157. SMT. B.S. GIRIJA
W/O. SHASHIDHARA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
NO.70, 11TH MAIN ROAD,
1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
158. SMT. PREETHI VIDYANANDA
W/O. VIDYANANDA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
NO.1812, (1568), 39TH F CROSS,
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
159. SMT. GIRIJA SHANKAR (GPA HOLDER)
W/O. GOWRISHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
NO.1812 (1568), 39TH F CROSS,
4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALROE - 560 041.
-: 28 :-
160. SMT. SOWMYA M. KUMAR
W/O. K.V. MANJUNATH KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/O. NO.1923, 5TH CROSS,
20TH MAIN, J.P. NAGAR II PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
161. SMT. S. PRABA MURTHY
AGED 54 YEARS,
W/O. J. SRIKANTAMURTHY,
DOCTORS COLONY,
1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
DODDAKALLASANDRA POST,
KONANAKUNTE,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
162. K.N. SURYA NARAYANA RAO
AGED 64 YEARS,
S/O. K.S. NAGARAJA RAO,
R/O.49, 6TH MAIN,
BTM LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 076.
163. J.S.S. ARLAND
AGED 37 YEARS,
S/O. JAYARAMAN .C.A,
F-3, V.R. APARTMENT,
(OPP. TO RAPSRI ENGINEERING),
UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 061.
164. S.G. SRIDHAR
S/O. S. GOPALA KRISHNAN,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
NO.290, SREE RAGHAVENDRA KRUPA,
PIPELINE ROAD, I CROSS, SRINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 050.
165. DR. S.N. SATHYANARAYANA
S/O. LATE SONTHA NEELAKANTAPPA
AND SHARADA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
NO.775, 1ST FLOOR, 53RD MAIN,
25TH CROSS, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
166. SRI AVINASH ADIGA
-: 29 :-
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O. RANGAYYA ADIGA,
NO.18, NANDA DEEPA,
VITTAL NAGAR, NEAR ISRO LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
167. S.N. RAMESH
S/O. LATE S. NANJUNDAIAH,
NO.70, 11TH IV MAIN,
V BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 011.
168. DEEPA N. SHET
W/O. NAGESH N. SHET,
REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER,
SRI NAGESN N. SHET, NO.854/83,
1ST FLOOR, 14TH CROSS,
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 086.
169. M.R. PARTHASARATHY
AGED 71 YEARS,
S/O. LATE RAJAGOPALAN .M.N,
NO.173/43, 1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 011.
170. M.P. RAJAGOPAL
AGED 52 YEARS,
S/O. M. PARTHASARATHY,
NO.173/43, 5TH CROSS, 1ST BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560 011.
171. AMBIKA RAJAGOPAL PADALD
W/O. P. RAJAGOPAL,
NO.70/2, 8TH MAIN,
MATHIKERE EXTENSION,
BENGALURU - 560 054.
172. GOWN RAJARAM
W/O. B.K. RAJRAM,
NO.69, 11TH B MAIN,
5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 070.
173. B.S. SATHYANARAYANA
S/O. SURYANARAYANA RAO,
NO.62, 5TH CROSS,
HANUMANTHANAGAR,
-: 30 :-
BENGALURU - 560 019.
174. SMT. NAGAMANI
AGED 63 YEARS,
W/O. C.N. GOVINDARAJU,
NO.20, 1ST CROSS, BRINDAVAN LAYOUT,
HORAMAVU, NEAR GANDHI STATUE,
BENGALURU - 560 043.
175. SMT. C.R. SWAROOP KISHAN,
AGED 35 YEARS,
D/O. SRI C.V. RAGHAVACHARI,
NO.2, NARASI APARTMENT,
NO.3, LIC COLONY, YESHWANTPUR,
BENGALURU - 560 022.
176. K.B.S. RAMACHANDRA
REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER,
RAMA VISHNU HEBBAR,
16TH MCR EXTENSION,
18TH CROSS,VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
177. SMT. LAKSLUNI BHAT
AGED 54 YEARS,
W/O. GANAPATHI ANANTHA BHAT,
NO.38/A, (OPP. MOTHER DIARTY),
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
178. SMT. P. GEETHA P. BHAT
AGED 57 YEARS,
W/O. PRABHAKAR N. BHAT,
NO.1859, 11TH A MAIN,
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
179. SRI RAMACHANDRA K.B.S.
S/O. S.G. BHAT,
NO.166, MCR EXTENSION
18TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
180. SRI JAYASHREE BHAT
AGED 54 YEARS,
W/O. K.S. BHAT,
NO.166, SRIGIRI, MCR EXTENSION,
P.O. ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR,
-: 31 :-
BENGALURU.
181. R. RAJANI
W/O. SRI G. RAGHU,
NO.1278, 27TH MAIN,
8TH CROSS, 1ST PHASE, J.P. NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 070.
182. S. CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED 65 YEARS,
S/O. SHIVASHASTRY NO.766,
SRINIVAS, 18TH MAIN,
36TH CROSS, 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
183. SRI S. SRIKANTA
AGED 63 YEARS,
S/O. LATE SHIVASHASTRI,
NO.766, SRINIVAS,
18TH MAIN, 36TH CROSS,
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
184. SRI N.S. GIRISH
AGED 37 YEARS,
S/O. SHANKARA NARAYAN,
REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER,
SRI SHANKAR NARAYAN,
NO.3506/A 6TH CROSS,
GAYATHRINAGAR,
SUBRAMANYAPURAM POST,
BENGALURU - 560 021.
185. SRI H.R. SUBRAMANYA
AGED 43 YEARS,
S/O. LATE H.S. RACHANDRAIAH,
NO.38, 2ND A CROSS,
1ST MAIN, DOCTORS COLONY,
KONANAKUNTE
BENGALURU - 560 062.
186. SRI P.V. RAGHAVENDRACHAR
AGED 78 YEARS,
S/O. LATE P.R. VENKATARAMANA,
NO.8, 14TH CROSS,
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 086.
-: 32 :-
187. SRI V. RAVI
AGED 52 YEARS,
C/O. M.C. VASUDEVA RAO,
NO.19, VALLABHANAGAR,
VASANTHPUR,
BENGALURU - 560 061.
188. SMT. H.V. PADMA
W/O. LATE H.V. VENKATESHAIAH,
AGED 78 YEARS,
NO.42/3, EAST ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
189. SMT. M. SUSHEELA
W/O. SRI K.V. NARESH,
AGED 59 YEARS,
SRI SAIGANGA,
NO.896/1, OUT HOUSE,
E FLOOR, 19TH MAIN,
BSK 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU.
190. SRI LAXMAIAH
S/O. BAVANNA,
AGED 61 YEARS,
NO.17/1, KEMPANNA CROSS,
BANASHANKARI TEMPLE ROAD, MAYALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
191. SMT. DIVYA .C
W/O. DEEPAK RUDRAIAH,
AGED 31 YEARS,
NO.3944 B, 17TH D CROSS,
4TH MAIN, BSK 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 070.
192. SRI HANUMANTHA RAO
S/O. MANIKRAO,
AGED 56 YEARS,
NO.138, 4TH MAIN,
9TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET,
BENGALURU - 560 018.
193. SMT. A.N. SUVARNA MUKHI
W/O. VENKATANARAYANA RAO,
AGED 63 YEARS,
NO.62/1, 6TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN,
3RD BLOCK, T.R. NAGAR,
-: 33 :-
BENGALURU - 560 028.
194. SMT. UMA .S
D/O. LATE SHANKARAM .M
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT NO.239/3/1, B.T. ROAD,
CHAMARAJPET,
BENGALURU - 560 018.
195. SMT. GEETHA BAI .H.S
W/O. MADHURANATH
AGED 34 YEARS,
R/O NO.228/2, 5TH MAIN,
KEMPEGOWDANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 019.
196. SMT. PREMAKUMARI .B.S
W/O. SRIKANTA SHARMA,
AGED 66 YEARS,
R/O NO.785, 20TH MAIN,
36TH A CROSS, 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
197. SMT. KALPANA J. RAO
W/O. JAGADISH RAO,
AGED 49 YEARS,
NO.416, 5TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN,
J.P. NAGAR, 3RD PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560 056
REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER
SRI AKSHAY J. RAO,
S/O. OF JAGADISH RAO .C.S
AGED 20 YEARS,
R/O. NO.B.1402, MANGOLIA BLOCK,
BRIGADE MILLENNIUM,
J.P. NAGAR, 7TH PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560 058.
