1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 01ST JUNE, 2016

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA

WRIT PETITION NO. 40994 OF 2002(GM-RES)

C/W CCC NO. 87 OF 2004(CIVIL)

IN WP NO.40994 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

JUDICIAL LAYOUT RESIDENTS AND SITE HOLDERS ASSOCIATION (REGD.), GKVK POST, BANGALORE - 560 065. REP.BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

CONSISTING OF

a) SHRI B.V. BYRA REDDY, PRESIDENT, NO.1362, III CROSS, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 65. BANGALORE CITY

b) Y.R JAGADISH VICE-PRESIDENT NO.548, 18TH MAIN ROAD JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65. BANGALORE CITY

(NOW DECEASED)

2

c) M CHIKKALINGAIAH SECRETARY NO.1816, 8TH MAIN, JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65. BANGALORE CITY

d) G.K NAGARAJA TREASURER NO.1730, 6TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65. BANGALORE CITY

e) S.D VENKATARAMANAIAH FOUNDER PRESIDENT & DIRECTOR NO.1803, 8TH MAIN ROAD JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65.

BANGALORE CITY

f) M SHIVA MURTHY FORMER VICE-PRESIDENT & DIRECTOR NO.1430, 1ST CROSS JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65.

BANGALORE CITY

g) D.N KAGWAD DIRECTOR NO.1185, 10TH CROSS JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65.

BANGALORE CITY

h) RUPA KUMARI DIRECTOR NO.126, 21ST MAIN JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65.

BANGALORE CITY

3

i) Y.C BUJABHALAIAH JOINT SECRETARY & DIRECTOR NO.990, 14TH CROSS JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65.

BANGALORE CITY

j) A LAXMANA RAO DIRECTOR NO.522, SEVEN HILLS, 23RD CROSS, 18TH MAIN JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65. BANGALORE CITY

k) L.S RAJA RAO DIRECTOR NO.516, 18TH MAIN, 24TH CROSS JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65.

BANGALORE CITY

l) N NAGARAJU DIRECTOR NO.185, 25TH MAIN ROAD JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65.

BANGALORE CITY

m) MANJUNATHA HOLLA DIRECTOR 13TH MAIN, JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65.

BANGALORE CITY

n) SMT. SARASWATI DIRECTOR 11TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65. BANGALORE CITY ... PETITIONERS

4

(By Sri. G. PAPI REDDY, ADV., FOR P(a), (c), (d) AND (e); SRI. A.K. BHAT, ADV., FOR P(f), (h), (j) TO (n); SRI. Y.R. JAGADISH P(b) – DEAD; SRI. D.N. KAGAWAD, P-(g); SRI. Y.C. BUJABHALAIAH, P-(i)

AND

1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE.

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT. M.S. BUILDINGS, BANGALORE - 560 001.

BANGALORE CITY

3. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE, BANGALORE. REP.BY ITS COMMISSIONER

BANGALORE CITY

4. THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE - 560 001. BANGALORE CITY

5. SMT. SUNANDA, D/O LATE MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

6. SRI ASHOKA S/O LATE MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

5

7. SMT. AMBUJA

D/O LATE MARAPPA W/O SRI PRAKASH

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

8. SMT ARUNA D/O LATE MARAPPA W/O SRI SURESH

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

9. SMT MANJULA D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY (S/O LATE MARAPPA) W/O SRI. GOVINDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

10. SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O LATE MARAPPA (S/O LATE MARAPPA)

11. SMT. SHAKUNTHALA D/O LATE MARAPPA W/O LATE JAGANNATH (S/O LATE MARAPPA) AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

12. SMT. SUMANGALA D/O LATE MARAPPA W/O SRI IRDERAJU AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

13. SMT. AMBIKA D/O LATE MARAPPA W/O SRI. KUMAR

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

14. SMT. SAVITHA D/O LATE MARAPPA

6

W/O SRI KITTY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

15. SRI SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

16. MANJU S S/O LATE MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, NO. R5 TO R16 ARE R/AT NO.1, LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI NAGARA, NEAR NES OFFICE, DODDABALLAPURA ROAD, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE – 560 064. RESPONDENTS 5 TO 15 ARE ALL REPRESENTED BY THEIR GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER NO.16 ABOVE, MANJU S/O LATE MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

17. ASHA RAVINDRA W/O LATE DR.M B RAVINDRA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/OF NO.106, CHAITANYA APARTMENTS, BHOJA RAO LANE, ALAKE, MANGALORE. (RESPONDENTS 5 TO 17 ARE IMPLEADED BY COURT ORDER DATED 24.06.2011)

18. N SHIVANNA DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, RETIRED ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, NO.84, 'KUMBALE MAYURA VARMA ROAD, LAKSHMIPURA, KEMPE GOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE 560019.

7

19. C SHIVALINGAIAH FORMER PRESIDENT, THE KSJDEHB CO-OP SOCIETY, NO.1, SURYAPRAKASH BUILDING, OPP TO NATARAJA TALKIES, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE – 560 020. (RESPONDENTS 18 AND 19 ARE IMPLEADED BY COURT ORDER DATED 07.03.2014)

20. KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, NO.49, CHURCH STREET, BANGALORE - 1. REP. BY MEMBER SECRETARY. (RESPONDENT NO. 20 IS IMPLEADED BY COURT ORDER DATED 10.10.2014)

21. BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD, K.G ROAD, BENGALURU,

REP. BY SECRETARY.

