Karnataka High Court
Smt. K. Sreedevi vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:17006
WP No. 39573 of 2016
C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018
WP No. 12371 of 2018
WP No. 12372 of 2018
WP No. 24970 of 2019
WP No. 27839 of 2019
WP No. 16690 of 2022
WP No. 16752 of 2022
WP No. 16757 of 2022
WP No. 16758 of 2022
WP No. 24269 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 39573 OF 2016 (CS-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 3430 OF 2018(CS-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 12371 OF 2018 (CS-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 12372 OF 2018 (CS-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 24970 OF 2019 (CS-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 27839 OF 2019 (CS-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 16690 OF 2022 (CS-RES)
Digitally
signed by WRIT PETITION NO. 16752 OF 2022 (CS-RES)
Vandana S
Location: WRIT PETITION NO. 16757 OF 2022 (CS-RES)
HIGH COURT WRIT PETITION NO. 16758 OF 2022 (CS-RES)
OF
KARNATAKA WRIT PETITION NO. 24269 OF 2022 (BDA)
IN W.P.No.39573/2016
BETWEEN:
SRI. H. SRINIVAS
S/O H MADHWARAYA VARNA
AGED ABOTU 58 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO 90, 1ST A MAIN,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:17006
WP No. 39573 of 2016
C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018
WP No. 12371 of 2018
WP No. 12372 of 2018
WP No. 24970 of 2019
WP No. 27839 of 2019
WP No. 16690 of 2022
WP No. 16752 of 2022
WP No. 16757 of 2022
WP No. 16758 of 2022
WP No. 24269 of 2022
4TH CROSS, ISRO LAYOUT
BANGALORE - 560 011.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H SRINIVAS .,(PARTY-IN- PERSON)
AND:
1. VISHWABHARATHI HOUSE BUILDING COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
NO 35, RATHNAVILAS ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE - 560004
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
AND OTHERS, BANGALORE DIVISION
PAMPA MAHAKAVI ROAD
CHAMRAJAPETE
BANGALORE - 560 018.
3. SRI. K.N. VENUGOPAL
S/O K.H. NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT NO. GF(4), V.V. APARTMENT
12TH MAIN ROAD, CORPORATION
WARD OFFICE BACKSIDE
PADMANABHANAGARA
BSK 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU SOUTH
BENGALURU - 560 070.
4. SRI. NAGARATHNA H.S.
W/O PUTTALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEAR
R/AT NO.11, BLOCK 27
DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD
JSS NAGAR, SIDDHARTHNAGAR
MYSORE - 570 011.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:17006
WP No. 39573 of 2016
C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018
WP No. 12371 of 2018
WP No. 12372 of 2018
WP No. 24970 of 2019
WP No. 27839 of 2019
WP No. 16690 of 2022
WP No. 16752 of 2022
WP No. 16757 of 2022
WP No. 16758 of 2022
WP No. 24269 of 2022
5. SMT. H. USHA
D/O B.K. HANUMANTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT NO. 98, 17TH MAIN
NEAR BHRAMMA CHAITHANYA
MANDIRA, BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE
2ND BLOCK, BANGALORE SOUTH
BENGALURU - 560 050.
6. SMT. B.A. RAJESHWARI
W/O B.S. ANANDAIAH SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NO. 22/19, M.G.K. MURTHY
LAYOUT, APPURAO ROAD CROSS
CHAMARAJAPETE
BENGALURU - 560 018.
7. SRI. SURYANARAYANA SETTY
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
S/O RAJAIAH SETTY
R/AT NO. 318, SRIVARI
60 FEET MAIN ROAD
CQAL LAYOUT, SAHAKARA NAGAR
BENGALURU NORTH
BENGALURU - 560 092.
8. SRI. R. GOVINDARAJA SETTY
S/O RAJAIAH
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
R/AT NO. 67/1, 1ST CROSS
CI LAYOUT, A BLOCK, SANJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU NORTH - 560 094.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.S. SRINIVAS FOR
SRI. B L SANJEEV.,ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. SANTOSH S. GOGI, AAG A/W
SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R-2
SRI. SANCHAN JAINANDAN., ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING
APPLICANT ON I.A. 1/2023)
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:17006
WP No. 39573 of 2016
C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018
WP No. 12371 of 2018
WP No. 12372 of 2018
WP No. 24970 of 2019
WP No. 27839 of 2019
WP No. 16690 of 2022
WP No. 16752 of 2022
WP No. 16757 of 2022
WP No. 16758 of 2022
WP No. 24269 of 2022
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT
SOCIETY TO CONSIDER HIS REPRESENTATIONS VIDE ANNEX-A
DTD.11.5.2016 AND ANNEX-B DTD.8.6.2016 SUBMITTED TO THE
RESPONDENTS PURSUANT TO THE ORDER DTD.30.4.2016 PASSED BY
THE KAT VIDE ANNEX-C.
IN W.P.No.3430/2018
BETWEEN:
S. SURESH BABU
S/O SRI. SUBRAMANYAM.S.
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT NO. 89, 6TH CROSS
C.T. BED ROAD, BANASHANKARI II STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 070.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. ANUSHA., FOR
SRI. A. MADHUSUDHANA RAO., ADVOCATES )
AND:
1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE - 560 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISIONER.
2. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
NORTH DIVISION, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. VISHWABHARATHI HOUSE BUILDING
CO-OPEARATIVE SOCIETY LTD., (VHBCS)
NO.35, RATHNA VILAS ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE - 560 004.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
SRI. VADIRAJ.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:17006
WP No. 39573 of 2016
C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018
WP No. 12371 of 2018
WP No. 12372 of 2018
WP No. 24970 of 2019
WP No. 27839 of 2019
WP No. 16690 of 2022
WP No. 16752 of 2022
WP No. 16757 of 2022
WP No. 16758 of 2022
WP No. 24269 of 2022
4. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.S. KANNUR., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. P.B. ACHAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R-1
SRI. B.S. SRINIVAS., FOR
SRI. B.L. SANJEEV., ADVOCATE FOR R-3
SRI. SANTOSH S. GOGI., AAG A/W
SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR., AGA FOR R-2 TO R-4
SRI. N. RAMACHANDRA., ADVOCATE FOR APPLICANT IN I.A. 1/2019)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO
RESPONDENT NO.1 TO REMOVE THE ILLEGAL ENCROACHMENT AND
CONSTRUCTION THAT IS PUT UP IN SITE BEARING NO. 4178 MEASURING
TH
167.28. SQ METERS IN 4 PHASE OF VHBCS LAYOUT, GIRINAGAR, BANGALORE
AS PER THE BDA APPROVED LAYOUT PLAN VIDE ITS ORDER DATED:
14.09.2012, AS PER ANNEXUE-R ALTERNATIVELY IN THE EVENT OF
RESPONDENT NO.1 NOT BEEN ABEL TO REMOVE THE ENCROCHMENTS IN
SITE NO. 4178/ NOW ALLOTTED TO THE PETITIONER, DIRECT RESPONDENTS 1
TO 3 TO IDENTIFY AN ALTERNATE VACANT SITE AND TRANSFER AND HAND
OVER THE VACANT POSSESSION OF THE SAME TO THE PETITIONER, ALLOW
THIS WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS.
IN W.P.No.12371/2018
BETWEEN:
S.NAGARAJ RAO
S/O S.CHANDRAPPA
AGE ABOUT 68 YEARS
NO.327, BHARATH HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LAYOUT
5TH MAIN ROAD, UTTRAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 061.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DEVI PRASAD SHETTY., ADVOCATE)
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:17006
WP No. 39573 of 2016
C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018
WP No. 12371 of 2018
WP No. 12372 of 2018
WP No. 24970 of 2019
WP No. 27839 of 2019
WP No. 16690 of 2022
WP No. 16752 of 2022
WP No. 16757 of 2022
WP No. 16758 of 2022
WP No. 24269 of 2022
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION
M.S BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 061.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
ALI ASKER ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETITES
SAHAKARA SOWDHA
MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU - 560 003.
4. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETITES
SAHAKARA SOWDHA
MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU - 560 003.
5. VISHWABHARATHI HOUSE BUILDING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.
NO.35, RATHNA VILAS ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU - 560 004.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANTHOSH S.GOGI, AAG A/W
SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR., AGA FOR R1 TO R4
SRI. B.S.SRINIVAS., FOR
SRI. B.L SANJEEV., ADVOCATES FOR R5)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-5 TO HAND OVER THE
POSSESSION OF THE SITE NO.687 IN GIRINAGAR OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE
TH
HAND OVER ANY OTHER SITE MEASURING 30x50 IN GIRINAGARA, 4 STAGE IN
TERMS OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 AT ANNEXURE - D
DATED:19.09.2016 WITHIN A FIXED TIME FRAME AND ETC.,
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:17006
WP No. 39573 of 2016
C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018
WP No. 12371 of 2018
WP No. 12372 of 2018
WP No. 24970 of 2019
WP No. 27839 of 2019
WP No. 16690 of 2022
WP No. 16752 of 2022
WP No. 16757 of 2022
WP No. 16758 of 2022
WP No. 24269 of 2022
IN W.P.No.12372/2018
BETWEEN:
RAMAIAH S/O KAILASH
R/O HOUSE NO.32, R.K.LAYOUT,
BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 085.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DEVI PRASAD SHETTY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION
M.S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 061.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
ALI ASKER ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETITES
SAHAKARA SOWDHA, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU - 560 003.
4. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETITES
SAHAKARA SOWDHA
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003.
5. VISHWABHARATHI HOUSE BUILDING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.
NO.35, RATHNA VILAS ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU - 560 004.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANTHOSH S.GOGI, AAG A/W
SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR., AGA FOR R1 TO R4
SRI. B.S.SRINIVAS., FOR SRI. B.L SANJEEV., ADVOCATES FOR R5)
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:17006
WP No. 39573 of 2016
C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018
WP No. 12371 of 2018
WP No. 12372 of 2018
WP No. 24970 of 2019
WP No. 27839 of 2019
WP No. 16690 of 2022
WP No. 16752 of 2022
WP No. 16757 of 2022
WP No. 16758 of 2022
WP No. 24269 of 2022
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-5 TO EXECUTE
THE SALE DEED AND HAND OVER THE POSSESSION OF THE SITE
NO.1175 IN GIRINAGAR OR MEASURING 40X60 IN GIRINAGARA, 4TH
STAGE IN TERMS OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-3 AT ANNEXURE -
B WITHIN A FIXED TIME FRAME AND ETC.,
IN W.P.No.24970/2019
BETWEEN:
VISHWABHARATHI HOUSE BUILDING CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY
LIMITED, NO 35, RATHNAVILASA ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BANGALORE - 560004
PRESENTLY REPRESENTED
BY ITS SECRETARY
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.S. SRINIVAS., FOR SRI. B.L. SANJEEV., ADVOCATES
AND:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE - 560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2. DR C S BELAGAVI
S/O S C BELAGAVI
NO 300, 14TH CROSS,
5TH MAIN, HIG COLONY
RMV EXTN STAGE II
BANGALORE - 560 094.