198. SRI LAKSHMIKANTH KULKARNI
S/O. MANIK RAO,
AGED 66 YEARS,
NO.77, 8TH BLOCK,
NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 072.
199. SMT. HEMA RAVI
W/O. SRI D.K. RAVI,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
-: 34 :-
R/AT NO.110, PADMA NILAYA,
16TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN,
J.P. NAGAR, 4TH PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
200. SMT.V. PADMA REKHA
W/O. SRI K.V. RAJEEVALOCHANA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1135, SRINIVASA NILAYA,
11TH MAIN, RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
201. SRI KIRAN KUMAR .B
S/O. SRI C.S. BALAMUKUNDA,
CURRENTLY R/AT NO.44,
SAMA BUILDING,
AL ITHUWAIR MUSCAT,
SURAFFLE OF OMAN,
REP BY HIS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY
SRI B.S. VENKATANARASAIAH.
202. SRI K.S. ASHWATHNARAYANA RAO
S/O. LATE SRI SURAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
R/AT NO.108/B, YASHAS,
7TH A MAIN, 3RD CROSS, T.R. NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 028.
203. MS.VASANTHA B.V.
D/O. B.V. VARADACHAR,
R/O. MARALUBAGILU FARM HOUSE,
II DIVISION, DEVANAHALLI TOWN,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
204. MS. S. JYOTHI
D/O. SRI SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT NO.681, 9TH MAIN,
10TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR, 1ST STAGE,
MYSORE - 570 017.
205. SMT. INDIRA SHIVARAM
W/O. SRI SHIVARAM,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO.681, 9TH MAIN, 10TH CROSS,
VIJAYANAGAR, 1ST STAGE,
MYSORE - 570 017.
-: 35 :-
206. SRI V.N. KIRAN
S/O. VASANTHALAKSHMI,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1583/A, 26TH CROSS,
30TH MAIN, BSK II STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 070.
207. K.S. KAVYA SHREE
W/O. SRI DHARSHAN RANGEGOWDA,
R/AT NO.451, INCHARA, 11TH MAIN,
6TH CROSS, CANARA BANK LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 097,
REPRESENTED BY HER DULY
CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY
SRI K.K. SHIVALINGAIAH.
208. SRI GIRISH .S
S/O. C. SHIVASHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO.33, 3RD MAIN,
HANUMANTHANAGAR,
OPP. VIJAYA BANK,
BENGALURU.
209. DR. PRASHANTH RAMALACRISHAN KESHAV
S/O. SRI DR. P.K. RAMAKRISHNA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT NO.4985, CHESTNUT HILL,
MANSION DRIVE, OHIO, 45040, USA,
REP. BY HIS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY,
DR. P.K. RAMAKRISHNA RAO.
210. SMT. SHUBHA SHESHADRI
W/O. RAVI .R
R/AT NO.19, 1ST A CROSS,
SBM COLONY,
BANGALORE - 560 050.
211. SRI S. VENKATESH
S/O. A.V.SESHA IYENGAR,
AGED 58 YEARS,
R/AT NO.7075, BENNINGTON WOODS DRIVE,
PITTSBURG, USA, 15237,
REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER SMT. SHYAMALA,
AGED 64 YEARS,
W/O. K.S. ANANTHARAJ, R/AT NO.192/19,
SHANKARMUTT ROAD, CHAMARAJPET,
-: 36 :-
BENGALURU - 560 018.
212. SRI PRASANNA L.C.
AGE 46 YEARS,
S/O. HSL MURTHY,
NO.32, SRI KESHAVA,
3RD CROSS, 1ST MAIN,
SAMRUDDHI LAYOUT,
SUBRAMANYAPURA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 061.
213. SMT. AMUDHA .S
AGE 44 YEARS,
W/O. R. THYAGARAJAN,
NO.778, 25TH CROSS, 53RD MAIN,
KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 078.
214. DR. B.N. SOMASHEKAR
AGE 60 YEARS,
S/O. N. NARASIMHA RAO,
NO.14/1, OBALAPPA STREET,
CHIKKAMAVALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
215. SRI B.N. MOHAN KUMAR
AGE 58 YEARS,
S/O. N. NARASIMHA RAO,
NO.11/2, OLD KASI CROSS ROAD,
(MINERVA CIRCLE), DODDAMAVALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
216. SMT. GEETHA
AGE 52 YEARS,
W/O. B.N. MOHAN KUMAR,
NO.11/2, OLD KASI CROSS ROAD,
(MINERVA CIRCLE), DODDAMAVALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
217. SRI M. MAHADEVAIAH
AGE 48 YEARS,
S/O. K. MUNIYYAPPA,
NO.4, 4TH MAIN, 12TH CROSS,
HANUMAGIRI NAGAR,
PADMANABHA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 026.
218. SRI B. SANTHAPPA
-: 37 :-
AGE 54 YEARS,
S/O. LATE SUBBARAYA GOWDA,
NO.W-4, WMS COMPOUND,
47TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN ROAD,
5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
219. SRI PRASHANTH BHAT
AGE 33 YEARS,
S/O. B.G. BHAT,
NO.005, SAI CHARITHA APARTMENTS,
NANDANAVANAM LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 007.
220. SRI BHAKTHAVATSALA
AGE 44 YEARS,
S/O. SRI NARAYANA G-4,
NANDA RESIDENCE 1ST MAIN ROAD,
PRASHANTH NAGAR EXTENSION,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
221. SMT. GEETHA PAI .M
W/O. SRI SURESH PAI .V
AGE 60 YEARS,
NO.58, OLD NO.68,
MAHA MAYA 6TH MAIN,
2ND CROSS, 4TH BLOCK,
THYAGARAJANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 028.
222. SRI B. RABINDRA BHAT
S/O. LATE MUKUNDARAYA BHAT,
AGE 73 YEARS,
NO.37, KATHYAYANI, 15TH MAIN,
17TH CROSS, PADMANABHANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 070.
223. RAMACHANDRA SHANBHOG
S/O. LATE SESHAGIRI SHANBOG,
AGE 58 YEARS,
NO.190, 2ND BLOCK, SRIRAM ROAD,
THYAGARAJANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 028.
224. K.M. BOPPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
S/O. LATE K.J. MEDAPPA,
-: 38 :-
R/O. NO.120, BALACHANDRA LAYOUT,
II CROSS, BABUSAPALYA,
KALYANA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 043.
225. SRI K.G. VALLBHA RAMU
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
S/O. LATE K. GUNDU RAO,
R/O. NO.576, 1ST MAIN,
NAGENDRA BLOCK, BSK 1ST STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 050.
226. SRI K. UMESH BABU
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O. LATE K.V. KRISHNAPA,
R/O. NO.4195, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
SUBRAMANYANGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 021.
227. SRI K. SRINIVASA ACHARYA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
S/O. LATE VENKATARAMAN ACHARYA,
R/O. NO.305, 7TH MAIN,
10TH CROSS, ISRO LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
228. SMT. PRABHAVATHI
AGED 56 YEARS,
D/O. RAMACHANDRAIAH,
R/O. NO.637, 6TH CROSS,
HANUMANTHANAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 019.
229. SRI C.S. NAGARAJAN
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
S/O. C.S. SREEKANTHAIAH,
R/O. NO.252, 17TH MAIN,
II CROSS, II BLOCK, BSK I STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 050.
230. SMT. BHAVANI
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
D/O. C.S. SHIVARAMAIAH,
D/O. ROOPKUMAR,
R/O. NO.94-1, 8TH CROSS ROAD,
RAJAMAHAL VILAS EXTENSION,
BENGALURU - 560 080.
-: 39 :-
231. SRI M.V. SREENIVASA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
S/O. VIJENDRA RAO,
RESIDENT OF NO.1/B,
6TH CROSS, LIC COLONY (JPH),
III BLOCK EAST, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
232. SMT. B.R. MANJULAMBA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
D/O. RAMACHANDRAIAH,
R/O. NO.9, ST STREET MARUTHI NGAR,
NEW MADIWALA EXTENSION,
BENGALURU - 560 068.
233. SMT. G.K. SOWBHAGYA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
D/O. LATE G.N. KRISHNA MURTHY,
R/O. NO.523, 53RD CROSS,
3RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 010.
234. SRI N.L. RAVICHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
S/O. LATE N. LAKSHMINATHAN,
R/O. NO.2974, 13TH MAIN,
MARIYAPPANAPALYA,
II STAGE RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 021.