(RESPONDENT NO. 21 IS IMPLEADED BY COURT ORDER DATED 10.04.2015) ... RESPONDENTS

(By Sri. K. KRISHNA, ADV., FOR R1; SRI. R. DEVDAS, PRL.GA FOR R2; SRI. V SREENIDHI, ADV., FOR R3; SRI. H. SUBRAMANYA JOIS, SR. ADV., A/W SRI. M. SIVAPPA, SR. ADV., A/W SRI. T.R. SUBBANNA, SR. ADV., A/W SRI. S. ANIL KUMAR, ADV., FOR R4; SRI. N.R. NAIK, ADV., FOR R5 TO R16; SRI. M. JAIPRAKASH REDDY, ADV., FOR R17; SRI. S.N. BHAT, ADV., FOR R18; PETITION AGAINST R19 STANDS ABATED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 10.10.2014; SRI. GURURAJ JOSHI, ADV., FOR R20; SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADV., FOR R21)

8

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-1

TO PRODUCE BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT THE LAYOUT

PLAN OF THE JUDICIAL LAYOUT APPROVED IN FAVOUR OF

THE 4TH RESPONDENT SOCIETY BY ITS RESOLUTION

NO.503/92, DT. 16.11.1992.

DECLARE ALL THE ACTIONS OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT

SOCIETY AND ANY ONE CLAIMING UNDER IT, DEVIATING FROM

THE APPROVED LAYOUT PLAN SANCTIONED BY THE FIRST

RESPONDENT BEARING RESOLUTION NO.503/92, DT.

16.11.1992 IN SO FAR AS THEY ALTERED THE NATURE OF THE

PARKS, CIVIC AMENITY SITES AND OTHER OPEN SPACES

SPECIFIED THEREIN, AS ILLEGAL, VOID AND INOPERATIVE.

DIRECT R1 TO TAKE REGISTERED RELINQUISHMENT

DEED FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT SOCIETY TRANSFERRING

ALL THE PARKS, CIVIC AMENITY SITES AND OTHER OPEN

SPACES AS SPECIFIED IN THE LAYOUT PLAN SANCTIONED BY

IT AS PER RESOLUTION NO.503/92 DT. 16.11.1992 AND HAND

OVER POSSESSION OF THE SAME TO R3 HEREIN.

DIRECT R3 TO FORTHWITH TAKE ALL NECESSARY STEPS

TO PRESERVE, PROTECT AND MAINTAIN THE PARKS, CIVIC

AMENITY SITES AND OTHER OPEN SPACES IN THE JUDICIAL

LAYOUT, BELLARY ROAD, G.K.V.K.POST, BANGALORE-560 065

& ETC.,

9

IN CCC NO. 87 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

JUDICIAL LAYOUT RESIDENTS AND

SITE HOLDERS ASSOCIATION (REGD.),

GKVK POST, BANGALORE - 560 065.

REP.BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

CONSISTING OF

a) B.V. BYRA REDDY, PRESIDENT, NO.1362, III CROSS,

JUDICIAL LAYOUT,

BANGALORE – 65.

b) M CHIKKALINGAIAH SECRETARY NO.1816, 8TH MAIN, JUDICIAL LAYOUT

BANGALORE – 65.

c) G.K NAGARAJA TREASURER NO.1730, 6TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65.

d) S.D VENKATARAMANAIAH FOUNDER PRESIDENT & DIRECTOR NO.1803, 8TH MAIN ROAD JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65.

e) D.N KAGWAD DIRECTOR NO.1185, 10TH CROSS JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65.

10

f) SMT. RUPA KUMARI DIRECTOR NO.126, 21ST MAIN JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65.

g) Y.C BUJABHALAIAH JT. SECRETARY & DIRECTOR NO.990, 14TH CROSS JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65.

h) A LAXMANA RAO DIRECTOR NO.522, SEVEN HILLS, 23RD CROSS, 18TH MAIN

JUDICIAL LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 65.

i) L.S RAJA RAO DIRECTOR NO.516, 18TH MAIN, 24TH CROSS JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65.

j) MANJUNATHA HOLLA DIRECTOR 13TH MAIN, JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65.

k) SMT. SARASWATI DIRECTOR 11TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS JUDICIAL LAYOUT BANGALORE – 65. ... COMPLAINANTS

(BY SRI. SANDESH CHOUTA, ADV.,)

11

AND:

1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE – 560 020. SRI. JAYAKAR JEROME

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT. M.S. BUILDINGS, BANGALORE - 560 001.

BANGALORE CITY

SMT. SHAMEERA BANU

3. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, YELAHANKA,

REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,

BANGALORE – 560 064.

SRI. H.M. RAMAPPA

(VIDE ORDER DATED: 29.01.2004

R2 AND R3 ARE DELETED)

4. THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,

HIGH COURT BUILDINGS

BANGALORE - 560 001.

REP. BY. SRI. C. SHIVALINGAIAH

5. SRI. C.M BASAVARAYA, RETIRED DIST & SESSIONS JUDGE, HON'BLE PRESIDENT THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OP SOCIETY R/AT NO. 16, 2ND CROSS, JUDICIAL OFFICERS COLONY,

SANJAYANAGAR,

BANGALORE.

12

6. C SHIVALINGAIAH, PRESIDENT, CONSUMER FORUM, SECRETARY,

THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE

SOCIETY, SWATHI COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR,

PLAT FORM ROAD, SESHADRIPURAM,

BANGALORE - 560 020.