3. B JAYASHEKARA SWAMY
S/O LATE V BOGAPPA NO 7,
SRI VEERABHADRESHWARA NILAYA,
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:17006
WP No. 39573 of 2016
C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018
WP No. 12371 of 2018
WP No. 12372 of 2018
WP No. 24970 of 2019
WP No. 27839 of 2019
WP No. 16690 of 2022
WP No. 16752 of 2022
WP No. 16757 of 2022
WP No. 16758 of 2022
WP No. 24269 of 2022
KAVERI LAYOUT, 1ST MAIN,
NEAR COLUMBIA ENGLISH SCHOOL
NAGARABAHVI MAIN ROAD,
VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 040.
4. B SREENIVASA RAO
S/O LATE BHEEMASENA RAO
NO 1093, 16TH CROSS,
25TH MAIN, BSK II STAGE
NEAR DEVAGIRI RAGHAVENDRASWAMY MUTT
BANGALORE - 560 070.
5. M RUKMANGADA NAIDU
S/O BODEPPA NAIDU
NO 73, VIDYAPEETA MAIN ROAD,
BALAJI LAYOUT
5TH CROSS, BSK 3RD STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 085.
6. SRIDHARA MURTHY B N
S/O BAPU NARAYANA RAO
NO 47/11 3RD MAIN,
MOUNT JOY EXTENSION
HANUMANTHANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 019.
7. MOHAN KUMARI
W/O M P KRISHNA NO 648,
12TH CROSS, II PHASE,
GIRINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 085.
8. RAMESH BABU D R
S/O LATE RAMAIAH SHETTY NO 29/1
5TH CROSS, OPP CORPORATION PARK,
SRINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 050.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006
WP No. 39573 of 2016
C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018
WP No. 12371 of 2018
WP No. 12372 of 2018
WP No. 24970 of 2019
WP No. 27839 of 2019
WP No. 16690 of 2022
WP No. 16752 of 2022
WP No. 16757 of 2022
WP No. 16758 of 2022
WP No. 24269 of 2022
9. G S INDRANI
W/O G R SUBRAMANYAM
NO 49/18, SHIVAGIURI
3RD MAIN, 4TH CROSS,
MOUNT JOY EXTENSION
HANUMANTHANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 019.
10. M S RAMANUJAM
S/O LATE SHAMANNA
NO 1291, FLAT NO 303,
SRI HARI PARADISE
14TH CROSS, GIRINAGAR 2ND PHASE
OPP SUNDER MAHAL CHOULTRY
BANGALORE - 560 085.
11. LALITHA NAGARAJ
W/O LATE K R NAGARAJA
SY NO 4, BIKASIPURA,
VASANTHAPURA MAIN ROAD,
OPP NIVEDITHA SCHOOL
BANGALORE - 560 061.
12. PRABHAKAR M DESHPANDE
S/O LATE MANGESH RAO
NO 132/6-1, 2ND MAIN, 3RD, CROSS,
NAVODAYANAGAR ,J P NAGAR ,7TH PHASE
BANGALORE - 560 078.
13. C V NAGARATHNAMMA
D/O LATE A B HANUMANTHA SETTY
NO 154/21 1ST CROSS, 10TH MAIN
SRINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 050.
14. M L VENUGOPAL
S/O M K LAKSHMINARAYANA
NO 60, N S MANSION G-003
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006
WP No. 39573 of 2016
C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018
WP No. 12371 of 2018
WP No. 12372 of 2018
WP No. 24970 of 2019
WP No. 27839 of 2019
WP No. 16690 of 2022
WP No. 16752 of 2022
WP No. 16757 of 2022
WP No. 16758 of 2022
WP No. 24269 of 2022
19TH MAIN, MUNESHWARA BLOCK
BANGALORE - 560 026.
15. M SRIDHARA MURTHY
S/O LATE GURUNATH KAMALAKAR N0 217, 8TH MAIN,
5TH CROSS, 7TH BLOCK, 4TH PHASE,
BSK III STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 085.
16. B BADARI NATH
S/O LATE BHEEMASENACHAR
NO 34/1, PUTTANNA ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE - 560 004.
17. R SRINIVAS
S/O V RAJU
NO 104, 7TH MAIN ROAD,
AVALAHALLI BDA LAYOUT BSK III STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 085.
18. H S PALAKSHA
S/O LATE SIDDALINGEGOWDA
NO P - 1 BLOCK, A RAMANISARGA
29TH CROSS,
BALAJI LAYOUT
KAGGADASAPURA C V RAMAN NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 093.
19. A NARAYANA MURTHY
S/O LATE K ASHWATHA NARAYANA SETTY
NO 7 SRI RAJARAJESHWARI NILAYA,
2ND MAIN, RAMANJANEYANAGAR
CHIKKALASANDRA
BANGALORE - 560 061.
20. B R SATHYANARAYANASETTY
S/O B K RAMAIAH SETTY
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006
WP No. 39573 of 2016
C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018
WP No. 12371 of 2018
WP No. 12372 of 2018
WP No. 24970 of 2019
WP No. 27839 of 2019
WP No. 16690 of 2022
WP No. 16752 of 2022
WP No. 16757 of 2022
WP No. 16758 of 2022
WP No. 24269 of 2022
NO 12/1, 22ND CROSS,
BVK IYENGAR ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 053.
21. G S SHREEMA
D/O G R SUBRAMANYAM
NO 49/18, SHIVGIR 3RD MAIN,
4TH CROSS, MOUNT JOY EXTN
HANUMANTHANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 019.
22. B JAVARAIAH
S/O LATE BASAVAIAH
NO 622, 50 FT ROAD,
1ST MAIN, RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK,
SRINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 050.
23. D B UMAMAHESHWARA
S/O LATE BASAPPA
NO 155 HEMAGIRI NIVASA
OPP BALAJI NURSERY LALBHAGH
SIDDAPURA JAYANAGAR 1ST BLOCK
BANGALORE - 560 011.
24. TARA BEVINJE
D/O LATE B SRIDHARAKAKILLAYA
NO 45/4, 1ST FLOOR, 5TH MAIN,
7TH BLOCK, 4TH PHASE,
BSK 3RD STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 085.
25. C V SRINIVASA RAGHAVAN
S/O C S VENKATADESIKAR
NO 62 18TH MAIN BSK I STAGE
2ND BLOCK, SRINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 050.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006
WP No. 39573 of 2016
C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018
WP No. 12371 of 2018
WP No. 12372 of 2018
WP No. 24970 of 2019
WP No. 27839 of 2019
WP No. 16690 of 2022
WP No. 16752 of 2022
WP No. 16757 of 2022
WP No. 16758 of 2022
WP No. 24269 of 2022
26. K S SATHYANARAYAN
S/O LATE SHIVARAMAIAH
2 80 FT ROAD, J P RAOD,
3RD PHASE, GIRINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 085.
27. DR BALAKRISHNA
S/O KOVI HONNE GOWDA
NO 94, II MAIN ROAD,
BHCS CHIKKALASANDRA
BANGALORE - 560 061.
28. RATHNA SRIRAM
W/O SRIRAM
227 RATHNASREE,
17TH C CROSS,
4TH STAGE, 3RD BLOCK,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR
BANGALORE- 79.
29. SRI S NAGESH & S MAHESH
S/O LATE A SUBRAMANI
NO 8, REDDY BUCHANNA LANE,
AKKIPET
BENGALURU - 560 053.
30. G S SUBRAMANYAM
S/O LATE G SURYANARAYANA RAO
NO 31, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
VITTALA NAGARA
K S LAYOUT WEST
BANGALORE - 560 078.
31. SRI K GOVINDARAJA SETTY
S/O RKANTHA SETTY
NO 154/21 UPSTAIRS
10TH MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
SRINAGAR
BANGALROE - 560 050.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006
WP No. 39573 of 2016
C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018
WP No. 12371 of 2018
WP No. 12372 of 2018
WP No. 24970 of 2019
WP No. 27839 of 2019
WP No. 16690 of 2022
WP No. 16752 of 2022
WP No. 16757 of 2022
WP No. 16758 of 2022
WP No. 24269 of 2022
32. SMT J A SULOCHANA
W/O J V AMARNATH
NO 113, SURVEYOR STREET
BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE - 560 004.
33. SRI H VENKATASWAMY
S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA NO 3557,
4TH MAIN, BSK III STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 085.
34. SRI L MADHURANTH
S/O L KRISHNAMURTHY RAO
NO 31, 1ST CROSS ROAD,
SAMPOORNA NEST
FLAT SF- 1, GAVIPURAM
BANGALORE - 560 019.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.S.KANNUR., SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR
SRI. K. KRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R-1
SRI. S. NAGARAJA., ADVOCATE FOR R-13, R-20, R-22 & R-30
SRI. S. RUPESH KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R-2, R-14 & R-27
AND APPLICANTS IN I.A.1/2020 & I.A.2/2020
SRI. ARUN K.S., ADVOCATE FOR R-4, R-6 & R-16
SRI. RAJAGOPALA NAIDU AND
SRI. PRASHANTH RAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R-24
SRI. H.T. BASAVARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R-1
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE
CASE AND DIRECT THE R-1 TO PUT THE R-2 TO 34 IN POSSESION OF
THEIR RESPECTIVE SITES; THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE GIVEN IN THE
SCHEDULE HEREUNDER; BY EVICTING THE ENCROACHERS FROM THE
SCHEDULE SITES.
IN W.P.No.27839/2019
BETWEEN:
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006
WP No. 39573 of 2016
C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018
WP No. 12371 of 2018
WP No. 12372 of 2018
WP No. 24970 of 2019
WP No. 27839 of 2019
WP No. 16690 of 2022
WP No. 16752 of 2022
WP No. 16757 of 2022
WP No. 16758 of 2022
WP No. 24269 of 2022
VISHWABHARATHI HOUSE BUILDING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
NO.35, RATNA VILAS ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY;
SMT. SARASWATHI KESARKAR
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.S.SRINIVAS FOR
SRI. B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SRI K.L.NAGARAJU,
S/O LATE K.S.NARASIMHAIAH,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS-
a) SMT. LAKSHMI NAGARAJ,
W/O LATE K.L.NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS;
b) SRI HARSHA VARDHANA K.N,
S/O LATE K.L.NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS;
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
NO.225, 21ST MAIN ROAD,
1ST BLOCK, BSK 1ST STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 050;
2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
NO.2, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
NO.146, 3RD MAIN ROAD,
8TH CROSS, MARGOSA ROAD,
MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU - 560 003.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.V.BHAT FOR R-1 (A & B)
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006
WP No. 39573 of 2016
C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018
WP No. 12371 of 2018
WP No. 12372 of 2018
WP No. 24970 of 2019
WP No. 27839 of 2019
WP No. 16690 of 2022
WP No. 16752 of 2022
WP No. 16757 of 2022
WP No. 16758 of 2022
WP No. 24269 of 2022
SRI SANTHOSH GOGI, AAG A/W
SRI MAHANTESH GOGI, AGA FOR R-2)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS; QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 29.12.2009 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NO.2, BANGALORE URGAN DISTRICT IN
DISPUTE VIDE ANNEXURE - B; AND ETC.,
IN W.P.No.16690/2022
BETWEEN:
SRI.K. SHANMUKHA REDDY
S/O SRI. K. NEELAKANTA REDDY &
SMT. K. SREEDEVI
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT NO.22, 16TH CROSS
MTS LAYOUT, KENGERI UPANAGARA
BENGALURU - 560 060.