235. SMT. B.R. HAMSAVENI
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
W/O. K.G. VALLABHA RAMU,
R/O. NO.576, 1ST FLOOR,
NAGENDRA BLOCK,
BANASHANKARI I STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 050.
236. SMT. KUSUMA RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
W/O. SRI U.K. RAMESH,
R/O. NO.25TH MAIN,
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU - 560 055.
237. SRI T.S. JAYARAMAN
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
S/O. LATE T.N. SRINIVAS MURTHY,
-: 40 :-
R/O. NO.97-A FIRST FLOOR,
KGE LAYOUT, NEW BEL ROAD,
DEVASANDRA,
BENGALURU - 560 094.
238. SRI V. SUBBARAYA HOLLA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
S/O. LATE KRISHNA HOLLA,
R/O. NO.309, PRAMODA,
3RD CROSS, 6TH MAIN, N.R. COLONY,
BENGALURU - 560 019.
239. SMT. T.D. BHARATHI
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
W/O. T.R. DWARAKANATH,
R/O. NO.34, SURVEYOR STREET,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
240. SMT. UMA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/O. NO.1178, 7TH MAIN ROAD,
RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR II STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
241. SRI RAMACHANDRAIAH .M
S/O. RAMALINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/O. NO.25, DODDAMAVALLI,
SUSHEELA ROAD,
ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET,
BANGALORE - 560 004.
242. SRI B.S. PRASHANTH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O. D.R. ANANTHA MURTHY,
R/O. NO.43, 31ST MAIN ROAD,
ITI LAYOUT, J.P. NAGAR, 1ST STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
BY HIS GPA HOLDER
SRI D.R. ANANTHAMURTHY.
243. SRI A.N. ANANTHA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
S/O. PANDITH A.N. NAGAPPA,
R/O. NO.1960, KAMALA,
SRI SHANI MAHATHMA TEMPLE STREET,
BCCHS LAYOUT, RAGHUVANAHALLI,
-: 41 :-
KANAKAPURA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
244. SRI N.M. SRIKANTA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
S/O. M. MYLARAIAH,
R/O. NO.1967, VARNITA,
BCCHS LAYOUT, RAGHUVANAHALLI,
KANAKAPURA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
245. SRI N. ANANTHA PADMANABHA
S/O. LATE S. NARAYANA RAO,
RESIDENT OF NO.1762,
GURUKRUPA OP RAMAIAH GARDEN,
BCCHS LAYOUT, VAJARAHALLI,
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
246. SRI H.S. CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
S/O LATE H.N. SRINIVASA RAO,
RESIDENT OF NO.252,
BCCHS LAYOUT, VAJARAHALLI,
TALAGHATTAPURA POST,
KANAKAPURA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 062.
247. SRI MALATHESHA NADIGER
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
S/O. LATE SUBBA BHATT PUJAR,
R/O. NO.261, BCCHS LAYOUT,
VAJARAHALLI, KANAKAPURA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
248. SRI PADMANABHA SHIMANTHUR RAO
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
S/O. LATE S. DASAPPAYYA,
R/O. NO.1303, BCCHS LAYOUT,
VAJARAHALLI OFF: KANAKAPURA ROAD,
TALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 062.
249. SMT. DR. REVATHI RANGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
W/O. DR. C.S. RANGARAJ,
R/O. NO.241, BCCHS LAYOUT,
VAJARAHALLI, KANAKAPURA ROAD,
-: 42 :-
BENGALURU - 560 062.
250. SRI HASUMKHLAL
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O. CHAINRAJ
RESIDING AT NO.6/1,
RATNA VILAS ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
251. SRI C. ARUN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
S/O. M. CHAINRAJ,
R/AT NO.6/1, RATNA VILAS ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
252. SRI MANJU
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
W/O. GAJENDRA SINGH,
R/AT NO.18, LAKSHMI ROAD,
SHANTINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
253. SRI M. MOHANLAL
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O. LATE M. MANIKLAL,
R/AT NO.6/4, RATNA VILAS ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
254. SRI SURENDRA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O. M. KUSHALRAJ,
C/O. M.K. ELECTRIC CO.
V.S. LANE, CHICKPET,
BENGALURU - 560 053.
255. SRI K. MAHENDRA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O. M. KUSHALRAJ,
C/O. M.K. ELECTRIC CO.
V.S. LANE, CHICKPET,
BENGALURU - 560 053.
256. SMT. PUSHPADEVI PARAKH
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
W/O. LATE TARACHAN PARAKH,
-: 43 :-
R/AT NO.214, 1ST MAIN, G CROSS
SHARADA COLONY,
NEAR MONKEY PARK,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 070.
257. SRI SATHISH KRISHNA MURTHY
S/O. LATE C.S. KRISHNA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO.123, 5TH MAIN,
5TH CROSS, PADMANABHANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 070.
258. SRI T.R. SHOBA,
W/O. S.R. SHAM,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT NO.17, 3RD CROSS,
6TH C MAIN, TATA SILK FARM,
BENGALURU - 560 028.
259. SMT. MEENA S. SINGH
W/O. DR. B.K. SADASHIVA SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT NO.579,
SRI JAYALAKSHMI NIVAS,
100 FEET ROAD , HAL 2ND STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 038.
260. SRI SOMASHEKAR .A.V
S/O. LATE A. VENKATARAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
NO.145/C, I (N) BLOCK,
5TH CROSS, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 010.
261. SMT. SHARADA SHANKAR
W/O. SRI SHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
NO.9, BELAKU, 4TH CROSS,
1ST MAIN, GAURAVANAGAR,
J.P. NAGAR, 7TH PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
262. SMT. B. SHIMSHA
W/O. Y.S. NAVEEN,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/O. NO.690/S, 12TH CROSS,
-: 44 :-
15TH MAIN, J.P. NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
263. SRI SHASHANK
S/O. SRI BRAHMASURAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
NO.4203, A.A. APARTMENTS,
H.B.R. LAYOUT, 5TH BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560 043. ... RESPONDENTS
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENTS:
SRI.UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.M.S.RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Nos.1 to 3, 5 to 7, 10, 12, 13, 15 to 21, 23 to 25,
28, 29, 31 to 36, 38, 40 to 47;
SRI G.A.GOPI AND SMT. JAYASHREE, ADVOCATES
FOR RESPONDENT Nos.22(a);
SRI.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, LEARNED SENIOR
ADVOCATE FOR SMT.LATHA S. SHETTY, SMT.FARAH
FATIMA, FOR RESPONDENT NO.50;
SRI T.P. SRINIVAS, LEARNED ADDITIONAL
GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.48
AND 49;
SRI.ASHOK K.L. ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Nos.52, 54 to 58, 60, 61, 63, 67 to 71, 75, 80, 81,
84, 104, 114 to 116, 120 to 122, 124 to 126, 132,
133, 146, 149, 162, 163, 200, 205, 209, 213 to 217,
219 to 221, 231, 241, 242;
SRI. SWAMYNATHAN ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Nos.90, 92, 93, 97 to 103, 109 to 113, 118, 189,
191, 192, 194, 196, 198 AND 211;
SRI. R. CHANDRA SHEKAR ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT Nos.119, 128 to 130, 134 to 137, 139,
140, 144, 145, 148, 150, 151, 153, 155, 158, 159,
161, 166 to 168, 171, 173, 175, 177, 178, 181 to
183, 185, 187 & 226;
SRI. B.A. RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT Nos.88, 89, 224, 225, 228 to 230,
232, 234 to 238 AND 243 to 256;
SRI. M.S. ASHWIN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-160;
-: 45 :-
SRI. N.D.SATHISH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT Nos.176, 179 AND 180;
SRI. R. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Nos.62, 157, 164, 165, 174, 199, 202, 259 AND
261;
SRI. R. BHADRINATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-51;
RESPONDENT Nos.39, 40, 41, 42 to 47 ARE SERVED;
V/O. DATED 09/02/2018, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT
Nos.53, 59, 64 to 66, 72 to 74, 76 to 79, 82, 83, 85
to 87, 91, 94 to 96, 105 to 108, 117, 123, 127, 131,
138, 141 to 143, 147, 152, 154, 156, 169, 170, 172,
184, 186, 188, 190, 193, 195, 197, 201, 203, 204,
206 to 208, 210, 212, 218, 222, 223, 227, 233, 239,
240, 257, 258, 260, 262 & 263 DISPENSED WITH;
VIDE ORDER DATED 31/05/2019 SERVICE OF
NOTICE IS HELD SUFFICIENT IN RESPECT OF
RESPONDENT Nos.4, 8, 11, 14, 27(A), 27(B), 27(C),
9, 22, 30, 37, 39;
SRI. R. SURENDRA ADVOCATE FOR R-26;
VIDE ORDER DATED 14/08/2019, SERVICE OF
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT Nos.22 (A, B & C) & R-9
(A, B, C & D) IS HELD SUFFICIENT;
V/O. DATED 22/04/2019, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO
RESPONDENT Nos.26 & 28 IS HELD SUFFICIENT;
R-20 (COPY SD)]
---0---
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE
1 OF CPC, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO REVIEW THE
ORDER DATED 13/04/2017 PASSED IN W.A.Nos.818-849/2014
(LA-RES), ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING ON
27.01.2020 AND THEY HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED,
AND BEING LISTED FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS TODAY,
NAGARATHNA J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-: 46 :-
ORDER
This Review Petition assails judgment dated 13.04.2017 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.818-849/2014 connected with Writ Appeal No.958 of 2014 [LA-RES].