(REPORTED AS DEAD ON 14.08.2014 VIDE ORDER DATED

10.10.2014)

7. SHRI M. RUDRAIAH, ADVOCATE, VICE PRESIDENT THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, "NANDHI HOUSE," NO.1284, IIIRD CROSS, JUDICIAL LAYOUT G.K.V.K. POST, BANGALORE-65

8. SHRI KEMPA THIMMAIAH, TREASURER, THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, S.D.A., C.M.M. COURT, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-52. (A-4 TO A-8 ARE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5 V/O/DATED: 24.08.2007)

9. SRI. D.B DEVAGIRIKAR DIRECTOR THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, "DEVAMANDIRA" NO. 1396, 9TH MAIN ROAD, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, G.K.V.K. POST,

BANGALORE – 65.

13

10. N SHIVANNA DIRECTOR, THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, RETIRED ASSISTANT REGISTRAR NO.84, KUMBALE MAYURA VARMA ROAD LAXMIPURA, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE-19.

11. SRI. N LINGAIAH DIRECTOR THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, SECTION OFFICER/ASST. LIBRARIAN,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

BANGALORE.

12. SHRI S BASAVARAJU DIRECTOR THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY; SHERISTEDAR, CENTRAL PROCESS NAZAR OFFICE,

CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE-9.

13. SHRI. H.C PUTTASWAMY DIRECTOR THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, F.D.A, CITY CIVIL COURT COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE-9.

14. SMT. B.S SHANKARAMBHA, DIRECTOR THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, CHIEF SHERISTEDAR JUDICIAL MAGISTRATES COURT, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-52.

14

15. SHRI. K SIPPEGOWDA DIRECTOR, THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, EMPLOYES HOUSE BUILDING

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,

COURT OFFICER,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AND PRESIDENT, KARNATAKA STATE EMPLOYEES

ASSOCIATION, CUBBAN PARK, BANGALORE-1,

BANGALORE.

16. SHRI. V. NARAYANAPPA DIRECTOR, THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL

DEPARTMENT EMPLOYES HOUSE BUILDING CO-

OPERATIVE SOCIETY,

RETIRED ASSISTANT REGISTRAR,

NO.1867, 7TH CROSS, 1ST ‘A’ MAIN,

JUDICIAL LAYOUT

G.K.V.K POST, BANGALORE-65.

17. MALLAIAH DIRECTOR THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY; COURT OFFICER, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE.

18. SHRI. P SRINIVAS DIRECTOR THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, COURT OFFICER, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

BANGALORE-01.

15

19. SHRI. G.S SHIVAKUMAR DIRECTOR THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, F.D.A, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, K.G.I.D BUILDING, BANGALORE-1.

... ACCUSED

(SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADV., FOR A-1; A2 AND A3 DELETED;

SRI. H. SUBRAMANYA JOIS, SR. ADV., A/W

SRI. M. SIVAPPA, SR. ADV., A/W

SRI. T.R. SUBBANNA, SR. ADV., A/W

SRI. S. ANIL KUMAR, ADV., FOR A4 TO A8;

VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 10.10.2014

SRI. C. SHIVALINGAIAH (A6) STANDS DROPPED AS ABATED)

THIS CCC FILED U/S.11 & 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF

COURT ACT PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS

AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS FOR DISOBEYING THE ORDER

DT.18.06.2003 IN W.P.NO.40994/02(GM.PIL).

THIS WRIT PETITION AND THE CONTEMPT PETITION

HAVING RESERVED FOR ORDERS AND COMING ON FOR

DICTATING ORDERS THIS DAY, RAM MOHAN REDDY, J, MADE

THE FOLLOWING:

16

O R D E R

Common questions of law and that of fact arise for

decision making, hence with the consent of the learned

counsel the petitions are clubbed together, finally heard

and disposed of by this order.

Petitioner, an Association, registered on

4/3/1999 under the Karnataka Societies Registration

Act, 1960, with certificate of registration, Annexure -'A',

represented by its office bearers has presented this

petition, duly authorised by a resolution dated 06-05-

2002, Annexure 'B', of its Executive committee, alleging

several illegalities perpetuated by the Karnataka State

Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-

operative Society, for short 'Society' registered on

11/8/1983 under Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act,

1959, for short 'KCS Act'.

2. It is asserted that the object of the Society was

to acquire lands under the Land Acquisition Act 1894,

17

for short 'LA Act', form residential layout and allot

house sites to its members, in furtherance of which

approached the State Government- Respondent No.2

herein, who, through its Special Land Acquisition

Officer, acquired lands measuring 193 acres comprised

in different Survey numbers of Allalasandra, Chikka

Bommasandra and Jakkur Plantation. The society, it is

said, on being put in possession of the lands, submitted

a layout plan to the Respondent No.1 -Bangalore

Development Authority, for short ‘BDA”- for its

approval/sanction. A resolution dated 16/11/1992

bearing No.503/1992, it is asserted, was passed to

approve the layout plan subject to certain conditions

and issued three notices dated 1/8/1993, 28/8/1993

and 28/2/1994 to the Society to comply with the said

conditions. It is alleged that although the Society

neither replied to the notices nor complied with the

conditions by paying the necessary charges,

nevertheless, formed the layout by laying roads, open

18

spaces for parks, civic amenity sites and the following

2048 residential sites :

• 845 sites of 30 ft x 40 ft

• 70 sites of 30 ft x 45 ft

• 493 sites of 40 ft x 60 ft

• 220 sites of 30 ft x 50 ft

• 80 sites of 50 ft x 80 ft

• 104 sites of 60 ft x 90 ft

• 39 sites of 80 ft x 120 ft

• 197 odd sites.