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER, SMT. K. SREEDEVI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAKASH T. HEBBAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE
M.S.BUILDING
DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006
WP No. 39573 of 2016
C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018
WP No. 12371 of 2018
WP No. 12372 of 2018
WP No. 24970 of 2019
WP No. 27839 of 2019
WP No. 16690 of 2022
WP No. 16752 of 2022
WP No. 16757 of 2022
WP No. 16758 of 2022
WP No. 24269 of 2022
2. THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU - 560 020.
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
ALI ASKER ROAD, NEAR RAJ BHAVAN
KARNATAKA, VASANTH NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 052.
4. M/S. VISHWABHARATHI HOUSE
BUILDING CO-OPEARATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES ACT, 1959
NO.35, RATHNA VILLAS ROAD
BASAVANADUGI, BENGALURU - 560 004.
REP BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR.
5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR-I OF
CO-OPEARTIVE SOCIETIES
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
NO. 146, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 8TH CROSS
MARGOSA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 003.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH GOGI., AAG A/W
SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR., AGA FOR R-1, R-3, R-5
SRI. G.S.KANNUR., SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR
SRI. K. KRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R-2
SRI. B.S. SRINIVAS., FOR
SRI. B.L. SANJEEV., ADVOCATES FOR R-4)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM
THE FILE OF THE R-2 BDA RELATING TO THE BULK ALLOTMENT MADE
IN FAVOUR OF THE R-4 SOCIETY IN RESPECT OF VISHWABHARATHI
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006
WP No. 39573 of 2016
C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018
WP No. 12371 of 2018
WP No. 12372 of 2018
WP No. 24970 of 2019
WP No. 27839 of 2019
WP No. 16690 of 2022
WP No. 16752 of 2022
WP No. 16757 of 2022
WP No. 16758 of 2022
WP No. 24269 of 2022
HOUSING COMPLEX LAYOUT AT HOSAKEREHALLI VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK AND FURTHER BE
PLEASED AND ETC.
IN W.P.No.16752/2022
BETWEEN:
SRI.K. NEELAKANTA REDDY
S/O SRI. K. BOASI REDDY
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT NO.22, 16TH CROSS
MTS LAYOUT, KENGERI UPANAGARA
BENGALURU - 560 060.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAKASH T. HEBBAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE
M.S.BUILDING
DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU - 560 020.
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
ALI ASKER ROAD, NEAR RAJ BHAVAN
KARNATAKA, VASANTH NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 052.
4. M/S. VISHWABHARATHI HOUSE
BUILDING CO-OPEARATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006
WP No. 39573 of 2016
C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018
WP No. 12371 of 2018
WP No. 12372 of 2018
WP No. 24970 of 2019
WP No. 27839 of 2019
WP No. 16690 of 2022
WP No. 16752 of 2022
WP No. 16757 of 2022
WP No. 16758 of 2022
WP No. 24269 of 2022
A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES ACT, 1959
NO.35, RATHNA VILLAS ROAD
BASAVANADUGI, BENGALURU - 560 004.
REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH GOGI., AAG A/W
SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR., AGA FOR R-1 & R-3,
SRI. G.S.KANNUR., SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR
SRI. K. KRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R-2
SRI. B.S. SRINIVAS., FOR
SRI. B.L. SANJEEV., ADVOCATES FOR R-4)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM
THE FILE OF THE R-2 BDA RELATING TO THE BULK ALLOTMENT MADE
IN FAVOUR OF THE R-4 SOCIETY IN RESPECT OF VISHWABHARATHI
HOUSING COMPLEX LAYOUT AT HOSAKEREHALLI VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK AND ETC.
IN W.P.No.16757/2022
BETWEEN:
SRI.K. NEELAKANTA REDDY
S/O SRI. K. BOOSA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT NO.22, 16TH CROSS
MTS LAYOUT, KENGERI UPANAGARA
BENGALURU - 560 060.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAKASH T. HEBBAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006
WP No. 39573 of 2016
C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018
WP No. 12371 of 2018
WP No. 12372 of 2018
WP No. 24970 of 2019
WP No. 27839 of 2019
WP No. 16690 of 2022
WP No. 16752 of 2022
WP No. 16757 of 2022
WP No. 16758 of 2022
WP No. 24269 of 2022
M.S.BUILDING
DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU - 560 020.
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
ALI ASKER ROAD, NEAR RAJ BHAVAN
KARNATAKA, VASANTH NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 052.
4. M/S. VISHWABHARATHI HOUSE
BUILDING CO-OPEARATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES ACT, 1959
NO.35, RATHNA VILLAS ROAD
BASAVANADUGI, BENGALURU - 560 004.
REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR.
5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR-I OF CO -
OPERATIVE SOCIEITIES
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
NO. 146, 3RD MAIN, ROAD, 8TH CROSS
MARGOSA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 003.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH GOGI., AAG A/W
SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR., AGA FOR R-1, R-3 & R-5
SRI. G.S.KANNUR., SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR
SRI. K. KRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R-2
SRI. B.S. SRINIVAS., FOR
SRI. B.L. SANJEEV., ADVOCATES FOR R-4)
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006
WP No. 39573 of 2016
C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018
WP No. 12371 of 2018
WP No. 12372 of 2018
WP No. 24970 of 2019
WP No. 27839 of 2019
WP No. 16690 of 2022
WP No. 16752 of 2022
WP No. 16757 of 2022
WP No. 16758 of 2022
WP No. 24269 of 2022
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM
THE FILE OF THE R-2 BDA RELATING TO THE BULK ALLOTMENT MADE
IN FAVOUR OF THE R-4 SOCIETY IN RESPECT OF VISHWABHARATHI
HOUSING COMPLEX LAYOUT AT HOSAKEREHALLI VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK AND ETC.
IN W.P.No.16758/2022
BETWEEN:
SMT. K.SREEDEVI,
W/O SRI K.NEELAKANTA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT NO.22, 16TH CROSS,
MTS LAYOUT, KENGERI UPANAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 060.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAKASH T.HEBBAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION
M.S.BUILDING,
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU - 560 020,
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIV SOCIETIES,
ALI ASKER ROAD, NEAR RAJ BHAVAN,
KARNATAKA, VASANTH NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 052.
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006
WP No. 39573 of 2016
C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018
WP No. 12371 of 2018
WP No. 12372 of 2018
WP No. 24970 of 2019
WP No. 27839 of 2019
WP No. 16690 of 2022
WP No. 16752 of 2022
WP No. 16757 of 2022
WP No. 16758 of 2022
WP No. 24269 of 2022
4. M/S. VISHWABHARATHI HOUSE BUILDING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF KARNATAKA
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959.
NO.35, RATHNA VILLAS ROAD,
BASAVANGUDI, BENGALURU - 560 004.
REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR.
5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR-I OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
NO.146, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 8TH CROSS,
MARGOSA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 003.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANTHOSH S.GOGI, AAG A/W
SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1, R3 & R5)
SRI. G.S.KANNUR, SR.COUNSEL APPEARING FOR
SRI. K.KRISHNA, ADVOCATES FOR R2,
SRI. B.S.SRINIVAS FOR SRI. B.L.SAJEEV, ADVOCATES FOR R4)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS
FROM THE FILE OF THE R2 BDA RELATING TO THE BULK ALLOTMENT
MADE IN FAVOUR OF THE R4 SOCIETY IN RESPECT OF
VISHWABHARATHI HOUSING COMPLEX LAYOUT AT HOSAKEREHALLI
VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK AND ETC.,
IN W.P. No.24269/2022
BETWEEN:
SMT. USHA.K
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
W/O LATE V.G. PRAKASH
RESIDENT OF 295/296
6TH 'A' CROSS, SRINIVASANAGAR
BSK I STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 050.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VASANTH MADHAVA.S., ADVOCATE)
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006
WP No. 39573 of 2016
C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018
WP No. 12371 of 2018
WP No. 12372 of 2018
WP No. 24970 of 2019
WP No. 27839 of 2019
WP No. 16690 of 2022
WP No. 16752 of 2022
WP No. 16757 of 2022
WP No. 16758 of 2022
WP No. 24269 of 2022
AND:
1. THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU - 560 020
BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NORTH DIVISION
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU - 560 011.
3. VISHWABHARATHI HOUSE BUILDING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., (VHBCS)
NO.35, RATHNA VILAS ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU - 560 004.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
SRI. VADIRAJ.
4. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S.BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.S. KANNUR., SENIOR COUNSEL APEPARING FOR
SRI. K. KRISHNA ., ADVOCATE FOR R-1
SRI. SANTOSH GOGI., AAG A/W
SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR., AGA FOR R-2 & R-4
SRI. B.S. SRINIVAS., FOR
SRI. B.L. SANJEEV., ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS TO R1 TO
REMOVE THE ILLEGAL ENCROACHMENT AND CONSTRUCTION THAT IS
PUT UP IN SITE BEARING NO.3119 AND 3120 MEASURING 3000 SQUARE
FEET IN THE LAYOUT FORMED BY THE R3 VISHWABHARATHI HOUSE
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006
WP No. 39573 of 2016
C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018
WP No. 12371 of 2018
WP No. 12372 of 2018
WP No. 24970 of 2019
WP No. 27839 of 2019
WP No. 16690 of 2022
WP No. 16752 of 2022
WP No. 16757 of 2022
WP No. 16758 of 2022
WP No. 24269 of 2022
BUILDING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED WHICH IS APPROVED BY
THE R1 BENGLAURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN GEREHALLI AND
HOSKEREHALLI, UTTARHALLI HOBLI, GIRINAGAR, BENGALURU SOUTH
TALUK AS PER THE BDA APPROVED LAYOUT PLAN VIDE ITS ORDER
NO.BEM/APRA/NAYSA/PRL-22/12-13/3260/2012-13 DTD 14.09.2012,AT
ANNEXURE-E ALTERNATIVELY IN THE EVENT OF R1 NOT BEEN ABLE TO
REMOVE THE ENCROACHMENTS IN SITE NO.3119 AND 3120 NOW
ALLOTTED TO THE PETITIONER, DIRECT R1 TO 3 IDENTIFY AN
ALTERNATIVE VACANT SITE AND TRANSFER AND HAND OVER THE
VACANT POSSESSION OF THE SAME TO THE PETITIONER, ALLOW THIS
WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS
THESE PETITIONS ARE BEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON
07.12.2023 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Since common questions of law and fact arise for consideration in all these petitions, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed of by this common order.
2. The subject matter of the present petitions is sites / plots situated in a layout formed by the 'Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society Limited,' (for short 'the VHBCS'), in lands comprised of in Sy.Nos.16, 17, 18 and 19 of Gerehalli village and Sy.Nos.101, 103/1, 103/2, 104/1, 104/2, 105 and 106 of Hosakerehalli village, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore. Amongst
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 the petitions, W.P.No.24970/2019 is preferred by the said VHBCS against the BDA - Respondent No. 1 as well as the allottees-
respondents. W.P.No.27839/2019 is also preferred by the VHBCS against the respondents - allottees in relation to orders passed by the DRCS and KAT regarding the subject sites.