2. The review petitioners were neither parties to the writ appeals nor to the writ petitions out of which the writ appeals arose. They filed applications seeking permission to prosecute this review petition and seeking condonation of delay of 130 days in filing the same. By an order dated 27.09.2019, the said applications were allowed.
3. Some of the respondents herein, being original writ petitioners, assailed the aforesaid order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.25309/2019. By order dated 04.11.2019 the same was dismissed in the following terms:
"O R D E R We decline to interfere in the well reasoned detailed order of the High Court. Hence, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners wants that certain observations be made on the merits of -: 47 :- the case. We decline to make any observation. The High Court will decide the matter on merits.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly."
4. It was thus observed that the High Court must decide the matter on merits. Subsequently, on 11.12.2019, this review petition was admitted and ordered to be posted for final hearing.
5. It is the case of the review petitioners that they were neither arrayed as parties in the writ petitions nor in the writ appeals. That the judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the writ appeals has affected them adversely. Therefore, they sought permission to file the writ appeals and permission was granted by this Court, which order has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. It is the case of the review petitioners that respondent Nos.1 to 47 filed Writ Petition Nos.16858 of 2004 & 9942-9949 of 2014 connected with Writ Petition No.22445 of 2004, challenging the acquisition of land for the benefit of respondent No.50 / Society. The same were -: 48 :- dismissed on 25.02.2014 on the ground of delay and laches, against which Writ Appeal Nos.818-849/2014 and connected to Writ Appeal No.958/2014 [LA-RES] were filed. By judgment dated 13.04.2017, the writ appeals were allowed. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and the directions issued therein, these petitioners have preferred this review petition.
7. According to the review petitioners, petitioner No.1 purchased site bearing No.1194 measuring 40 feet x 60 feet from his vendor in the layout formed by respondent No.50-Society for a valuable consideration of Rs.29,00,000/- under a registered sale deed executed by his vendor, who was an allottee of the Society. Petitioner No.2 is also a purchaser of site bearing No.1213, totally measuring 2530 sq.ft. from his vendor for a valuable consideration of Rs.44,27,500/-. That he has spent an amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/- for the construction of a commercial-cum-residential building after obtaining a loan from a co-operative bank. That the petitioners are in actual physical possession and enjoyment of their respective sites. That in the writ petitions filed by -: 49 :- respondent Nos.1 to 47, these review petitioners were not impleaded as parties.
8. According to review petitioners, in the writ petitions filed by respondent Nos.1 to 47, there was a challenge to the Preliminary Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) which was issued on 23.08.1988 notifying to acquire 201.17 acres of land. The said notification was followed by a declaration and final notification issued on 25.09.1989 under Section 6(1) of the Act under which an extent of 189.23 acres were notified for the formation of about 1791 sites. Respondent Nos.1 to 47 / writ petitioners, although, had consented for the passing of awards and had received compensation, nevertheless, assailed the acquisition as late as in the year 2004 by contending that the cause of action for them to file the writ petitions was the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore City Co- operative Housing Society Limited vs. State of Karnataka and others, [(2012) 3 SCC 727], (Bangalore City Co-operative Housing Society), disposed of on 02.02.2012. The filing of the said writ petitions was -: 50 :- highly belated and hit by delay and laches and in fact, there was no cause of action which arose for respondent Nos.1 to 47 to have filed writ petitions as they had received the compensation under the awards.
9. It is the further case of the review petitioners that in the writ petitions filed by respondent Nos.1 to 47 herein, there was initially an order of status quo granted by the learned Single Judge. Aggrieved by the said order, the Society filed Writ Appeal No.2558/2005. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed that the allottees were not the parties to the writ petitions and if the title had already passed on to the allottees, the Society could not be asked to maintain status quo in respect of the sites allotted and sold by the society in favour of the allottees. That the writ petitioners had to implead the allottees so that they would have had an opportunity of being heard, as well as the purchasers of the sites from the allottees had to be impleaded also. In Writ Appeal No.2558/2005, a co- ordinate Bench of this Court clarified the interim order of status quo by observing that it was binding only on the parties to the writ petitions and not on third parties. That, if any order was passed by the Court against third parties -: 51 :- without impleading them, they could seek redressal of their grievances. The learned Single Judge of this Court permitted certain applicants to come on record as additional respondents in the writ petitions. That the writ petitioners failed to array all the allottees of the Society or the purchasers of the sites from the allottees and only some of the allottees or purchasers impleaded themselves in the writ petitions. But, as the writ petitions were dismissed, the petitioners herein were not affected by the said order.
10. Further, respondent Nos.1 to 47 herein filed writ appeals before this Court which were allowed by the impugned judgment without making the review petitioners herein and all other persons similarly situated as parties and the directions issued by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court are far reaching and adverse to the review petitioners as well as all similarly situate persons without hearing them. Further, the said directions of the co- ordinate Bench are wholly inappropriate inasmuch as the acquisition of the entire extent of land for the benefit of respondent No.50 / Society has been quashed, even though respondent Nos.1 to 47 assailed the acquisition -: 52 :- only in respect of their lands. That, the impugned judgment does not reflect the correct position of law and facts, as they obtain in the instant case. The Division Bench has proceeded to apply the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore City Co-operative Housing Society Limited disposed on 02.02.2012, in respect of the entire extent of land acquired by ignoring the fact that the said judgment was in respect of the extent of lands which was the subject matter of challenge in the case of Geetha Devi Shah vs. State, [W.P.No.16419/1992] (Geetha Devi Shah) and P.Ramaiah and others vs. State [WP No.10406/1991] (P.Ramaiah) i.e., 11 Acres 22 Guntas in respect of which only the acquisition was not upheld. But in the case of Byanna vs. State of Karnataka, [W.P. No.28577-586/1995, DD: 12.04.1996] (Byanna) pertaining to 25.35 acres, the acquisition was upheld. However, in the instant case, the entire acquisition has been quashed without making the allottees or the alienees of the allottees parties and sweeping directions have been issued which are contrary to law and illegal. -: 53 :-
11. We have heard Sri.Madhusudhan R.Naik, learned senior advocate for Sri.Keshava Bhat A., learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri.Udaya Holla, learned senior advocate for Sri.M.S.Rajendra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, 5 to 7, 10, 12, 13, 15 to 21, 23 to 25, 28, 29, 31 to 36, 38, 40 to 47; Sri.G.A.Gopi and Ms.Jayashree, learned counsel for Respondent No.22(a); Sri.K.Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned senior advocate for M/s.Latha Shetty and Smt.Farah Fatima, learned counsel for respondent No.50/Society; Sri.T.P.Srinivas, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.48 and 49 and learned advocates appearing for the other respondents. We have perused the material on record.
12. Learned senior counsel Sri.Naik appearing for the review petitioners submitted that respondent Nos.1 to 47 herein challenged the acquisition only in respect of their lands and not the entire extent of land acquired for the benefit of respondent No.50 / Society. That on the strength of the observations and liberty given in Writ Appeal No.2558/2005, this review petition has been filed. Learned senior counsel reiterated the aforesaid facts. -: 54 :-
13. Learned senior counsel drew our attention to the directions issued by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in paragraph Nos.23 to 25 and contended that such sweeping directions could not have been issued at the instance of respondent Nos.1 to 47 / writ petitioners as against persons such as review petitioners herein who were not arrayed as parties in the proceedings. On that ground alone, the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench in the writ appeals has to be recalled.