3. Petitioner submits that the Society in its

Statement of objections in Subramani v/s Union of

India, reported in ILR 1995 KAR 3139 stated that sites

noticed above were formed after the layout was

approved by BDA. The Society, it is further asserted,

having specifically held out to its members, before

allotment of sites, that the approved layout plan

provides for 11 parks and 5 civic amenity sites, on such

representation of members of the Society applied for and

obtained allotment of sites in the layout, majority of

19

whom have put up construction and are residing there

in.

4. Petitioner's representations - 'C', 'C-1', to 'C-3'

addressed to the respondents to furnish copy of the

approved plan of the layout in question, BDA, it is said,

responded by communication dated 17/6/2002, -‘D’,

while in the General Body meeting held on 29/9/2002,

-'E', the Society stated that 49% of 193 acres utilised for

formation of the layout is reserved for roads,

underground drainage, temple, parks and play grounds.

Petitioner's representation -‘F’ demanding the Society to

disclose the details of allotment of 2048 sites, it is said,

was responded by reply -‘G’. The Association by letter

dated 28-08-2000 ANNEXURE-‘H’, sought permission of

the Society to install Gouri and Ganesha idols to

celebrate Ganesha Festival in a specifically mentioned

civic amenity site. ANNEXURE-‘J’, it is claimed, is the

legal notice by two members of the Society served on all

20

the respondents and Authorities. The copy of statement

of objections filed by the Society in WP 11211/95 is -

‘K’, while two sale deeds, -'L' and 'M' executed by the

Society specifically covenant that the layout plan is

approved by the BDA in its Resolution No.503/92 dated

16/11/1992.

5. Petition is filed calling in question the action of

the Society and its office bearers in forming sites in the

area earmarked for Temple and those for civic amenities

in the draft plan submitted to the BDA for approval of

the layout, known as “Layout” and for the following

reliefs:

• Direct the first respondent to produce before this

Hon’ble Court the layout plan of the Judicial Layout

approved in favour of the 4th respondent-Society by

its Resolution No.503/92, dated 16/11/1992;

• Declare all the actions of the 4th respondent

society and anyone claiming under it, deviating from

the approved layout plan sanctioned by the first

21

respondent bearing Resolution No.503/92, dated

16/11/1992, in so far as they altered the nature of

the Parks, civic amenity sites and other open spaces

specified therein, as illegal, void and inoperative.

• Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of

mandamus directing the first respondent to take

registered relinquishment deed from the 4th

respondent society transferring all the Parks, civic

amenity sites and other open spaces as specified in

the layout plan sanctioned by it as per Resolution

No.503/92 dated 16/11/1992 and hand over

possession of the same to the 3rd respondent

herein, in the interest of justice and equity.

• Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of

Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to forth

with take all necessary steps to preserve, protect

and maintain the parks, civic amenity sites and

other open spaces in the Judicial Layout, Bellary

Road, GKVK Post, Bangalore-560 065, in the

interest of justice and equity; and

• Grant such other relief this Hon’ble Court deems

fit in the facts and circumstances of this case,

including an order as to costs, in the interest of

22

justice and equity.

6. A Co-ordinate Division Bench by order dated

22/01/2003 observed thus:

“Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

despite prohibition to change the character and nature

of the open space land, the respondents have started

forming sites in the open space land measuring 195’ x

200’ reserved for temple.

Issue notice to respondents 1, 3 and 4, returnable

in two weeks. Learned Government Advocate to take

notice for respondent no.2.

In the meanwhile respondent No.4 society not to

change the character of the land described in

I.A.No.1/2003.”

7. The schedule to IA- 1/2003 reads thus:

Open space measuring 195' x 200' and bounded by:

East : 14th Main Road;

West : Site No.969;

North : 16th Cross;

South : 15th Cross;

23

in the Karnataka Judicial Employees House Building

Layout, Bangalore-560 065.

8. On 18/6/2003, the following order was passed:

“Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits

that despite the order dated 22/1/2003 the civic

amenity sites are being sold by the 4th respondent-

Society and in this way it is changing the character.

The Petitioners are directed to file the details of such

sites, which have been sold in violation.

2. Respondents 3 and 4 are served, but not

appeared despite service. Learning Standing

Counsel for the B.D.A., and the learned Government

Advocate are present, but no counter has been filed.

3. It is necessary to ascertain the facts.

Therefore, Respondent No.4/Society is directed to

submit a copy of the map filed to B.D.A., to this Court

and a list of transfer of civic amenity sites, if any,

within one month. Respondent No.1/B.D.A., shall

also submit its report within two months.

4. The interim order dated 22/1/2003 shall

continue and in addition it is also made clear that

during the pendency of this Petition, the Society shall

24

not transfer any civic amenity sites as shown in plan

submitted to B.D.A., until further orders. In the

meanwhile the respondents can file their counter.

Put up after two months.”

9. On 18/7/2003, the Society filed a memo

producing additional documents as directed on

18/6/2003. The Society in its memo stated that it had

filed the following documents:

1) Layout plan approved by City Municipal Council,

Yelahanka as per resolution No.24 dated

22/5/1996 not forthcoming from records.

2) The letter of 4th respondent handing over the

layout to CMC with copy of relinquishment deed

along with CA sites parks etc., as per layout plan.

3) Letter of City Municipal Council, Yelahanka dated

23/01/2003 for having taken over the entire

layout with CA sites, play grounds, parks,

drainages, water supply lines and all other

connected civic amenities.