3. Some of the allottees / members of VHBCS have preferred the remaining writ petitions viz., W.P.No.39573/2016 (party in-person), W.P.No.3430/2018, W.P.No.12371/2018, W.P.No.12372/2018, W.P.No.16690/2022, W.P.No.16752/2022, W.P.No.16757/2022, W.P.No.16758/2022 and W.P.No.24269/2022 against the State, BDA and VHBCS, primarily ventilating grievances regarding deprivation of their right over the sites / plots allotted to them by the VHBCS and inaction on the part of the respondents to comply with the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mudalappa & others vs. State of Karnataka & others - 2010 SCC OnLine KAR 5408.
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022
4. The respondents have contested all the petitions. In some of the petitions filed by the site owners / allottees, certain other allottees / site owners have also filed impleadment applications putting forth the same contentions as urged by the other site owners / allottees in the following writ petitions;
(i) W.P.No.39573/2016 (I.A.1/2023)
(ii) W.P.No.3430/2018 (I.A.1/2019)
(iii) W.P.No.24970/2019 (I.A.1/2020 & I.A.2/2020)
5. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the common grievance of all the site owners / allottees including the impleading applicants is that despite their respective sites having been allotted more than 30 years back by the VHBCS who had also executed registered sale deeds in their favour, the respondents / State / BDA / VHBCS, all of whom were involved and responsible for formation and development of the layout, had not taken necessary steps to ensure that the petitioners and
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 impleading applicants would be entitled to own, possess and enjoy their respective sites even till today.
6. It is also contended that in the earlier round of litigation in Mudalappa's case supra, this Court issued several directions against the respondents - State, BDA and VHBCS, despite which the said respondents had not taken appropriate steps to safeguard and protect the proprietary and possessory rights of the petitioners and impleading applicants, who were the site owners / allottees and as such, they are before this Court by way of the present petitions and applications, interalia contending that they have been deprived of their respective sites, thereby violating the constitutional right to property guaranteed in their favour under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
7. As stated supra, while the aforesaid petitions have been filed by the allottees / site owners, W.P.No.24970/2019 is filed by VHBCS against the 1st respondent - BDA and the private
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 respondents - 2 to 34 for a direction against the BDA to put the allottees / site owners in possession of their respective sites by removing the encroachers. So also, W.P.No.27839/2019 is also filed by the VHBCS assailing the orders passed by the DRCS and KAT, Bangalore, which had issued directions in favour of the allottees / site owners against the VHBCS.
8. Heard Sri.H.Srinivas, petitioner, party in-person in W.P.No.39573/2016 as well as learned counsel for the other petitioners / site owners and learned counsel for the impleading applicants / site owners. I have also heard Sri.G.S.Kannur, learned Senior counsel along with Sri.B.Achappa, learned counsel for the BDA, Sri.B.L.Sanjeev and Sri.B.S.Srinivas, learned counsel for VHBCS and Sri.Santosh Gogi, learned AAG along with Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned AGA for the respondent - State and perused the material on record.
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022
9. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petitions and referring to the material on record, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that despite having paid the entire sital value and all necessary documents having been executed in favour of the petitioners / allottees / site owners by the VHBCS coupled with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Mudalappa's case supra, the petitioners have not been able to possess and enjoy their respective sites resulting in the deprivation of their right to property guaranteed under Article 300A and consequently, the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs sought for in the petitions.
10. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the BDA, learned AAG for the respondents - State and learned counsel for VHBCS would reiterate the various contentions urged in the statement of objections and contend that sufficient efforts had been made by them to comply with the directions issued by this Court in Mudalappa's case supra and there have been several
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 proceedings including contempt proceedings and as such, there is no merit in the claims of the site owners / allottees and the same are liable to be dismissed. In addition thereto, learned counsel for the VHBCS would contend that the aforesaid two petitions filed by them deserve to be allowed.
11. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is necessary to state that in relation to the subject layout, in the earlier round of litigation in Mudalappa's case supra, this Court heard the State, the BDA, the VHBCS as well as the site owners / allottees and disposed of the said petition by issuing a slew of directions to the BDA and VHBCS to take necessary steps / action and do all appropriate acts, deeds and things to ensure that the respective site owners are able to own, possess and enjoy the sites purchased and allotted to them. After considering the rival submissions, this Court held as under:-
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022
21. In the light of the aforesaid facts and rival contentions, the points that arise for our consideration in these batch of writ petitions are as under:
i) Whether a direction is to be issued to the Bangalore Development Authority to obey the government order and make allotment of sites on receipt of the consideration payable for such allotment?
ii) How the interest of genuine members, who had made applications for allotment of sites earlier, are to be protected in the matter of allotment?
iii) How the persons who have unauthorisedly occupied any portion of land, are to be dealt with?
iv) What is the right of claimants for occupancy right to challenge bulk allotment in favour of the Society?
POINT NO. 1: BULK ALLOTMENT
22. The subject matter of these proceedings is land bearing Sy. Nos. 16, 17, 18 and 19 of Gerahalli Village and Sy. Nos. 101, 103/1, 103/2 and 104/1, 104/2, 105 and 106 of Hosakerehalli Village, both situated in Bangalore North Taluk, in all measuring 80 acres 13 gumas. The petitioner society which came into existence in 1973 entered into
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 agreements with the owners of the aforesaid lands for purchase of the same for the purpose of forming a residential layout. The society after entering into such agreements took possession of the lands from the owners and formed a layout and in fact also allotted the sites to its members who have put up constructions thereon. However, they could not complete the sale transactions because of the amendment to the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act as Section 79B of the said Act prohibited a cooperative society purchasing and holding agricultural lands. Taking note of this difficulty, the Government of Karnataka subsequently has passed an order setting out the modalities for making available the lands to the cooperative societies for the purpose of forming layouts by way of acquisition. In the meanwhile, the aforesaid lands were notified for acquisition for the purpose of formation of Banashankari III Stage Layout by the Bangalore Development Authority. The preliminary notification came to be issued on 9.5.1968 and the final notification came to be issued on 28.10.1971. Thereafter, awards were passed and the lands were handed over to the Engineering Section of the Bangalore Development Authority on 17.6.1977, 9.1.1978 and 7.10.1995. A notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act also came to be issued.
- 33 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022
23. The society challenged the said acquisition proceedings before this Court W.P. No. 11973/1983 which came to be allowed quashing the acquisition proceedings. The BDA preferred an appeal to the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 13681/1991 which came to be allowed setting aside the order of the learned single Judge and upholding the acquisition. Review Petition filed to review the said order by the society also came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the society preferred Special Leave Petition No. 27838/1995 before the Supreme Court which came to be dismissed. Thus challenge to acquisition of land by the Society has attained finality.
24. The Bangalore Development Authority Act was amended providing for bulk allotment of land to the societies for the purpose of formation of layout. The society made a request for bulk allotment of their land. The Bangalore Development Authority passed a resolution on 21.7.1999 recommending for bulk allotment which reads as under:--
"The actual allottees of the Society to whom the available sites were earlier allotted by forming layout by considering this as a special circumstance, liberalising the Rules, by fixing the rate after considering the actual development expenses, charges for formation of layout and the land acquisition cost, allot the sites with a condition
- 34 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 to fulfil the rules of B.D.A., (allotment of sites) Rules and the eligibility.
Or The Government to consider the proposed for allotment of acquired land to the Society by way of bulk allotment by considering this as a special cose and by fixing the proper rate and by imposing certain conditions as per rule."
25. The said resolution was submitted to the Government by the BDA on 25.10.1999. Thereafter, the Government issued a show cause notice to the BDA, under Section 55(2) of the BDA Act on 15.11.2000 calling upon them to show cause why the said resolution should not be cancelled in view of the fact that the lands have already been acquired by the BDA. Subsequently, BDA by resolution dated 18.11.2000 withdrew the resolution dated 21.7.1999. Being aggrieved by the withdrawal of the resolution dated 21.7.1999, the society preferred W.P. No. 328/2001. The members of the society who had been allotted sites, who had put up constructions preferred W.P. Nos. 32295-32299/1999 and W.P. Nos. 35720-35729/2001 for regularization of their allotments. The learned single Judge heard these Writ Petitions together and passed a common order dated 21.6.2002. It was held that the resolution passed on 21.7.1999 could not be recalled by
- 35 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 the resolution dated 18.11.2000 merely on the ground that a show cause notice had been issued by the Government as to why the resolution should not be cancelled and the BDA instead of showing cause to the notice was not justified in cancelling the earlier resolution of bulk allotment of the said lands in favour of the society and, therefore, the resolution dated 18.11.2000 was set aside. Further, the learned single Judge held that it is open to the Government to consider all the materials and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. This order was challenged both by the BDA as well as the society by preferring W.A. Nos. 3931-40/2002 and connected matters. The Division Bench by its order dated 24.9.2004 held the recommendations/suggestions made by the BDA as per its resolution dated 21.7.1999 can be considered by the Government along with the order in W.P. No. 3363/1990 and disposed of the said Writ Appeals.
26. Chowdamma & 19 others preferred W.P. Nos. 29376-29395/2003 seeking a declaration that all the proceedings in respect of the land in question have lapsed in view of Section 19 of City of Bangalore Improvement Act and also Section 27 of the BDA Act. The learned Single Judge of this Court, by his order dated 28-8-2003 dismissed the said writ petitions. Aggrieved by the same,
- 36 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 they preferred W.A. No. 1557/2004. The said writ appeal came to be dismissed with the following observations:
"5. It is clear from the perusal of the material on record that though the acquisition proceedings pertain to the year 1971, the writ petitions are filed during 2003 much after the expiry of the requisite period during which the respondent was required to implement the scheme and in view of the fact that acquisition proceedings were challenged in W.P. Nos. 17572-577/95 and the said writ petitions were dismissed and the same was confirmed by the Division Bench of this court in W.A. No. 2221/97 and the said order was also confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme court and the present petitions are filed only for declaration that the scheme has lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act. The learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petitions and we do not find any error or illegality in order passed by the learned Single Judge as to call for interference in this appeal.
Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the writ appeal I.A. 1/2007 to initiate contempt proceedings on the ground of abuse of process of this court and I.A. 1/2008 for extension of interim order does not survive for consideration and they are disposed of, accordingly".
27. Thereafter, the Government addressed a letter dated 19.4.2007 and sought an opinion of the BDA. The BDA in turn gave its opinion as under:
"As Section 38-B(iv) of the BDA Act provides for bulk allotment of sites to Societies also and the
- 37 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 resolution dated 21.7.1999 of the Authority is in accordance with the said provision and there is also direction from the Hon'ble High Court to the Government to consider the said resolution in accordance with law, I am of opinion that the Government is fully empowered to approve the said resolution dated 21.7.1999 passed by the Authority making bulk allotment of lands in favour of the said society, which was done as per the direction of the Government.
Now, the Government has to only direct the Authority to implement the resolution dated 21.7.99 by making bulk allotment of the lands in question to the society."