14. Learned senior counsel further submitted that on account of the co-ordinate Bench being unable to distinguish the judgment passed in the cases of Geetha Devi Shah and P.Ramaiah by this Court and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court pertaining to the very same acquisition proceedings, the judgment under review may be recalled.
15. Per contra, learned senior counsel, Sri. Udaya Holla appearing for respondent Nos.1-3, 5-7, 10, 12, 13, 15-21, 23-25, 28, 29, 31-36, 38 and 40-47 contended that in Writ Petition No.16858/2004, there was an order of status quo passed on 14.03.2005. The said order was till -: 55 :- the final disposal of the writ petition. It is during the operation of the said order and during the pendency of the writ petitions that the review petitioners purchased the sites from the allottees of the Society i.e., on 29.06.2017 and on 28.04.2014 respectively. They are lis pendent purchasers. They do not have a right to file the review petition. Hence, on that score alone, the review petition may be rejected. In this regard, reference was made to Sarvinder Singh vs. Dalip Singh and others, [(1996) 5 SCC 539] and Sanjay Verma vs. Manik Roy and others, [(2006) 13 SCC 608].
16. It was further contended that the ratio of the judgment passed in Geetha Devi Shah by this Court and which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court squarely applied and the impugned judgment has rightly applied the said dictum. In this regard, our attention was drawn to paragraph Nos.80, 86-89, 91 and paragraph Nos.130-133 of the judgment in Bangalore City Co- operative Housing Society. It was contended that the co- ordinate Bench of this Court, having noticed the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geetha Devi Shah and P.Ramaiah and others in the case known as -: 56 :- Bangalore City Co-operative Housing Society rightly applied the same and therefore, there is no merit in the review petition. Learned senior counsel, Sri.Holla, further contended that the judgment of this Court which has been sustained by the Hon'ble Court in the case of K.Hasthimal Sisodia vs. State of Karnataka, [W.P. No.14863/2001, DD:27.05.2004] (Hasthimal Sisodia) could be distinguished because in the latter case, the plea of fraud was not raised and was neither allowed to be raised by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
17. It was further contended that the aspect of delay in filing the writ petition would pale into insignificance on account of the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vyalikaval House Building Cooperative Society, By Its Secretary vs. Chandrappa & others, [(2007) 9 SCC 304] (Vyalikaval House Building Cooperative Society).
18. As regards the scope of review, reliance was placed on two judgments, namely Meera Bhanja (Smt.) vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt.) [(1995) 1 SCC 170] and Gopabandhu Biswal vs. Krishna Chandra -: 57 :- Mohanty and others, [(1998) 4 SCC 447]. Hence, it was contended that there was no merit in this review petition, which is in any case not maintainable and the same may be dismissed.
19. Further, learned counsel for some of the respondent / writ petitioners also contended that the only fact which is in favour of the petitioners herein is that they were not parties in the writ appeals, though they may be interested parties. Apart from that, they have no reason to file the review petition. That certain persons similar to the review petitioners herein have preferred special leave petitions. These review petitioners also could have resorted to the same remedy. That the matter is seized by the Hon'ble apex Court and it is unnecessary for this Court at this stage to review the order passed in the writ appeals. Learned counsel further contended that the said order does not call for a review inasmuch as the co- ordinate Bench of this Court has rightly followed the judgment passed in the case of Geetha Devi Shah and P.Ramaiah. Although the writ petitions were filed by respondent Nos.1 to 47 only, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court -: 58 :- which heard the writ appeals, has given a larger relief, which cannot be found fault with as it is in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. That the issue of fraud was raised and allegations of fraud were made and in the above circumstances, the co-ordinate Bench thought it appropriate to strike down the entire acquisition, which cannot be found fault with.
20. He next submitted that the review petitioners have not stated whether their sites fall within the schedule of lands belonging to the writ petitioners - respondent Nos.1 to 47 herein. That, if the sites of the petitioners indeed are located within the schedule of lands of respondent Nos.1 to 47 and they are aggrieved by the judgment passed in the writ appeals, they could have filed special leave petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, just as some other allottees have done. He further submitted that though no leave to appeal has been granted in the special leave petitions filed against the order passed in the writ appeals, nevertheless, there is an order of status quo.-: 59 :-
21. He submitted that the contentions of the review petitioners that there was delay in filing the writ petitions by respondent Nos.1 to 47 is of no significance or has no consequence when fraud has been alleged by the petitioners. He, therefore, submitted that there is no merit in the review petition and the same may be dismissed.
22. Learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.50/Society reiterated the submissions made by learned senior counsel for the petitioners and contended, the Society, being aggrieved by the sweeping directions issued in the writ appeals, has approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. That the Society has no objection for the judgment being reviewed.
23. Learned counsel appearing for the respective allottees also contended that the judgment of the co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the writ appeals ought to be reviewed and recalled as the allottees and / or their vendees were not made parties and they, being the allottees of the Society, who have invested their life savings in acquiring a site formed by the respondent Housing Society have now been subjected to serious and -: 60 :- adverse directions issued in the writ appeals without hearing them. They, therefore, contended in unison that the judgment passed in the writ appeals may be recalled.
24. By way of reply, Sri.Naik, learned senior counsel contended that the order of status quo passed on 14.03.2005 was applicable only to those who were parties in the writ petition. That the earlier order of Division Bench in that regard is very clear and categorical. If any adverse order was to be passed against persons who were not parties, then they have the remedy of review. Hence, they have rightly filed this review petition. In this regard, it was contended, even the vendors of the review petitioners were not arrayed as respondents, hence the order of status quo did not bind them. If there was no order of status quo operating against the vendors of the review petitioners, they had every right to alienate their sites to the purchasers who are the review petitioners. Thus, the purchase of sites by the review petitioners is not hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. In this regard, it was re-iterated that the co-ordinate Bench could not have passed directions against the petitioners or their vendors without making them parties and without hearing them -: 61 :- and thereby giving a benefit to all land owners although they had not challenged the acquisition or were unsuccessful in doing so. Therefore, the review petitioners have a right to assail such a judgment.
25. It was re-iterated that the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Geetha Devi Shah case is confined only to her case and there have been several writ petitions which have been non-suited on the ground of delay and laches. That the aspect of fraud was also considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Hasthimal Sisodia's case.
26. It was re-iterated, even respondent Nos.1 to 47 herein who were the writ petitioners did not seek a prayer to quash the entire acquisition. But, sweeping directions have been issued by the co-ordinate Bench quashing the entire acquisition even where they have been upheld insofar as certain extents are concerned, by this Court as well by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, there are errors apparent on the face of the record and the impugned judgment of the co-ordinate Bench ought to be recalled as it is illegal and contrary to law. -: 62 :-
27. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, by way of reply, further contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Bangalore City Co-operative Housing Society could not have been the basis for filing the writ petitions nor for passing the judgment in the writ appeals. Further, the writ petitions filed by respondent Nos.1 to 47 herein were rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of delay and laches. The said order did not call for any interference in the writ appeals. That, Geetha Devi Shah and P.Ramaiah had approached this Court soon after the acquisition process had commenced. The writ petitions filed by them were not belated. But in the instant case, respondent Nos.1 to 47 have contended that the cause of action for them to file the writ petitions arose after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geetha Devi Shah and P.Ramaiah. The said contention is not justified.
28. According to the review petitioners the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not at all applicable to the case of respondent Nos.1 to 47--writ -: 63 :- petitioners. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the writ appeals, while applying the same, has issued directions contrary the earlier judgments of this Court as well as orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hasthimal Sisodia. Therefore, reiterating his submissions learned senior counsel contended that the impugned judgment in the writ appeals may be recalled.
29. Having heard learned senior counsel as well as other learned counsel for the respective parties, the following points would arise for our consideration:
(i) Whether the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the writ appeals calls for a review and recall at the instance of the review petitioners herein?
(ii) What order?
30. The detailed narration of facts and contentions would not call for a reiteration except highlighting the relevant facts. The respondent / State initiated the acquisition process by issuing Preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act on 23.08.1988 for proposed acquisition of 201.17 acres of land. The said notification was followed by a final notification dated -: 64 :- 25.09.1989 issued under Section 6(1) of the 1894 Act for a lesser extent of land, namely 189.23 acres. It was proposed to form as many as 1791 sites. It is also to be noted that respondent Nos.1 to 47 / writ petitioners, who are the land owners and notified Khatedars, had received compensation under the award passed on 23.06.1990 and approved on 11.03.1991.