25

10. Society, in addition, stated that the layout

falls within the jurisdiction of the City Municipal

Council, Yelahanka, for short 'CMC' as per Government

Notification and though there was correspondence with

the BDA regarding approval of plan etc., as per

resolution of the BDA it ceased to have jurisdiction over

the area, hence no further steps were taken to obtain

sanction from BDA. Developmental charges as per law,

it is said, is paid to CMC Yelahanka as per their demand

which is about Rs.36 lakhs.

11. BDA filed its Statement of objections on

24/5/2004 reiterating the prayers in the memorandum

of writ petition. BDA stated that the society made an

application dated 6/11/1992 for approval of the layout

plan as per the old norms i.e., 65% sital area and 35%

towards CA and roads and permit them to execute the

civil works, whence BDA by letter dated 28/11/1992

informed the society that in the resolution dated

26

16/11/1992 vide subject no. 503/1992, resolved to

approve the layout for 156 acres and 26¾ gunta subject

to the following conditions:

1) To furnish possession certificate from Revenue

Department before issue of intimation,

communicating layout charges.

2) To furnish NOC from KEB and BWSSB

authorities before issue of work order.

3) To remit contribution of Rs.2 Lakhs per acre

towards Cauvery Water Supply Scheme as per

revised rates.

4) To furnish NOC from Co-operation Department

before release of sites

5) To entrust the civil works to the society itself

under the supervision of BDA.

6) To pay ring road surcharges at Rs. One lakh per

acre as per the Authority resolution and

7) Other usual terms and conditions.

27

12. In addition it stated since the Society did not

comply with the conditions, hence by letters dated

8/12/1993 and 24/2/1994 called upon the Society to

comply with the conditions, which was responded to by

reply dated 22/3/1994 stating that Item Nos.2 and 4 of

the conditions need not be submitted for the time being

while Items 3 and 5, the Society filed WP 39338 to

39341/92 in which the Court granted stay of the

demand. As regards, Item No.1, the Society sought 30

days time to submit the possession certificate.

13. BDA issued final notice dated 26/5/1994, to

furnish particulars sought for, failing which the Society

would be liable for delay in approval of the layout plan.

The Society on 1/6/1994 sought time to furnish the

particulars relating to Item No.1 until the Government

handed over possession of 17 acres 18 guntas of land to

it.

28

14. By another letter dated 18/3/1996, it is

stated that the society requested for release of the

approved layout plan and in the meanwhile as there was

a change in the Government Housing policy relating to

private layout wherein 25% of the sites in the private

layout are to be reserved for Economically Weaker

Section and Lower Income Group, the BDA called upon

the Society to modify the layout plan as per the new

government policy. The Society, it is said, by letter

dated 30/4/1996 stated that as it had not taken any

financial assistance or subsidy from the Government,

hence the applicability of the housing policy would not

arise.

15. At Paragraph 6 of the statement of objections,

it is stated that it issued communication dated

02/04/1997, under Section 17, 15(4) of the Karnataka

Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, for short 'KTCP

Act' and Sec 32 of the Bangalore Development Act 1975,

29

for short 'BDA Act' and Rule 37 of the Karnataka

Planning Authority Rules, for short 'KPA Rules',

pointing out that the lands in question fell within the

territorial jurisdiction of the BDA, hence permission for

development under the aforesaid provisions of law when

not obtained by the society, directed the society not to

carry out the development work. There afterwards BDA

having issued notice dated 2/5/1997 fixing the date of

hearing on 8/5/1997 calling upon the society to appear

before the authorities, nevertheless the Society did not

appear.

16. BDA further states that on 26/11/1997 and

08/10/2002, Final Notices were issued to the Society

directing them to discontinue the unauthorised

formation of layout and to show cause within seven

days from the date of receipt of the said notice as to why

action should not be taken to stop the unauthorised

work by dismantling the layout and restore the land to

30

its original condition. Society by letter dated

18/10/2002 contended that the completion of the

formation of the layout was in order to avoid

unauthorised occupation of land, encroachment of

lands by the land grabbers and formation of revenue

sites by builders, in addition to other contentions. It

also stated that by Gazette Notification of the

Government, the lands fell under the territorial

jurisdiction of Yelahanka and Byatarayanapura CMC

which demanded payment of supervision and

development charges by letters dated 19/12/1996 and

27/6/1997, which was complied with. The Society, it

is stated, claimed to have obtained transfer of khatha of

sites in favour of individual members and paid annual

taxes while building plans and licences to construct

houses was issued by CMC. Society, it was claimed,

though provided civic amenities, drinking water facility,

etc., nevertheless did not take any help from the BDA or

the Government in this regard.

31

17. At Paragraph 8 it is specifically stated that the

BDA did not sanction or approve the layout plan in

favour of 4th respondent and that the said society failed

to comply with the conditions stipulated in letter the

dated 28/11/1992 till date.

18. Although the BDA obtained a legal opinion for

initiating further steps in the matter after verifying the

records, nevertheless, since the petition was filed and

the proceedings pending, BDA, claims did not proceed

further in the matter.

19. At Paragraph 9 it is stated that despite the

order dated 18/6/2003 of this Court directing the

Society to submit the copy of the layout plan filed to

BDA and the list of transfer of CA sites, within one

month, so as to enable the BDA to comply with the

direction to verify and submit a report within two

months, nevertheless, since there was non-compliance

32

by the Society, the BDA stated that it was unable to

verify and file the report. In furtherance of the said

order, it is stated that several letters addressed to the

society to comply with the directions contained in the

order dated 18/6/2003 did not fructify except for a

letter dated 5/8/2003 of the Society reiterating its

earlier statement that since the area falls within the

jurisdiction of CMC Yelahanka, the question of

obtaining the approval of layout plan from the BDA did

not arise.