28. The Government also took note of the fact that for bulk allotment, the lands must be vacant. Though the lands in question are in possession of the Authority, since unauthorised construction have come up at 70% in the said lands, it is not possible to make bulk allotment of lands under the above said Rules, besides it is not possible under law to regularise the unauthorised construction in the land in question. In this background, taking into consideration the acquisition proceedings initiated for acquiring the land, the resolution passed by the BDA on 21.7.1999 to consider the case for bulk allotment and also the fact that the Society had formed a private layout and allotted the sites to its members, who in turn, have put up construction and are living there for considerable time,
- 38 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 considering it as problem affecting the general public, the Government treated it as special case and passed an order on 4.10.2007 issuing the following directions:
1) The BDA shall impose necessary condition on the Society with regard to the sites for which allotment already made/allotment yet to be made in respect of remaining sites keeping in mind the genuineness and the seniority of the members and to impose such condition in the matter of allotment so as to achieve the aforesaid object
2) The BDA shall take into consideration the cost for land acquisition, actual cost for development of the layout and for such amount and then allot the land.
3) Issue direction to Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike to collect requisite development charges and thereafter make out katha and sanction plans.
4) To impose such condition to the Authority for proper administration in respect of the land in question.
29. In fact prior to the passing of the aforesaid order, number of persons, who have been allotted sites bv the
- 39 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 Society and have put up construction on such sites, were before this Court complaining of injustice done to them by the BDA as well as the Society. After the passing of the order dated 4-10-2007, the same was produced before this Court in W.P. No. 12236/2006 and other connected matters. On hearing all the parties to the said proceedings, this Court on 11.10.2007 passed the following order:
"The Government has passed an order directing the Bangalore Development Authority to make bulk allotment in favour of the society, Vishwabarathi House Building Cooperative Society Limited, Bangalore, on 4.10.2007 subject to the conditions mentioned therein. As is clear from the order, the said decision is taken by the Government not looking into the society but looking into the petitioners who are before this Court who have been allotted sites by the society where the petitioners have put up constructions and are living with their family members. Therefore, it is treated as a special case. The petitioners apprehend in spite of the said direction from the Government, the BDA may not give effect to the order of the Government. Therefore, they request the Court to fix a time limit within which the Government order is implemented.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for all the parties in these proceedings, I find that if the Government order is implemented by the BDA there is no necessity to consider the case on merits as the writ petitions would become infructuous. Therefore, the BDA is directed to implement the Government Order dated 4.10.2007
- 40 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 within three months from today and report to this Court."
30. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid order is not challenged by any of the parties and It has attained finality. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition and even before passing of the government order, one of the members of the Society had moved this Court by way of public interest litigation praying for certain reliefs in W.P No. 13228/2007. The Division Bench refused to grant prayer (c) and (d) and directed the Society to remove the debris, filth, garbage and other waste materials immediately and at any rate within a period two weeks from the date of the order. It is not in dispute that the said order has attained finality and no one has challenged the said order.
31. When there was an attempt on the part of the BDA to prevent constructions in the said layout and to demolish the constructions, which are already put up, a series of writ petitions came to be filed as referred to supra. An interim order of stay of demolition, was granted by this Court. By virtue of the said interim order, the BDA was prevented from demolishing or preventing construction. In those circumstances, the BDA issued a notification dated 11.7.2008 calling upon the persons, who have been
- 41 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 allotted sites in Phase-4 by the Society to produce before the BDA all the documents pertaining to their sites and also if sanction plan is obtained from the concerned Authority, the same may be produced. It was made clear that in the event of non-compliance of the said request, an action would be taken for demolition of the construction though the persons have been in possession of sites.
32. One more public notice was issued by the BDA on 13.5.2008 vide Annexure-B produced in W.P. No. 6945/2008, wherein the BDA mentioned that in order to effectively implement the Government order, it called upon the members of the Society to comply with the following requirements:
"i) such of those members of the Vishwabharathi H.B.C.S. who have already been allotted sites by the soeiety to produce before the B.D.A. the evidence of such fact of allotment;
ii) such of the genuine members eligible for allotment based on their seniority may also make claims for allotment of sites in their favour by the Society;
iii) the allottees and also the prospective allottees of sites from the Society have to credit to the B.D.A. the cost of acquisition, the development charges, supervisory expenses pro rata as to he prescribed and decided by the B.D.A;
iv) the B.D.A shall request the B.B.M.P. to issue building licenses to the allottees after recovery of the
- 42 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 development charges before making the Khata and giving approval to the sanctioned plan:
v) The BDA hereby also notifies its right to effect reservation of the sites to the Central Government, the State Government or to a Corporation owned or controlled by tke Central or State Governments:
vi) The BDA hereby notifies the general public that any attempt to either secure direct allotment of the sites from the society now, or to put up any constructions without following the above procedure will be treated as unauthorised controcitions. Further the general public are hereby informed that in the absence of the fulfillment of the above condition the layout formed by the Vishwabharathi H.B.C.S will be deemed to be an unauthorised layout. Any other Notification issued by the Vishwabharathi H.B.C.S. contrary to the terms of this Notification will be illegal.
vii) Appropriate orders would be passed after the B.D.A. is fully satisfied of the above facts. This Notification is therefore issued in the interest of the public towards implementation of the Government order calling upon the concealed individuals to produce appropriate evidence in this behalf as per directions of the Hon'ble Court.
viii) Hence, this layout of Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society Limited is an unauthorised layout. Until the bulk allotment order is passed by BDA implementing the conditions of the Government Order.
Public are hereby informed to refrain from buying sites from, this layout. The advertisement published by the Society is purely misleading.
ix) It is hereby informed that people who construct houses in this layout or buy sites without proper sanction from the Authority will be responsible for all the rights and consequences thereof."
- 43 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022
33. The BDA in its meeting held on 18.12.2007 after taking note of the aforesaid development resolved as under:
a) to request the Cooperative Department of the government to enquire into the genuineness of the members of the Society:
b) The Society shall submit a layout plan showing civic amenities site etc., within 15 days for approval:
c) They shall obtain no objection certificate from the Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company and Bengaluru Water Supply Sewerage Board:
d) Charges for supervisory and betterment to be made to the Bengaluru Bruhat Mahanagara Palike:
34. In pursuance to the same, the BDA addressed a letter to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to look into the genuine members of the Society and to prepare a list of such members. In the meeting held on 18.12.2007, they also resolved to collect the requisite charges from the Society for the bulk allotment to be made.
35. The members of the society approached the society for allotment of sites in terms of the Government order referred to supra. When the request was not considered, they filed W.P. Nos. 3523/2008 and other connected matters seeking a direction to the respondents therein to consider allotment of sites to them by strictly
- 44 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 following the order passed by the Government and further direction to the second respondent therein to make sure about seniority in the list of members of the society before releasing sites in favour of the society. After hearing all the parties and referring to the aforesaid proceedings, the said writ petitions came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge holding that the dispute raised in the writ petitions is essentially a dispute between the society and its members regarding allotment of sites. Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 provides for effective alternative remedy before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as he can enquire into the dispute namely whether the allotment has been made according to seniority of membership as per the Government order dated 4-10-2007 and therefore, they could not directly approach this Court under jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, he dismissed the said writ petitions both on the ground of alternative remedy being available and also on the ground of delay. Aggrieved by the same, Writ Appeals Nos. 1454/2008 and connected cases were filed. In the writ appeals, after hearing all the parties, the Division Bench of this Court passed the following order:
"12. We have given careful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinised the material on record.
- 45 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022
13. The material on record would clearly show that the appellants do not dispute that bulk allotment of land has been made in favour of the Society for allotment to the members by order dated 04.10.2007 and it is only on the basis of the said allotment petitioners are seeking for allotment and possession of the site. The dispute is among the appellants-writ petitioners and the Society about the allotment and handing over possession of the sites according to seniority of membership and genuinity of the membership as per the Government order dated 4.10.2007 by the Society. Perusal of the order dated 4.10.2007 would also show that BDA has directed the society that it is for the Society to make allotment according to seniority of Membership and after making enquiry about the genuineness of the application, the BDA after allotment of bulk sites in favour of the Society would have no role to play or give directions about the genuineness of the application or seniority of membership and therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the dispute does not fall within the ambit of the Act as the dispute that arises for determination in the present cases is between the members and the Society regarding allotment of site and Society and there is effective alternative remedy under the Act wherein the Registrar of Co-operative Societies can conduct enquiry into the matter and pass appropriate orders and this court cannot go into the disputed, question of fact in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this court. Having regard to the above said material on record, this court has already confirmed the common order passed by the learned Single Judge of this court dated 4.08.2008 impugned in these appeals in W.A. Nos. 1432-1433/2009 on 24.04.2009.
14. Having regard to the above said material on record, it is clear that the finding of the learned Single Judge that there is an effective alternative available to the
- 46 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 appellants under the Act and writ petitioners-appellants herein can work out their remedy by resorting to the said alternative remedy is justified as the remedy that is sought for by the petitioners-appellants herein involves investigation into the disputed question of fact which can be properly gone into by the Authority under the Act However, there is force in the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in W.A. No. 1452/2008 that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies shall be directed to consider the dispute independently without being influenced by any directions that have been issued by this court in W.P. No. 12236/2006 and connected matters or any other writ petition and the Registrar of Co- operative Societies shall consider the dispute independently to implement the Government order dated 4.10.2007 regarding allotment of site to the members according to seniority of registration of membership and genuiness of the applicant and therefore, we make it clear that the Registrar of Co-operative societies who shall decide the dispute about the allotment of site by the Society in accordance with the condition laid down in the Government order dated 4.10.2007 that allotment shall be made according to seniority and genuinity of the application by the members shall decide the dispute independently without being influenced by any directions that have been issued by the learned Single Judge of this court in W.P No. 12236/2006 and connected matters or any other writ petition and the directions issued in the said writ petitions dated 11.10.2007 is eschewed and Registrar of Co- operative Societies shall decide the matter independently without being influenced by any observations made by the learned Single Judge of this court in the said writ petitions (W.P. No. 12236/2006 & connected maters) and accordingly, we pass the following order:
The writ appeals are dismissed with liberty to the appellants to work out their remedy before the Registrar of
- 47 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 Co-operative Societies wider the Act and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies was directed to dispose of the dispute independently without being influenced by the directions that have been issued by the learned Single Judge of this court in W.P. No. 12236/2006 and connected matters dated 11.10.2007 or any other writ petition regarding allotment of site to the members of the Society in accordance with the conditions imposed in the Government order dated 4.10.2007 and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies shall decide the dispute independently on merits, in accordance with law and dispose of the proceeding expeditiously.
36. What the Division Bench has clarified in the aforesaid order is that in terms of the Government order, allotment of sites has to be made strictly in accordance with the seniority of members of the society. If dispute arises regarding seniority, it is the Registrar of Co-operative Societies who shall decide the dispute about allotment of site to the society in accordance with the condition laid down in the Government order dated 4-10-2007, that is, allotment shall made according to seniority and genuineness of the members. He shall decide the dispute independently without being influenced by any directions that have been issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 12236/2006 and connected matters or in any other writ petition and directions issued in the said writ petitions dated 11-10-2007 was eschewed. The said
- 48 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 observation became necessary because the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition No. 12236/2006 and connected matters, observed as under:
"As is clear from the said order, decision is taken by the Government not looking into the society, but looking into the petitioners who are before this Court and who have been allotted sites by the society and where petitioners have put up constructions and are living with their family members. Therefore, it is treated as the special case. The petitioners apprehend in support of the said direction from the Government, BDA may not give effect to the order of the Government. Therefore, they request the Court to fix time limit within which the Government order is implemented."