31. Certain land owners, namely Geetha Devi Shah and P.Ramaiah had filed W.P. No.16419/1992 and W.P. No.10406/1991 respectively. The extent of land covered in those writ petitions were 11 Acres 22 Guntas. The writ petition filed by Geetha Devi Shah was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 18.11.1996 holding that there was a delay of two and a half years in filing the said writ petitions. The said order was assailed in Writ Appeal No.9913/1996 and the same was allowed. In the case of P.Ramaiah, a learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition. The said order was assailed by the Society in Writ Appeal No.4246/1998. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court by placing reliance on H.M.T. House Building Co-opeartive Society vs. Syed Khader [(1995) 2 SCC 677], (First HMT case) dismissed -: 65 :- the appeal. The Society approached the Hon'ble Apex Court and in Bangalore City Co-operative Housing Society, the appeals filed by the Society were dismissed. Consequently, the order passed in the writ appeal filed by Geetha Devi Shah and in the writ appeal filed by the respondent / Society against P.Ramaiah, were confirmed. The dismissal of the Civil Appeals by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of aforesaid two persons would clearly imply that the judgments passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the respective writ appeals were sustained. But the controversy in the instant case is, whether, the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore City Co-operative Housing Society which pertained to the case of Smt.Geetha Devi Shah and P.Ramaiah could have been made applicable to the case of respondent Nos.1 to 47 / writ petitioners herein, that is the crux of the matter, in the instant case.
32. In this regard, two contentions have been advanced by learned senior counsel appearing for the review petitioners: firstly, the co-ordinate Bench could not have applied the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore City Co-operative Housing -: 66 :- Society which was in respect of Smt.Geetha Devi Shah and P.Ramaiah covering an extent of 11 Acres 22 Guntas only whereby the acquisition was upheld, to the case of respondent Nos.1 to 47 herein / writ petitioners. This is because the writ petitions filed by respondent Nos.1 to 47 herein were highly belated and hence, had to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and could not have been entertained on merits.
33. Secondly, it is the contention of learned senior counsel for the review petitioners that the writ petitioners had failed to implead the review petitioners herein and other similarly placed allottees of the Society as well as the purchasers of the sites from the allottees of the Society and such being the case, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court instead of dismissing the writ petitions on the ground of delay and laches, as had been done by the learned Single Judge, applied the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore City Co-operative Housing Society to the entire extent of land acquired by the State for the benefit of the Society, which is erroneous. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court had dismissed the appeals filed by the respondent Society only -: 67 :- with regard to the cases of Geetha Devi Shah and P.Ramaiah and the said judgments had no omnibus application to the entire extent of lands acquired, therefore, the co-ordinate Bench was not right in extending the said judgments to the case of the writ petitioners/Respondent Nos.1-47 herein, by ignoring the aspect of delay and laches.
34. It is the next contention of learned Senior counsel appearing for the review petitioners that the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and several directions issued therein are erroneous on account of the fact, the said directions were issued in the absence of the allottees and the purchasers of the sites from the allottees being made parties and they being subjected to adverse directions; hence, there was an erroneous application of the judgment of the Apex Court in Bangalore City Co-operative Housing Society which was in respect of only 11 Acres 22 Guntas in respect of the writ petitions filed by Smt.Geetha Devi Shah and P.Ramaiah being made applicable to the entire extent of land acquired for the benefit of the Society.
-: 68 :-
35. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the review petitioners that co-ordinate Bench of this Court did not appreciate the fact that in the case of Smt.Geetha Devi Shah and P.Ramaiah in respect of 11 Acres 22 Guntas, the acquisition was not upheld but in the case of Byanna vs. State of Karnataka, [W.P. No.28577-586/1995, disposed of on 12.04.1996] (Byanna), pertaining to 25.35 Acres, the acquisition was upheld. It is also contended that in the case of Hasthimal Sisodia, the apex court itself did not apply its earlier judgment passed in the case of Bangalore City Co- operative Housing Society and had dismissed the special leave petitions.
36. Of course, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the writ petitioner Nos.1 to 47 has emphasized the fact that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court rightly applied the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Bangalore City Co-operative Housing Society in the writ appeals and has passed an equitable order thereby protecting the interest of the writ petitioners as well as other land owners as well as the allottees and purchasers -: 69 :- of the allottees and the judgment of the writ appeal would not call for any interference.
37. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to extract paragraphs 23 to 29 of the impugned judgment dated 13.04.2017 as under:
"23. We are of the opinion that the decision in the case of Bangalore City Co-operative Housing Society Limited (supra) has universal application. In these cases, a middleman was engaged to influence the Government and prior approval of the scheme was absent as mandatorily required under Section 3(f)(vi) of the said Act. Hence, we have no hesitation in holding that the Hon'ble Single Judge was not right in dismissing the writ petitions on the grounds of delay and laches. The acquisition is, therefore, liable to be quashed.
24. However, certain members of the co-
operative society had acquired the plots of land even prior to passing of an order of injunction against the society by the Hon'ble Single Judge on March 14, 2005 and some of them have even constructed their houses. We feel that they should be permitted to retain their houses on the sites allotted to them, on payment of reasonable compensation to the land owners at -: 70 :- the prevailing market price as on the dates of their purchases. Some persons have purchased the property after the order of injunction. They are given liberty to negotiate with the land owners for purchase of the land at an agreed price, preferably the market price prevailing in the year 2005.
25. Therefore, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order are set aside. The writ petitions are allowed. The entire acquisition is quashed with the rider that the persons, who got sites from the said society prior to the said order of injunction and constructed their houses, would be permitted to retain their houses on payment of compensation to the land owners by offering market price as prevailing on the dates of their purchases. Simultaneously, the persons, who had acquired the plots of land from the said society after the order of injunction and constructed their houses, shall be entitled to negotiate with the land owners to retain their houses on payment of compensation to the land owners at an agreed price, preferably the market price prevailing in the year 2005. We direct the authorities to return vacant lands to the land owners, immediately.
26. We make no order as to costs."
(Underlining by us) -: 71 :-
38. Firstly, it is noted that the Division Bench has quashed the entire acquisition even when there was no challenge to the entire extent by respondent Nos.1 to 47 herein with the rider, those who were allotted sites from the said Society prior to the order of injunction dated 14.03.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions and have constructed their houses would be permitted to retain their houses on payment of compensation to the land owners by offering market price as prevailing on the date of purchases. Secondly, the person who had acquired the sites from the Society after the order of injunction and constructed their houses shall be entitled to negotiate with the land owners to retain their houses on payment of compensation to the land owners at an agreed price preferably the market price prevailing in the year 2005. Thirdly, the authorities are directed to return the vacant lands to the land owners immediately.
39. It is noted that the review petitioners have purchased their respective sites from the allottees of the Society. That the said allottees were not made parties to the proceedings either before the learned Single Judge or -: 72 :- in the Writ appeals. That they purchased the sites during the pendency of the writ petitions and writ appeals respectively, the fact that the writ petitions were dismissed, in effect, enured to the benefit of the review petitioners although their vendors were not parties before the learned Single Judge. In the absence of review petitioners' vendors being made parties as also the review petitioners in the Writ Appeals, the Division Bench has passed the judgment setting aside the entire acquisition and issuing certain directions in respect of all the sites which were allotted including that of review petitioner's prior to the order of injunction passed by the learned Single Judge on 14.03.2005 including the sites which were purchased by them subsequently.
40. The question that has been raised by the review petitioners is, as to, whether, the Division Bench could have issued sweeping directions against the site owners, i.e., allottees or their alienees including the review petitioners herein, to pay the market value to the land owners in order to retain their sites and houses constructed thereon in the absence of they being made parties to the proceedings. In this regard, the judgment of -: 73 :- the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.2558 of 2005 [LA- RES] disposed of on 12.07.2006 assumes significance and the relevant portion of which reads as under:
"4. Since the learned single Judge found prima facie case in the Writ Petitions and admitted the Writ Petitions, there was nothing wrong in passing an interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the lands in question, so that, further third party rights are not created during the pendency of the Writ Petitions. Hence, the learned single Judge has taken care to direct that the parties shall maintain status quo. It implies that the interim order passed by the learned single Judge is directed against the parties in the Writ Petitions and nobody else. Even otherwise, the interim order passed in the Writ Petitions can bind only the parties to the Writ Petitions and not third parties. Therefore, the appellant need not shed tears for the allottees who are not made parties to the Writ petitions. If and when any order is passed against them by the Court, they will have the right to seek redressal of their grievance. As far as the appellant is concerned, the appellant is bound to maintain status quo in respect of the lands and not to create any further third party interest in the lands during the pendency of -: 74 :- the Writ Petitions. In this view of the matter, we do not find anything wrong with the interim order passed by the learned single Judge.
5. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. It is made clear that any observation made in this order will not prejudice the rights or contentions of the parties in the Writ Petitions."
(Underlining by us)
41. Similarly, the order dated 07.10.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.16858 of 2004 and connected writ petitions, (out of which the writ appeals arose) and the nature of the directions in the judgment of the writ appeals which are sought to be reviewed by the petitioners herein also assumes significance.
42. In the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge had given an opportunity as well as liberty to the writ petitioners / respondent Nos.1 to 47 herein to implead the member--allottees as parties to those writ petitions, but the same was not complied with by them. Hence, the question that is raised by this review petition is, whether, the Division Bench could have passed the directions, -: 75 :- extracted above, in the absence of the allottees of sites and/or their alienees, such as the review petitioners herein, being made parties.
43. We are of the view that the question raised by the review petitioners would have to be answered in the negative and in favour of the review petitioners by holding that the co-ordinate Bench could not have passed the aforesaid directions in the absence of the allottees of the sites and their alienees being made parties. Therefore, for the said reason, the judgment passed in the writ appeals would have to be recalled.
44. The second aspect of the matter is with regard to the applicability of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bangalore City Co-operative Housing Society Limited dated 02.02.2012 to the present case. The Division Bench has applied the same and being aggrieved, these review petitioners are before this Court and the respondent Society and the State are before the Hon'ble Apex Court having filed Special Leave Petitions in which leave has not yet been granted.
-: 76 :-
45. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the review petitioners is that the judgment of the Apex Court dated 02.02.2012 is restricted to the cases of only Geetha Devi Shah and P.Ramaiah and it is not an all encompassing judgment which can be applied in respect of all the lands acquired for the benefit of the respondent Society and/or which were not the subject matter of the writ proceedings before this Court. In other words, it does not apply to the lands which were not owned by Geetha Devi Shah and P.Ramaiah. In this regard, it is contended that although Hon'ble Supreme Court went in detail and applied the judgment in the First HMT case and issued the directions therein, the question raised by the review petitioners herein is, whether, the judgment which was delivered in the First HMT case could apply to the review petitioners herein.
46. In this regard, the contention of the learned senior counsel for the review petitioners is that the judgments of the First HMT case which was followed in Second HMT case do not apply to the present case of the writ petitioners / respondent Nos.1 to 47 herein. This is because, the judgment in First HMT case was not applied -: 77 :- by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Hanumakka, which was also concerned with the acquisition of lands for HMT House Building Co-operative Society. According to the review petitioners, the Division Bench of this Court in Hanumakka held that the writ petitions filed by the petitioners therein were rightly dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on the ground of delay and laches attributable to them and the benefit of the judgment of First HMT case was not available to them. The judgment of the Division Bench in Hanumakka was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court when it dismissed the special leave petitions vide order dated 09.12.1996. The crucial aspect relating to delay and laches has been considered by the learned Single Judge in the instant case and the writ petitions of respondents Nos.1 to 47 herein have been dismissed on that ground also. But, in appeal, the Division Bench has not considered the said aspect of delay and laches and has applied the First HMT case and Bangalore City Co-operative Housing Society Limited.
47. In this regard, it is also noted that a Division Bench of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court -: 78 :- did not apply dictum dated 02.02.2012 in the case of Hasthimal Sisodia, which is also pertaining to the acquisition under consideration. In the case of Hasthimal Sisodia also, a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petitions by order dated 27.05.2004 on the ground of delay and laches in Writ Petition No.14863/2001 which assailed the very same acquisition of the year 1988-89. In Writ Appeal No.3057/2004, the Division Bench also dismissed the writ appeals on 20.06.2011 and the contention regarding fraud in the acquisition process etc., was not permitted to be raised. Thereafter, Review Petition No.413/2011 was also dismissed on 22.06.2012. Hasthimal Sisodia had approached the Hon'ble Supreme court by filing special leave petitions which were ultimately withdrawn with liberty to avail other remedies. Therefore, the judgments of this Court in the case of Hasthimal Sisodia has attained finality.
48. Hence, in short, the contention that is raised by the review petitioners in this review petition is, that the judgment in Hasthimal Sisodia applies in the case of the writ petitioners / respondent Nos.1 to 47 herein. Further, the contention whether, the judgment of the Hon'ble -: 79 :- Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore City Co-operative Housing Society Limited decided on 02.02.2012 would apply in the instant case is also raised by the review petitioners.
49. In this regard, it is also necessary to observe that in Writ Petition Nos.28577-586 of 1995, Byanna and others had assailed the acquisition notifications. The said writ petitions were dismissed as being belated and the writ appeals filed by them in Writ Appeal Nos.7953-7962 of 1996 were also dismissed. Thus, the acquisition was upheld in the said case. The question, that is also raised by review petitioners herein is, whether, the judgment in Byanna is applicable, as the special leave petitions filed against the judgment of the Division Bench in Byanna were also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 23.07.1997.
50. However, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the writ petitioners (respondent Nos.1 to 47) herein has contended that the controversy is closed in view of the judgment of the Division Bench under review following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in -: 80 :- the case of Bangalore City Co-operative Housing Society Limited.
51. We have given our anxious consideration to the detailed arguments of the respective counsel and we have noted the questions which have been raised by review petitioners in the context of acquisition of land in the instant case for the benefit of the respondent / Society and the plethora of orders and judgments passed by this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court which would apply.
52. But, more significantly one cannot lose sight of the fact that in the instant case, the vendors of the review petitioners who are the allottees of sites by the respondent / Society were not arrayed as parties either in the writ petitions or in the writ appeals, neither were these petitioners arrayed as parties. Possibly, if they were arrayed as parties then the vendors of the review petitioners and thereafter, the review petitioners herein, who have stepped into their shoes, would have had an opportunity of putting-forth their contentions in the case. But, such an opportunity had been denied to them, while -: 81 :- their rights have been affected adversely in their absence, by sweeping directions being issued by the co-ordinate Bench.
53. It may be argued that the writ petitioners had arrayed persons similar to the review petitioners, they have been unsuccessful in the writ appeals and that these review petitioners, being similarly situate would be bound by the judgments of the Division Bench in the writ appeals. But, such a contention, in our view, cannot be accepted for two reasons: firstly, in these very proceedings itself, when the order of status quo was passed by the learned Single Judge on 14.03.2005 and the respondent Society had filed writ appeals, the Division Bench had categorically made the observations extracted above. Even the learned Single Judge in the writ proceedings had observed that the allottees ought to be made parties to the proceedings. In fact, the Society (through its senior counsel) had furnished the list of allottees to this Court, but the writ petitioners did not take steps to array these review petitioners' vendors as parties in the writ petitions or in the writ appeals.
-: 82 :-
54. Secondly, Article 300A of the Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. In the instant case, certain directions have been issued by the Division Bench in the absence of review petitioners herein being heard in the matter vis-à-vis their sites.
55. The questions raised by the review petitioners with regard to the applicability of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Bangalore City Co-operative Housing Society is pertinent and in the absence of any consideration, as to, whether, the said judgment was applicable to the case of the writ petitioner or not, particularly on the aspect of delay and laches in filing the writ petitions, the co-ordinate Bench has simply applied the same, which we find is erroneous. The contention that the said judgment was restricted to the cases of Geetha Devi Shah and P. Ramaiah is very pertinent and has to be considered at length when the appeal is restored on the file of this Court, as also the issue regarding delay and laches in filing the writ petitions by respondent Nos.1 to 47 herein.
-: 83 :-
56. We find that the directions of the co-ordinate Bench could not have been made applicable to the review petitioners who were not arrayed as parties and who were not heard in the matter. Hence, the judgment under review has to be recalled for the said reason as being in violation of the principles of natural justice.
57. It may be contended that the review petitioners are only two in number and therefore, the judgment in the writ appeals could be recalled only insofar as the review petitioners are concerned. But in our view, the same cannot be restricted to them only for two reasons: firstly, because it is not known as to where exactly the sites purchased by the review petitioners are located. More-over, it is also not known as to whether their sites are located within the schedule of the lands belonging to respondent Nos.1 to 47 or outside.