20. Petition was opposed by filing statement of

objections on 9/7/2004 of Respondent No.3, City

Municipal Council, Yelahanka for short ‘CMC’ stating

that by executing the relinquishment deed dated

17/5/2002, the Society made over to the CMC, roads,

parks, playgrounds, drains with water supply, sewerage

lines, street lights etc., as the entire layout was formed.

It is stated that on the execution of the relinquishment

33

deed and handing over of the areas to the CMC, no

changes or alterations are made by the CMC. It is

further stated that by Government Notification dated

4/10/1995, the CMC was constituted with territorial

jurisdiction encompassing the judicial layout and

therefore the layout plan was approved on 22/5/1996.

According to CMC, the Society had formed the layout

before it sought approval of the layout plan which

consisted of the following civic amenity sites:

• 5 areas earmarked for parks;

• About 2 acres towards Chikkabommasandra

• About 2 acres in Allalasandra portion

• An area 960x40/2 + 20 ft

• Areas of about 800 ft x 30 ft

• Portion of about 4 acres by the side of

playgrounds;

• About 2 acres for school;

• About 2 acres for playground by the side of the

park annexed.

34

• Area for temple measuring about 80 ft x 100 ft;

• Water supply common area measuring about 80 ft

x 60 ft.

21. CMC further submits that U/s.170(1) of

Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, for short 'KMC Act',

it is the statutory duty of the Municipality to accord

sanction to the new layouts within its territorial

jurisdiction, and since judicial layout was formed before

it fell within its jurisdiction , and the land was acquired

by the State for the society in accordance with law, CMC

did not find any reason to reject the society's request

for sanction of the layout plan, more so, in the light of

the decision of the Division Bench in AIRCRAFT

EMPLOYEES CO-OP SOCIETY v/s BDA & OTHERS

decided on 20/4/2001, hence passed the resolution

ANNEXURE-‘R-1’, approving the layout plan with the

civic amenity sites as it stood in May 1996.

35

22. Society filed its statement of objections on

9/7/2004 inter alia stating that the Writ Petition for the

alleged irregularities and illegalities is not maintainable

as the Society is registered under the 'KCS Act', not

being a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the

Constitution. Society admitted that it is a dispute

between itself and its members which can be agitated

u/s 70 of the 'KCS Act' and not by way of a Writ. It

stated that all members of the Petitioner Association

and in particular petitioners (b), (j) and (n) are not

members of the Society, hence cannot seek redressal of

alleged irregularities and illegalities said to have

committed by the Society though not committed.

23. The Society further states that it was formed

with the object of securing land, forming layout and

allotting sites to its members, approached the State to

acquire certain lands under the LA Act, to an extent of

193 acres comprised in villages of Allalasandra,

36

Chikkabommasandra and Jakkur Plantation. With

that object, it is stated that it negotiated and entered

into agreements with the land owners for purchase of

200 acres, at the then prevailing market rate.

Government after constitution of Committee called the

“Three Man Screening Committee” obtained a report

over the genuineness of the Society, whereafterwards,

the Deputy Commissioner issued a Notification under

Section 4(1) of the LA Act to acquire lands measuring

170 Acres for and on behalf of the Society, followed by a

final notification to acquire 169 Acres of land. Society

denied that the Government had acquired 193 Acres as

claimed by the Petitioner.

24. It is claimed that out of land to an extend to

156 Acres 26 ¾ guntas, 139 Acres 08 ¾ guntas

possession was delivered to the Society by the Land

Acquisition Officer on 13/11/1992, and issued with a

Possession Certificate ANNEXURE-‘R-1’. As there was

37

litigation in respect of the remaining extent questioning

the acquisition before this Court by the owners of the

lands namely Papaiah and others and a stay order was

in force with respect to 17 Acres and 18 guntas,

possession of that land was not delivered. On the basis

of the extent of land acquired, a tentative layout plan, it

is said, was prepared and submitted to the BDA for

approval, whence BDA passed a resolution No.503/92,

dated 16/11/1992 to approve the plan subject to

certain conditions. The society claims to have called in

question the circular No. RCS 28/94-95 dated

17/5/1994 of the Government not to register

documents unless clearance was obtained from the

Registrar of Co-operative societies and the release order

issued by the BDA in respect of sites formed by Co-

operative Societies in WP No.18447/1994 whence a

learned Single Judge (G.P.Shivaprakash, J.,) by order

dated 15/7/1994 ANNEXURE-‘R-2’ quashed the

Circular.

38

25. At Paragraph 6 it is stated that since WP

11144/1993 and connected petitions filed by other

House Building Societies, were pending relating to the

demand for payment towards Cauvery Water Supply

Scheme; Ring road charges; and surcharges by

Circular of the BDA, the society was unable to comply

with the demand for payment. It is stated that the said

Circular was quashed by order dated 20/4/2001 of the

Division Bench ANNEXURE-‘R-3’. The Writ Petition filed

by one Sri Papaiah and others questioning the

acquisition of their lands was dismissed and the Land

Acquisition Officer delivered possession of the remaining

17 Acres and 18 guntas under Possession Certificate

dated 2/9/1994 ANNEXURE-‘R-4’.

26. In Paragraph 8 it is stated that One

Subramani along with others filed WP 35837/1994 and

other connected petitions by way of Public Interest

Litigation questioning the acquisition of land and

39

Judges of this Court being made members as also

allotment of sites made to them by the Society.