37. This observation gives an impression that the petitioners in the said writ petitions are genuine members, they have seniority and under no circumstances. Registrar of Co-operative Societies can deny them a site. While passing the order, the learned Single Judge did not have all the facts before him. In view of the observation of the Division Bench those observations would not give any weightage or priority to the petitioners in those writ petitions and the same has to be eschewed from consideration.
38. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid Division Bench order, it is very clear that genuineness of the members and seniority of the members has to be decided by the Registrar of Co-operative Society strictly by looking
- 49 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 into the material to be placed before him by the society, members and persons who challenged such seniority and then independently a decision is to be taken. To that extent, it is made clear that the order of the learned Single Judge do not aid or assist the petitioners in the said writ petitions who claim seniority under the said order.
39. In the meanwhile, the Society collected the amount payable by them in respect of 80 acres 13 guntas, which should have been used for civic amenities sites, which came to Rs. 6.81,85.000/-. However, on 9.4.2010, the BDA came to the conclusion that before the bulk allotment is made to the Society, the Society has formed a private layout and allotted to its members without obtaining no objection certificates from BESCOM, BWSSB. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies has not yet prepared seniority list and allotted sites to its members, which amounts to contravention of the order delted 4.10.2007 and has resulted in the coming up of unauthorised layout in the land in question. Those allottees had filed writ petitions before this Court and obtained an interim order preventing the BDA from demolition and in those circumstances, a proposal was made to the Government for withdrawing the order dated 4.10.2007, On getting the knowledge of the said resolution, the Society offered to pay a sum of Rs.
- 50 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 6,81,85,000/- and requested the BDA to withdraw the aforesaid resolution. Thereafter again the BDA held a meeting on 25.9.2010 and took a note of the said facts and decided to await decision of the Court in the matter pending before proceeding further. In fact, the Society has also offered to pay a sum of Rs. 37,50,00,201/- towards bulk allotment charges apart from Rs. 6,81,85,000/- towards payment of civic amenities sites in all a sum of Rs. 44,31,85,201/-. In fact, the Society has already prepared a layout plan and submitted the same for approval to the BDA, which is pending consideration.
40. B. Srinivasa Rao, one of the petitioners in the aforesaid batch of writ petitions, initiated contempt proceedings before this Court and CCC (Civil) No. 468/2009 complaining that the order dated 11-10-2007 and 6-3-2008 passed in the aforesaid batch of writ petitions has not been obeyed. Notice was ordered. In the course of the proceedings, BDA pointed out that their role would arise only after the society submits the list of members according to seniority for allotment. As the said list is not furnished, they cannot be found fault with. It appears, in the meanwhile, elections took place to the society and there was change of office bearers in the meanwhile, in the aforesaid contempt proceedings, orders were passed on 4-
- 51 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 3-2010 and 15-3-2010 for appearance of the President of the Society in person to show cause as to why seniority list is not furnished to the society. In that background, Misc. W. 4099/2010 was filed for review and recall the order dated 4- 3-2010 and 15-3-2010. The said application came to be disposed of by the order dated 16-7-2010 which reads as under:--
ORDER ON MISC. W. 4099/2010FOR REVIEW AND RECALL OF THE ORDER DATED 4.3.2010 AND 15.3.2010 Though, according to the roaster as on today. this CCC is not. assigned to this Bench, because an application (MISC.WA099/2010) is filed to review and to recall the orders dated 4.3.2010 and 15.3.2010, which were passed by this Bench, this matter is listed before us for orders on the said Misc.W. 4099/2010.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. In this petition, the respondents 1 & 2 are seeking Review and recall of the orders dated 4.3.2010 and 15.3.2010 passed in these Contempt proceedings and to dismiss the complaint as not maintainable for want of jurisdiction.
4. CCC No. 468/2009 (Civil) is filed complaining, that the order dated 11.10.2007 and 6.3.2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 12236/2006 and in other connected matters is
- 52 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 not obeyed. On 4.3.2010 the following order came to be passed:
"The society is directed to produce before the court, the list of its members and the list of members who have applied for sites giving the dale of their membership, the date on which they made initial deposit for allotment of site by Monday, the 8th March 2010."
5. Though the matter was listed on 8.3.2010, the application filed for impleadment was rejected and the case was adjourned to 10.3.2010, from which date, it was adjourned to 15.03.2010. On 15.3.2010, the following order came to be passed:
"Accused is not present before Court. Accused has not produced list of particulars showing seniority as directed in the order dated 8.3.2010. The counsel for the Society submits that yesterday, there was General Body Meeting. Accused did not participate in the General Body Meeting. They seek a week time to place on record the state of affairs.
Call next week.
Accused No. 1 to be present in the court in all hearing dates until further orders."
6. Accused No. 1 referred to therein is Sri. Krishna Bhat who was the President of the Society in question. Now, it is to recall these two orders, the present application is filed. One of the reasons given for recalling the order is that the Division Bench of this Court is Writ Appeal No. 1454/2008 and other connected matters has issued mandatory directions to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to dispose of the dispute pending before him independently on merits without being influenced by the orders of the learned single Judge Therefore, the said orders made in the Writ Petition No. 12236/2006 and
- 53 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 connected matters passed on 11.10.2007 and 6.3.2008 has become nullity and unenforceable. Therefore, the contempt petition complaining dis-obedience of the said orders is not maintainable.
7. Secondly, it was contended that an election to the office bearers of the Society has taken place. New management has taken over. All the books are handed over to the new management. And therefore, the accused Sri. B. Krishna Bhat is unable to produce any of the books as directed by this Court. Therefore, the accused No. 1, has filed this application seeking recalling of both the orders on the aforesaid grounds.
8. It is not in dispute that against the orders dated 11.10.2007, 6.3.2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 12236/2006, no appeal is filed. The said orders are not set aside. On the contrary they have become final. An observation in the connected proceedings about the said orders would not make that orders a nullity as contended by the learned counsel for the accused. An order passed by the High Court, which has attained finality, is admittedly not obeyed by the accused in this case and therefore, the present CCC filed against him is perfectly maintainable and the said order is not a nullity and therefore, the first contention is rejected.
9. In so far as the second contention is concerned, the accused has ceased to be the President of the Society and new management has taken over the society and the documents are to be summoned from them. On behalf of the Society, it was submitted that no records are handed over to them, much less the records evidencing the seniority list of the members and the date of initial deposit for site. It is obvious that the accused has no respect for the orders of this Court. He was the President on the day, the said orders were passed. He was the person in possession of all the records. He is the person who is duty
- 54 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 bound to produce before the court the seniority list, the particulars of the amounts in deposit. As per the aforesaid orders in Writ Petition No. 12326/2006, the allotment of sites hove to be made purely on seniority basis and that was the situation on the day Government passed order and on the basis of which, the Court has issued directions. It is too late in the day for the accused to contend that he is no more the President, he is not in possession of the books and therefore, he cannot be compelled to produce the same. It is only yet another attempt on the part of the accused to over reach this court. Already he facing contempt. He is trying to disobey the orders of this Court, passed in the contenipt proceedings. He is putting forth obstacles in getting at the truth and desewing persons getting relief in pursuant to the orders of this Court as well as the Government. There are no bona fides. Hence, application is rejected.
41. Against the said order, Sri. B Krishna Bhat has preferred the Speeial Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 2120/2010 which came to be dismissed by the Apex Court by its order dated 8-10-2010. Thereafter, on 19-10-2010 this Court passed the order that the said Sri. Krishna Bhat to be present in Court and the submission of his counsel that he would produce the seniority list in terms of the directions issued by this Court on 4-3-2010 is recorded. It is submitted that till today, seniority list has not seen the light of the day and not produced before the contempt court.
42. From the aforesaid facts and the orders passed by this Court in various writ petitions which have reached finality, terms of the Government order and from the
- 55 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 conduct of the BDA, it is clear that the society had entered into an agreement to purchase the schedule land in dispute from its previous owners. They have formed a layout, allotted sites to its members who appear to have put up constructions in those sites. The very same schedule land was notified for acquisition and challenge to the acquisition failed. Then request was made for bulk allotment which was also rejected. However, in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court to reconsider the request of the society for bulk allotment, coupled with the fact that earlier point of time, BDA had resolved to make bulk allotment to the society, in particular, taking note of the fact that innocent, persons are put to inconvenience, the Government in its discretion, took a decision to direct the BDA to make a bulk allotment as a special case to mitigate the hardship caused to the general public. The order of bulk allotment has attained finality. In fact, in various proceedings referred to supra, both the government as well as the Bangalore Development Authority have asserted about passing of the said order and the consequent rights flowing to the society therefrom. Therefore, it is too late in the day for any one to think of re-tracing the step insofar as the order of bulk allotment is concerned. The next step is, before the BDA makes bulk allotment, society has to pay necessary charges. It is here, BDA is yet to issue a demand to the
- 56 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 society calling upon them to pay necessary charges. Though several guidelines have been issued how to calculate the amount, amount is not calculated by the BDA. On the contrary, society, to show their bonafides, have made their calculations and have in fact made an offer to BDA to receive the said amount and make a bulk allotment i.e., to give effect to the bulk allotment as ordered by the Court. The calculation which the society has made which is already communicated to the BDA, discloses that a sum of Rs. 37,50201/- is payable towards bulk allotment charges and a sum of Rs. 6,81,85,000/- payable towards payment of civic amenity sites and in all, 44,31,85,201/- is the total amount payable. They have addressed a letter dated 3-8-2010 giving the calculations and they have arrived at figures on the total area which is to be handed over to them and they have made a request for receiving the said amount and to resolve a long standing dispute and allow its members to live in peace.
43. In the circumstances narrated above. BDA has no option except to receive the aforesaid amount or any other amount due to it as per calculation and make a formal order of bulk allotment and formally handing over possession of the land in question though the society and its members are in physical possession of the land in
- 57 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 question. Therefore, it is necessary to issue appropriate direction 10 the BDA to calculate the amounts due and issue a demand notice to the society giving them reasonable time to make the said payment. Thereafter, the B.D.A. shall make a formal order of bulk allotment and formally hand over possession of the schedule land to the Society.
POINT NO. 2: SENIORITY & GENUINENESS OF MEMBERS
44. The order passed by the Government is a conditional one. It is made keeping in mind the interest of genuine members of the society who had applied for sites at the earliest point of time. Therefore, it is made very clear that BDA should ensure that the bulk allotment of land made to the society is not misused and benefit of that order should go to genuine senior members of the society. In order to ensure that the BDA applies its mind and prevent any such illegality, it is necessary that BDA should have a requisite information before them. Therefore, it is obligatory on the part of the society to prepare a list of its members with membership number, date on which they became members, the date on which they applied for sites, the date on which they have made payment towards allotment of sites and if any allotment of site is already made, the date
- 58 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 on which the allotment is made and if possession certificate is granted, the date on which possession is given with full particulars of the possession certificate and if sale deeds are executed, with the particulars of the sale deeds. The society, after preparing such list of genuine members, according to seniority with all those particulars, shall furnish a copy of the same to the BDA. They shall also duly publish the same in their notice board. They shall also publish the same in one Kannada and English daily for public scrutiny. They also shall furnish all the information in the website of the society if it is already there, if not, after creating a website for public information. If a dispute arises regarding genuineness of the membership regarding seniority of the membership, as directed by this Court in the earlier proceedings all such disputes shall be decided by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and his decision is always subject to appeal and other remedies which are available to the said parties.