58. Secondly and more significantly, other respondents, who are the allottees of sites of respondent No.50/Society, have supported the case of the review petitioners by contending that the judgment of the co- ordinate Bench has also affected them and other similarly -: 84 :- situated allotees not being made parties at all. Further, although some of the allotees were parties in the writ appeals, they could not have been subjected to adverse directions that have been issued against them vis-à-vis the land owners, who are not just respondent Nos.1 to 47 herein--writ petitioners, but even in respect of those land owners who have not have assailed the acquisition and have been satisfied by the compensation that they have received pursuant to the acquisition of their lands by the State for the benefit of the respondent No.50 / Society and were not parties to the proceeding.
59. Further, it is the contention of the review petitioners that the cases of Geetha Devi Shah and P.Ramaiah, which have attained finality are in so far as only their lands are concerned and not to the other lands wherein acquisition has attained finality. Similarly, in Byanna's case acquisition process has attained finality. Moreover, those land losers who have not approached this Court challenging the acquisition process could not have been granted a bonanza by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court by the impugned judgment.
-: 85 :-
60. At this stage, we shall advert to the citations relied upon by the respective parties.
61. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 47 relied upon Sarvinder Singh vs. Dalip Singh and others, [(1996) 5 SCC 539] (Sarvinder Singh) to contend that a transferee pendente lite is as much bound by an order as much a party to the suit. In this regard, reliance was also placed on Sanjay Verma vs. Manik Roy and others, [(2006) 13 SCC 608] (Sanjay Verma). The same was rebutted by learned senior counsel for the petitioners by placing reliance on Thomson Press (India) Limited vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited and others, [(2013) 5 SCC 397] (Thomson Press (India) Ltd.).
62. We have perused the aforesaid judgments and we find that the decisions relied upon by learned senior counsel for the respondents / writ petitioners are not applicable to the present case inasmuch as neither the petitioners nor their vendors were made parties to the writ petitions. That apart, the Division Bench of this Court had categorically reserved the right of any party to approach -: 86 :- this Court in the event of any adverse order being passed against them with regard to the acquisition in question. Therefore, it is on the strength of the aforesaid reasons, the doctrine of lis pendense would not apply to the present case. Had the writ petitioners arrayed the vendors of the review petitioners or the review petitioners as parties to the proceedings, such a contention could have been raised but not in the absence of arraying the aforesaid parties.
63. Learned counsel for the respondents next placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society, By Its Secretary vs. Chandrappa & others, [(2007) 9 SCC 304] (Vyalikaval House Building Co- operative Society) to contend that when there is mala fides or fraud alleged and the acquisition proceedings are vitiated, delay and laches in filing the writ petition would not be a relevant consideration in entertaining the writ petition. In the said case, learned Single Judge of this Court had dismissed the writ petition challenging the acquisition on the ground of delay and laches. But the Division Bench had held that the house building Society therein had committed several irregularities in the -: 87 :- acquisition process and hence, the question of delay would not come in the way of considering the plea of fraud in the matter of acquisition of land for the benefit of said Society and had allowed the writ petitions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the said judgment and held that the acquisition Notifications, under which the land sought to be acquired in the said case were vitiated and therefore, the acquisition was held to be illegal in toto as there was mala fides and the acquisition was not for public purpose. In the circumstances, it was held that when the entire acquisition was vitiated on account of mala fides, nothing remains further. Therefore, despite delay and laches in assailing the acquisition process, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that such a plea was not maintainable, as by then the entire acquisition process had been held to be illegal and therefore, the benefit of the judgment passed earlier in respect of the acquisition was given to the subsequent writ petitions. But, we find that the said judgment is not applicable as in the present case in respect of the respondent Society, the entire acquisition of lands in their entirety has not been quashed. They have been quashed only in the case of Geetha Devi Shah and -: 88 :- P.Ramaiah only to the extent of their lands both by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Moreover, Geetha Devi Shah and P.Ramaiah had approached this Court as early as in the year 1991-92. Therefore, their cases were considered on merits and the acquisition was quashed insofar as their lands only were concerned. The said judgment of the Division Bench was upheld in the case of Bangalore City Co-operative Housing Society Limited only insofar as the lands belonging to Geetha Devi Shah and P.Ramaiah were concerned.
64. In fact, subsequently, in the case of Hasthimal Sisodia, the judgment in Bangalore City Co-operative Housing Society Limited was not applied and in fact, the petitioner therein withdrew the special leave petitions which was permitted.
65. Therefore, the dictum in Chandrappa's case cannot be applied in a straight jacket manner to the present case. The issue on delay and laches assumes importance as the respondent Nos.1 to 47 / writ petitioners had not approached this Court at any point of time earlier and it is their contention that the judgment in -: 89 :- Geetha Devi Shah and P.Ramaiah gave them cause of action to approach this Court. The said premise is erroneous, for in the case of Geetha Devi Shah and P.Ramaiah, the issue of delay and laches did not arise, but in the instant case, it is a very pertinent point which ought to have been considered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, more particularly, when the writ petitions on respondent Nos.1 to 47 herein had been dismissed on that ground. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the judgment in Bangalore City Co-operative Housing Society Limited could not have been straight away applied to the present case by ignoring the plea of delay and laches. Thus, the question of applicability of the principle of delay and laches to the instant case and also the applicability of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bangalore City Co-operative Housing Society Limited are two aspects which ought to have been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The same having not been considered, would imply that there is a vital error in the impugned judgment.
66. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the following decisions in support of -: 90 :- his contentions that the review of the impugned judgment is permissible:
(i) Shivdeo Singh and others vs.
State of Punjab and others,
[AIR 1963 SC 1909], (Shivdeo
Singh);
(ii) Ram Janam Singh vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and another,
[AIR 1994 SC 1722], (Ram
Janam Singh);
(iii) Lily Thomas vs. Union of India,
[AIR 2000 SC 1650], (Lily
Thomas) and
(iv) Kunhayammed and others vs.
State of Kerala, [AIR 2000 SC
2587], (Kunhayammed).
(i) Shivdeo Singh has been pressed into service to
contend that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court has inherent and plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. That where interests of parties who are to be adversely affected are not made parties to the proceedings, then a second writ petition is maintainable. By this, the principles of natural justice -: 91 :- would be complied. That when persons whose rights are affected adversely are not made parties to previous proceedings, they have a right to seek review of the judgment affecting their interests by seeking review of the same.
(ii) In Ram Janam Singh, it has been held that in a writ application in which necessary parties are likely to be affected if not impleaded, the High Court should not proceed with such writ application when necessity of such persons or some of them in representative capacity being made respondents. That if the petitioners refuse to join them, the High Court ought to dismiss the writ petition for nonjoinder of necessary parties.
(iii) Lily Thomas has been relied upon to elucidate on the meaning of "review" with a view to correction of judgment so as to set right miscarriage of justice and remove mistakes.
(iv) Of course, Kunhayammed has also been brought to our notice to contend that there is no legal impediment for this Court to review the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court as the Hon'ble Supreme Court -: 92 :- has not granted leave in the special leave petition filed by the State as well as the respondent-Society by being aggrieved by the judgment sought to be reviewed by these petitioners.
67. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 47 relied upon Meera Bhanja (Smt) vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (smt.), [1995 (1) SCC 170] [Meera Bhanja (Smt)] to contend that a review must be confined to an error apparent on the face of the record and the review proceedings is not an appeal. But, in the said decision, reliance has been placed on the observations of Shivdeo Singh, wherein it has been held that the power of review may also be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found or on any analogous ground. In fact, under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC, inter alia, a review petition could be filed, if there are sufficient reasons for seeking a review. In the instant case, we find that there are sufficient reasons for filing of the review petition and hence, the judgment relied upon by learned senior counsel for the respondent are not applicable.
-: 93 :-
68. We, therefore, are of the view that there is a great force in the arguments of the review petitioners and we think that the review petitioners have made out a case for review of the judgment. For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench in the writ appeal is liable to be recalled.
69. Hence, the judgment passed by the co-
ordinate Bench in Writ Appeal Nos.818-849/2014 connected with Writ Appeal No.958/2014 dated 13.04.2017 is recalled. The review petition is allowed.
Consequently, the aforesaid writ appeals are restored on the file of this Court.
Parties to bear their respective costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE RK/-