According to the Society, it did not pursue with the BDA

its application for approval of plan though tentatively

approved subject to certain conditions by resolution

dated 16/11/1992. In addition, it is stated that the

demand by the BDA for huge sums of money towards

charges mentioned above subject matter of pending Writ

Petitions which demands were struck down by a

Division Bench as illegal while the Special Leave Petition

was dismissed, petitioner cannot reagitate the very

same alleged irregularities and illegalities.

27. At Paragraph 9 it is stated that Society

initially sought acquisition of 240 acres of land

thereafter reduced to 200 Acres, on obtaining

agreements of sale from owners of lands who were paid

full value, society initiated correspondence with the

Government to acquire the remaining land measuring

40

45 Acres 33 ¼ guntas by letter dated 24/2/1993

ANNEXURE-‘R-5’. This extent of land it is stated was

found as small pockets inter spread within the large

extent of land acquired for the layout. The Special

Deputy Commissioner, it is said, on the basis of the

letter dated 18/5/1993 of the State Government

ANNEXURE R-6 initiated land acquisition proceedings

as disclosed in the letter dated 14/7/1993

ANNEXURE-R-7.

28. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, it is

said, addressed a letter dated 21/8/1993 to the Society

ANNEXURE R-8, requesting furnishing of details of

lands relating to acquisition proceedings to be initiated

along with an application enclosing agreements of sale

obtained from land owners. In compliance with the said

request, Society is said to have made an application

ANNEXURE-‘R-9’ seeking acquisition of 39 Acres 6¼

gunta out of 45 acres 33¼ guntas, as enclosed to the

41

letter dated 30/12/1993 ANNEXURE-‘R-10’, and since

acquisition proceeding was not initiated, the society

addressed a letter dated 13/07/1994 to the Hon'ble

Minister ANNEXURE-‘R-11’.

29. At Paragraph 10, it is asserted that the State

Government constituted the Yelahanka Municipality as

a City Municipal Council under the 'KM Act', by

notification No. HUD 439 KLR 95 dated 4/10/1995

ANNEXURE-‘R-12’ including within its territorial

jurisdiction the entire villages of Chikkabommasandra,

Allalasandra and Jakkur plantation. The said

Yelahanka CMC exercising jurisdiction under the 'KM

Act', while the BDA having no jurisdiction on the said

land, directed the society to pay development charges

and obtain approval of the layout plan. The society, it is

claimed, prepared a comprehensive plan including the

unacquired area, forming 2,200 sites of different sizes,

parks, civic amenities, play ground, stadium, schools,

42

temples, and paid the charges to the Yelahanka CMC

pursuant to which by Resolution No.24 dated

22/5/1996, plan was approved. A copy of which was

placed along with the Memo dated 18/7/2003. (though

such a memo is not traceable in the file). The demand

of the Municipal Council, it is said, was met with by

payment.

30. At Paragraph 11 it is specifically denied that

in the plan furnished to the BDA, for formation of 2048

sites, there is an increase in the number of sites to 2200

in the plan furnished to the city municipal council. It is

asserted that the resolution No. 503/1992 dated

16/11/1992 of the BDA, it was resolved to agree to

approve the layout subject to fulfilment of certain

conditions and as the BDA ceased to have territorial

jurisdiction, and the CMC Yelahanka was invested with

that jurisdiction, the compliance of the conditions set

out by BDA did not arise. The increase in number of

43

sites, it is further stated, is due to the inclusion of 39

acres of land and therefore approval by the CMC,

Yelahanka for formation of 2445 sites is within its

jurisdiction. It is clarified that the total number of sites

in the layout as proposed in the plan submitted to the

BDA was 2268 and not 2048.

31. After approval, sites were formed and

registered in CMC, Yelahanka and Land Tax was

assessed. Sites which were allotted in favour of some of

the petitioners who were members of the Society and

sale deeds executed in their favour and khathas were

made in their names and names included in the

Municipal records and not with the BDA, are the

statement of the Society. Site owners, it is claimed,

have obtained licence and sanctioned plans from CMC,

Yelahanka.

32. After inclusion of unacquired lands and

subsequent delivery of possession of acquired lands by

44

the Land Acquisition Officer, the layout plan was altered

and a comprehensive layout plan was prepared and

number of sites was increased and the plan was

approved by CMC, Yelahanka for 2268 sites. In the

layout plan, land for parks, play ground, stadium, civic

amenities, educational institution, temple have also

been provided, while the Society denies that the open

spaces earmarked for the CA Sites have been allotted

and construction of residential buildings put up.

33. In its General Body Meeting held on

29/9/2002, the Society stated that 49% of 193 Acres

reserved for roads, underground drainage, temple etc

was a mistake in the printing which was got corrected in

the meeting and was within the knowledge of the

petitioner.

34. Society further states that petitioner taking

advantage of the temporary permission granted for

installing Gowri and Ganesh idols to celebrate Ganesh

45

festival are attempting to build up a case with untenable

contentions. They have misinterpreted the letter

ANNEXURE-‘H’. The entire area covered by the

boundaries mentioned in the letter was not a civic

amenity site, while one site measuring about 100 x 100

feet was reserved as Civic Amenity Site for temple and

the said site is still kept vacant.

35. Further the Society submits that it has

provided land for parks, playgrounds etc, and it is for

the CMC, Yelahanka to establish the same; an

educational institution already exists in the layout and

a stadium is to be built and developed by the CMC; It is

for the Government to provide or establish public offices

and hospitals and that there is a Government hospital

in Chikkabommasandra village and private Nursing

Homes near the layout providing medical facilities; and

the Society furnished the letter from the office of CMC

for having taken over possession of the CA sites and

46

informed the Society to deposit remaining difference

amount to the CMC ANNEXURE-‘R-13’.