45. After the preparation of the list of members on the basis of seniority, if allotment of sites is made solely on that basis it may result in injustice. The sites are to be allotted to genuine members on the basis of seniority. In this context, the hard realities cannot be brushed aside. If thumb rule is applied it would lead to injustice. Among the
- 59 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 members whose name find a place in the list to be prepared all cannot be placed on the same footing. Firstly, there are genuine persons who became members at the earliest point of time after the formation of society who also made an application for allotment of sites and paid the initial deposit. However, if they have not shown any interest in acquiring a site by paying a consideration periodically as and when it was demanded by the society, they form one category. Secondly, there are persons who after becoming members at the earliest point ot time, made an application for allotment of site, paid consideration for the site as and when it was demanded and stood in the queue for years and were ultimately successful in getting a site allotted the and sale deeds executed and registered in their favour by the society. They form one class. Thirdly, those persons who became members at the earliest point of time filed an application tor allotment of site, who paid the sale consideration as per the demands of the society as and when it was made and stood in the queue for years, but were not allotted sites and no sale deeds are executed in their favour. They form yet another class. Fourthly, cases where persons who had become members at the earliest point of time made an application for allotment of site, not only paid initial payment but also made substantial payment towards sale consideration with reference to the
- 60 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 sital value as on the date of payment, stood in the queue for years and they form a category by themselves. Fifthly, the, case of late entrants. After the formation of the layout and after recommendation for bulk allotment is made by the BDA became members, made application for allotment of site, paid the entire sale consideration, and also were allotted site and sale deeds are executed, without waiting for years, as in the case of others. This is yet another category of the members.
46. Therefore, for allotting a site, all these categories cannot be treated alike. Priority or preference has to be given to those persons who became members at the earliest point of time, filed an application for allotment of sites, paid the entire sale consideration in installments stood in the queue and were able to get sale deeds, certainly stand out for allotment or for confirmation of the site allotted at the first instance. After excluding them, there are persons who became members at the earliest point of time, filed applications for allotment of sites, paid the entire sale consideration prescribed on the date of demand, who were not allotted the site, though they have been waiting in the queue for long time. In order of priority 'heir cases should be considered at the second stage. After excluding these two categories, the category of persons who became
- 61 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 members at the earliest point of time and who have paid substantial amount towards sital value with reference to the sital value on the date of demand and still waiting in the queue deserves consideration on priority basis. Then the cases of persons who became members, paid initial installments and did not pursue the matter and those persons who became members in the later years paid the entire consideration immediately thereafter and were lucky to get the sites allotted and sale deeds registered are to be considered. It is here depending upon the availability of the sites, the society and the authorities have to apply their mind with reference to each case and in their discretion decide who should get sites on priority. Therefore, it is made clear mere seniority itself is not sufficient tc be eligible to get a site. Similarly, mere payment of the entire sale consideration and obtaining of sale deed cannot be consideration for allotment of site. It is the persons who became members at the earliest point of time, made an application for allotment of the site, paid entire sale consideration specified as on the date of payment or substantial amount of sale consideration stood in the queue for years, should be preferred in the aforesaid order and it is only thereafter the cases of others require to be considered. Then only it could be said that genuine members who are senior are entitled to allotment of site.
- 62 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 Thus, the society should take care of genuine members who did apply at the earliest point of time, paid total consideration/substantial amount towards sale consideration and were waiting in the queue over those late entries who got the allotments immediately on becoming members and filing applications for allotment of sites. The underlying principle to be kept in mind in preparing the eligibility list is that those persons who paid the entire sale consideration/substantial amounts at the earliest point of time and were waiting in the queue should be preferred to late comers, though they might have paid the entire sale consideration immediately after becoming members. Those who paid only initial, nominal sum, and did not show any interest in acquiring site cannot claim seniority only on the ground that they had become members at the earliest point of time.
47. If there is no dispute regarding genuineness or seniority of the members and the society has already made allotment in respect of those members or executed sale deeds, if they are already in possession, put up constructions, if they are entitled to allotment of site as per the seniority list and eligibility list to be prepared by the society, as far as possible, the sites which are already allotted to them and if possession of such sites are already
- 63 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 with them, they shall not be disturbed either by the society or by the BDA. They are at liberty to approach the BDA for making out khata, obtain sanction plan if construction is to be made and for protecting their interest.
POINT NO. 3: UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS
48. As is clear from the aforesaid facts set out above, the schedule land has been the subject matter of litigation for more than four decades. Various proceedings were initiated in various Courts. Various interim orders and final orders are passed. Taking advantage of these orders if persons who are not entitled to site, persons who have no right to the site, persons who have encroached upon the property, entered upon schedule lands, put up construction on the schedule lands, certainly they would not be entitled to the allotment of sites either by virtue of the Government Order or by virtue of this order. Therefore, possession of such sites have to be taken over by the BDA in accordance with law and after clearing such encroachers, the said land is to be handed over to the society for being distributed to the genuine senior members. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the BDA to initiate appropriate action against such persons and in terms of the bulk allotment order to be made in favour of the society, to make available
- 64 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 the said lands as that would be a part ol the subject matter of bulk allotment.
POINT NO. 4: RIGHT OF CLAIMANTS TO OCCUPANCY RIGHTS
49. The persons claiming tenancy rights want the Government order to be recalled, bulk allotment not to be made on the ground that their matter is pending before the Apex Court and if the Apex Court decides the case and if these orders are given effect to, it would affect their interest. We do not see any substance in the said contention. The very same persons had preferred the writ petitions challenging the acquisition of land. Those writ petitions have been dismissed and it has attained finality. In other words, persons who are claiming as tenants having challenged the acquisition proceedings and the said acquisition proceedings having been upheld, they do not have any right to the property in question. Their only right would be to get compensation if their tenancy rights are upheld bv the Apex Court, which is negatived by this Court. They are entitled to compensation payable to the said land vis-a-vis persons who are claiming to be the landlords who are denying their right. The petitions pending before the Apex Court regarding tenancy rights, will not come in the way of implementing the Government order or
- 65 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 implementing the orders passed by the Court at various times or for making bulk allotment to the society which in turn would allot the sites to its members. They have no right to challenge the order of the Government to make bulk allotment to the Society. Therefore, we do not see any justification to entertain these writ petitions. Accordingly, they have no merit and are liable to be dismissed.
50. In the light of what is stated above, we pass the following order:
(a) The BDA is directed to calculate the total amount payable by the society for bulk allotment, in terms of the Government Order dated 4-10-2007 passed by the Government and thereafter inform the society in writing calling upon them to pay the said amount within 90 days from the date of receipt of the said notice.
(b) Though the land in question is in possession of the society and some of its members and others, the BDA shall formally handover possession of the land in question on receipt of the payment referred to clause (a).
(c) The society shall prepare the list of genuine members and the members who had applied for a site according to the seniority and submit the same to the BDA;
- 66 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022
(d) In the seniority list prepared, membership number, date of membership, the date on which application was filed for allotment of site, the dates on which amounts were paid by the society shall be clearly mentioned;
(e) In the event of non availability of the list, the society shall give paper publication both in Kannada and English vernacular in local and South Indian editions calling upon the members of the society to furnish their membership number, the date on which they applied for the site, payments made if any, in respect of the said site along with receipts and other acknowledgments and the documents in support of the same within a period of 30 days from the date of publication of the notice;
(f) Thereafter, the society shall prepare:
(i) the seniority list of genuine members in terms of para 39 of the Judgment.
(ii) a list of members who are eligible for allotment of site in accordance with paras 40 and 41 of the judgment.
(iii) Thereafter, they shall publish both the lists in their office, in the newspaper and handover copies of the same to the BDA as well as to the Registrar of Co-
operative Societies.
- 67 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 The society shall also open web site and host all these information on the web site for information of the members and public at large.
(g) All such members who have any objection for such genuine/seniority lists are at liberty to approach the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for adjudication of their seniority.
(h) The Registrar of Co-operative Societies while adjudicating genuine and seniority of members, shall hear the society as well as the BDA and also take into consideration the observations made in this order as well as the order made in Writ Appeal No. 1454 of 2008 at para 14 and eschew the observations in the order dated 11-10- 2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 12236 of 2006, as directed in the said appeal. The decision of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is subject to the remedies provided under the Registration of Society's Act and other provisions of law. However the said finding if it attains finality, is binding both on the society as well on the BDA.
(i) In the meanwhile, the society shall prepare a layout plan, submit the same to the BDA for its approval and also list out number of sites for allotment to its members according to the seniority list.
- 68 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022
(j) Already a private layout is formed in the said land and number of persons have put up constructions and are living there. If those persons are eligible for allotment of site according to seniority list and the allotment and sale deeds had already been executed in their favour, such sale deeds shall be confirmed by the society, if there is no dispute regarding seniority in the matter of allotment of sites.
(k) Similarly, all those persons to whom sites have been allotted, who have not put up construction or who have enclosed their sites with compound walls, if they are eligible for allotment of sites in terms of the seniority, which is not disputed by anyone and such sale deeds have been executed, such sale deeds shall be confirmed by the society.
(l) If the persons who are not eligible for allotment of sites according to seniority or not even members, if they are in possession of the sites and have put up constructions, the said sale deeds and allotment orders shall have no legal effect and if such persons are parties to these proceedings, no further steps need be taken against them. If they are not parties to these proceedings who are in possession by virtue of such allotment or sale deeds, appropriate proceedings have to be initiated against them
- 69 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 in accordance with law for cancellation of their allotment and sale deed and for recovery of possession.
(m) Till this process is completed, BDA and the society are directed to maintain status quo and no demolition of structure shall take place.
(n) It is made clear that no one who is a party to these proceedings shall put up any construction in the land in question after pronouncement of this order. If any attempt is made to put up any construction, BDA is at liberty to take immediate steps to demolish such construction.
(o) If any person has put up construction after Government Order till today under the cover of any interim orders granted by this Court in various petitions, such persons cannot plead equity in their favour and the validity of such construction depends upon their eligibility to get the site allotted based on their seniority. Otherwise, those constructions are liable to be demolished.
(p) It is only after being satisfied that the sites have been allotted to genuine members and according to seniority, BDA/BBMP shall make out khata in their respective names and BDA/BBMP shall sanction the plan.
- 70 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022
(q) The process of bulk allotment by the BDA shall be completed within a period of five months from today if payment is made by the society.
(r) The Registrar of Co-operative Society shall ensure that these disputes regarding genuineness of the membership or the seniority of such members for allotment of site, if necessary, be entrusted to one official who shall take up these matters on day-today basis and try to dispose it of expeditiously as some of them have already invested huge amount for acquiring site, put up construction and living with their family and also in order to give effect to the Government Order where the only consideration was the human suffering.
(s) Writ Petition No. 18496 of 2007 is dismissed.
(t) All other writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms.
12. It is a matter of record and an undisputed fact that though the petitioners and impleading applicants who are the respective site owners / allottees had already paid the entire sital value long back and despite the aforesaid directions issued by this Court in Mudalappa's case supra, the site owners / allottees are
- 71 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 not in a position to own, possess or enjoy their respective sites which is in stark violation of their constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
13. It is trite law that the right to property guaranteed under Article 300A is not only a constitutional right but also a human right as repeatedly held by the Apex Court, this Court and other High Courts. In this context, in the case of K.T.plantation vs. State of Karnataka - (2011) 9 SCC 1, the Apex Court held as under:-
'110. Article 300A proclaims that no person can be deprived of his property save by authority of law, meaning thereby that a person cannot be deprived of his property merely by an executive fiat, without any specific legal authority or without the support of law made by a competent legislature. The expression `Property' in Art.300A confined not to land alone, it includes intangibles like copyrights and other intellectual property and embraces every possible interest recognised by law. This Court in State of W. B. & Others v. Vishnunarayan& Associates (P) Ltd & Another (2002) 4 SCC 134, while examining the provisions of the West Bengal Great Eastern
- 72 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 Hotel (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act, 1980, held in the context of Article 300A that the State or executive offices cannot interfere with the right of others unless they can point out the specific provisions of law which authorises their rights. Article 300A, therefore, protects private property against executive action. But the question that looms large is as to what extent their rights will be protected when they are sought to be illegally deprived of their properties on the strength of a legislation. Further, it was also argued that the twin requirements of `public purpose' and `compensation' in case of deprivation of property are inherent and essential elements or ingredients, or "inseparable concomitants" of the power of eminent domain and, therefore, of entry 42, List III, as well and, hence, would apply when the validity of a statute is in question. On the other hand, it was the contention of the State that since the Constitution consciously omitted Article 19(1)(f), Articles 31(1) and 31(2), the intention of the Parliament was to do away the doctrine of eminent domain which highlights the principles of public purpose and compensation.'
- 73 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022
14. In the case of Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh - (2020) 2 SCC 569, the Apex Court held as under:-
'12.2. The right to property ceased to be a fundamental right by the Constitution (Forty Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, however, it continued to be a human right in a welfare State, and a Constitutional right under Article 300 A of the Constitution. Article 300 A provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The obligation to pay compensation, though not expressly included in Article 300 A, can be inferred in that Article.
12.3. To forcibly dispossess a person of his private property, without following due process of law, would be violative of a human right, as also the constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution. Reliance is placed on the judgment in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius ShapurChenai [Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius ShapurChenai, (2005) 7 SCC 627] , wherein this Court held that: (SCC p. 634, para 6) "6. ... Having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300-A of the Constitution, the State in exercise of its power
- 74 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 of "eminent domain" may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation therefor must be paid."
12.4. In N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy [N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy, (2008) 15 SCC 517] , this Court held that: (SCC p. 526, para 21) "21. If the right of property is a human right as also a constitutional right, the same cannot be taken away except in accordance with law. Article 300-A of the Constitution protects such right. The provisions of the Act seeking to divest such right, keeping in view of the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, must be strictly construed."
12.5. In Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P. [Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2011) 9 SCC 354 :
(2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 673] , this Court recognised the right to property as a basic human right in the following words: (SCC p. 379, para 30) "30. It is accepted in every jurisprudence and by different political thinkers that some amount of property right is an indispensable safeguard against tyranny and economic oppression of the Government. Jefferson was of the view that liberty cannot long subsist without the support of property. "Property must be secured, else liberty cannot subsist" was the opinion of John Adams. Indeed the view that property itself is the seed-bed which must be conserved
- 75 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 if other constitutional values are to flourish, is the consensus among political thinkers and jurists."
12.6. In JilubhaiNanbhaiKhachar v. State of Gujarat [JilubhaiNanbhaiKhachar v. State of Gujarat, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 596] , this Court held as follows: (SCC p. 627, para 48) "48. ... In other words, Article 300-A only limits the powers of the State that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. There has to be no deprivation without any sanction of law. Deprivation by any other mode is not acquisition or taking possession under Article 300-A. In other words, if there is no law, there is no deprivation."
XX XX XX XX XX 12.9. In a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, the State could not have deprived a citizen of their property without the sanction of law. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC [Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, (2013) 1 SCC 353 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 491] wherein it was held that the State must comply with the procedure for acquisition, requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode. The State being a welfare State governed by the rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution.
- 76 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 12.10. This Court in State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar [State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar, (2011) 10 SCC 404 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 769] held that the right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory right, but also a human right. Human rights have been considered in the realm of individual rights such as right to shelter, livelihood, health, employment, etc. Human rights have gained a multi-faceted dimension.'
15. So also, in the case of Sukh Dutt Ratra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh - (2022) 7 SCC 505, the Apex Court held as under:-
'13. While the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, it is pertinent to note that at the time of dispossession of the subject land, this right was still included in Part III of the Constitution. The right against deprivation of property unless in accordance with procedure established by law, continues to be a constitutional right under Article 300-A.
14. It is the cardinal principle of the rule of law, that nobody can be deprived of liberty or property without due process, or authorization of law. The recognition of this dates back to the
- 77 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 1700s to the decision of the King's Bench in Entick v. Carrington and by this court in Wazir Chand v. The State of Himachal Pradesh. Further, in several judgments, this court has repeatedly held that rather than enjoying a wider bandwidth of lenience, the State often has a higher responsibility in demonstrating that it has acted within the confines of legality, and therefore, not tarnished the basic principle of the rule of law.'
16. The Apex Court in its recent judgment in the case of Lucknow Nagar Nigam & Others v. Kohli Brothers Colour Lab.Pvt. Ltd. & Others - 2024 INSC 135, held as under:-
18. We say so because Article 300-A of the Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The word "law" is with reference to an Act of Parliament or of a State Legislature, a rule or a statutory order having the force of law. Although, to hold property is not a fundamental right, yet it is a constitutional right. The expression person in Article 300-A covers not only a legal or juristic person but also a person who is not a citizen of India. The expression property is also of a wide scope and includes not only tangible or intangible property but also all rights, title and interest in a property. Deprivation
- 78 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 of property may take place in various ways, but where there is only control of property short of deprivation would not entail payment of compensation vide Indian Handicrafts Emporium vs. Union o India, (2003) 7 SCC 589, (Paras 109 and 111) and Chandigarh Housing Board vs. Major-General Devinder Singh (Retd.), (2007) 9 SCC 67, (Para 11). However, deprivation of property is to be distinguished from restriction of the rights following from ownership, which falls short of dispossession of the owner from those rights. Deprivation also takes within its nomenclature acquisition in accordance with law and not without any sanction of law. Before a person can be deprived of his right to property, the law must expressly and explicitly state so. Thus, the expression by authority of law means by or under a law made by the competent Legislature.
19. In KT Plantation Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1, it was observed that though the right to claim compensation or the obligation of the State to pay compensation to a person who is deprived of his property is not expressly included in Article 300-A of the Constitution, it is inbuilt in the Article. Within the scope of Article 300-A the doctrine of eminent domain could also be read inasmuch as the said doctrine states that the acquisition of property must be in the public interest
- 79 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 and there must be payment of just and fair compensation therefor. When acquisition of property takes place either under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 or the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, it is always for a public purpose and on payment of compensation to the owner of the said property. The State then possesses the power to take control of the property of the owner thereof for the benefit of the public and when the State so acts it is obliged to compensate the owner upon making just compensation as the owner of the property would lose all his rights vis-à-vis the acquired land.'
17. In backdrop of the aforementioned legal principles laid down by the Apex Court, it is clear that the right to property is enshrined under Article 300A; deprivation of property leads to violation of human and constitutional right under Article 300A ;the right to property cannot be deprived without following due process of law. It follows therefrom that in the instant case, the total and complete inaction on the part of the BDA and VHBCS to ensure that the petitioners and impleading applicants are able to own,
- 80 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 possess and enjoy their respective sites and non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Mudalappa's case supra, has resulted in deprivation of their proprietary and possessory rights over their respective sites warranting invocation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India in their favour.
18. In this context, it is relevant to state that though the petitioners or the impleading applicants have not sought for compensation on account of the aforesaid violation and default by the BDA and VHBCS, the material on record is sufficient to come to the conclusion that on account of negligence and inaction on the part of the BDA and VHBCS, it is practically impossible to put the petitioners and impleading applicants in possession and enjoyment of their respective sites and ensure that their proprietary and possessory rights are protected, so as to enable them to own, possess and enjoy the sites without hindrance or interruption from any one else; to put it simply, apart from the fact that the directions of this Court to demolish unauthorized structures, evict encroachers
- 81 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 etc., have not been complied with by the BDA and VHBCS against / to whom this Court issued the said directions, it is practically impossible as on today to ensure that the petitioners and site owners are able to own, possess and enjoy their respective sites.
19. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the present petitions would warrant moulding the reliefs in favour of the petitioners by directing payment of compensation by the BDA and VHBCS in favour of the petitioners and impleading applicants proportionate to the extent of sites allotted to them and equivalent to the prevailing market value of the said sites as on today.
20. Insofar as the various contentions urged by the VHBCS and BDA seeking to explain as to why they did not comply with the directions issued by this Court in Mudalappa's case supra, a perusal of the said explanation will clearly indicate that neither the BDA nor the VHBCS have been earnest or sincere in taking necessary steps to protect the right, title, interest and possession of
- 82 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 the petitioners and impleading applicants over their respective sites and the various reasons assigned by them for their violation / breach are flimsy and untenable and the same cannot be accepted.
21. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the peculiar / special facts and circumstances of the instant case, I deem it just and appropriate to mould the reliefs in favour of the petitioners and the impleading applicants and issue appropriate directions to and against the BDA and VHBCS as regards compensation payable by them and also dismiss the petitions filed by the VHBCS by disposing of all the petitions accordingly.
22. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) W.P.No.24970/2019 and W.P.No.27839/2019 filed by the VHBCS are hereby dismissed.
(ii) W.P.Nos.39573/2016, 3430/2018, 12371/2018, 12372/2018, 16690/2022, 16752/2022, 16757/2022, 16758/2022 and 24269/2022 are hereby disposed of.
- 83 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022
(iii) The BDA and VHBCS are hereby jointly and severally directed to pay compensation in favour of the aforesaid petitioners at the same / equivalent rate as per the present / current / prevailing market value as on today of the respective sites allotted / sold to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iv) The BDA and VHBCS are also hereby jointly and severally directed to pay compensation in favour of the impleading applicants in W.P.No.39573/2016, W.P.No.3430/2018 and W.P.No.24970/2019 at the same / equivalent rate as per the present / current / prevailing market value as on today of the respective sites allotted / sold within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(v) The State Government is directed to comply with the directions issued in Mudalappa's case supra and also to ensure compliance of the said directions as well as to give effect to and implement the directions issued in the present order against the
- 84 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17006 WP No. 39573 of 2016 C/W WP No. 3430 of 2018 WP No. 12371 of 2018 WP No. 12372 of 2018 WP No. 24970 of 2019 WP No. 27839 of 2019 WP No. 16690 of 2022 WP No. 16752 of 2022 WP No. 16757 of 2022 WP No. 16758 of 2022 WP No. 24269 of 2022 BDA and VHBCS by taking necessary steps and by co-ordinating and co-operating with the BDA and VHBCS in this regard.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srl.