36. By letter dated 23/1/1999 of the Government

relating to a Circular informing the Societies which

genuinely require lands, in respect of which sale

agreements are entered for formation of layout to

provide residential sites to its members, were permitted

to hold such lands to form layout without acquisition.

Society having obtained final agreements of sale by

paying full sale considerations to the owners of lands

and taken possession pursuant to the agreements of

sale, proceeded with the formation of the layout

including those lands as indicated in the comprehensive

plan prepared in respect of the total extent of 193 acres,

of which approval for 2268 sites included in the

unacquired lands was approved by the CMC. It is

further stated the Society entered into compromise with

land owners who filed suits against the Society as the

47

said lands were not acquired even though they had

agreed to sell and delivered possession.

37. The Society prays for dismissal of the Writ

Petition as it has not committed any irregularity or

illegality which has seriously jeopardized the rights of

the residents in the layout and as the Society has

already handed over the entire layout to CMC, issue of

directions do not arise. It is further stated that BDA

has no jurisdiction over the area in question as it falls

within the Yelahanka CMC limits as per Government

Notification and plan has been approved by the said

CMC and the earlier tentative approval granted by BDA

is irrelevant.

38. The additional statement of objections by way

of Counter Affidavit sworn by Sri. C.Shivalingaiah,

President of the Society, it is stated that after the

Society prepared the Comprehensive Layout Plan and

submitted it to the CMC for approval, inclusive of 17

48

acres 18 guntas of land of which possession was given

in September, 1994, and lands of which agreement of

sale was entered into, falling within the layout area in

respect of which consent was extended by the land

owners for development. CMC demanded layout

charges at 9% and betterment charges at Rs.25/- per

sq.mtrs for unacquired lands measuring 36 acres and

15½ guntas, excluding the area of 14 acres covered by

road, approved the layout plan for 14 acres and 15½

guntas. The total extent for which the layout plan was

approved is an area of 193 acres and 2¼ guntas as per

resolution dated 22/5/1996. He further submits that

there is no plan approved by the BDA but it is approved

by the CMC, Yelahanka. Some of the petitioners in this

petition having approached CMC obtained transfer of

Khata and obtained licence with sanction of the building

plan for construction in their sites which facts have

been suppressed. The deponent further submits that

the approval from the CMC is for 2268 sites of different

49

dimensions and it is a false statement that sanction is

for 2048 sites. Provision is made for parks in five areas;

water tank for supplying water for the entire layout;

playground; school and for construction of a temple in

an area of 80 x 100 ft. All the areas of civic amenities

are handed over to the CMC and entire layout

transferred to the CMC Yelahanka by executing a

relinquishment deed. He further denies that the civic

amenity sites are converted into regular sites and sold

to private persons. A site measuring 80 ft x 100 ft

earmarked for the temple is shown in the layout plan

approved by the CMC as a civic amenity site handed

over the CMC. It is further stated during the year 1990

in the society elections, the petitioner unsuccessfully

contested against the deponent and to wreck vengeance

against the officer bearers have filed the Writ Petition

making false allegations.

50

39. On 19/11/2004 the following order was

passed:

“By order dated 9/7/2004, this Court had

directed the 3rd respondent-CMC and the 4th

respondent-Society to produce the certified copy of

the land sanctioned by the CMC which the learned

counsel appearing for the 4th respondent –Society

submits is complied with by filing the same along

with an application.

The Photostat copy of the plan, produced, is not

legible and we are unable to identify the area

demarcated as civic amenity sites. The 4th

respondent is directed to produce the plan which is

legible and in which the civic amenity sites are

identifiable.

The 4th respondent shall also make available a

copy of the said plan to the 1st respondent –BDA

who shall, keeping in mind the Comprehensive

Development Plan of the said area and Zonal

Regulations, file a statement as to the areas notified

as public, semi public residential, park etc.,

The Registry is directed to place on record the

51

original file in WP 35837/1994 along with connected

writ petitions disposed off on 12th October, 1995.

Call on 10.12.2004.”

40. In compliance with the said directions, BDA

filed its statement on 16/12/2004 stating that it

prepared an enlarged version of the Comprehensive

Development Plan ANNEXURE-‘R-4’ (not found in the

pleadings), attempted to locate the area falling within

the layout plan approved by CMC, Byatarayanapura in

favour of the Society by marking the parks as Exs.P-1 to

P-10, while the CDP describes these areas as residential

zone. Similarly the area reserved for civic amenity

marked as C.A, while two portions in the vicinity of

Ex.P-4 are said to fall in the residential zone. Another

C.A site adjacent to Jakkur Plantation and abutting the

railway line to its West shown as C.A, is described as

Transportation Zone in that CDP, while the extreme

North portion of Jakkur Plantation in which the land of

52

the Society is situated and shown for residential

purpose in the Layout Plan, infact is reserved for a park

in the CDP.

41. On 11/3/2005 Respondent No.3, CMC filed

an additional statement stating that the Commissioner

of CMC assisted by the Engineering Section and

Revenue Section of Municipality surveyed and inspected

the judicial employees’ layout at Allalasandra and

noticed the following factual position of the layout

within the municipal limits:

• 1 Acre 26 guntas between Sy.No.65 and

Sy.No.94 earmarked for playground and park in

the plan is fully covered by fencing with a gate

by a private party claiming to be his land.

• 1 Acre 15 guntas in Sy.No.14/1 earmarked for

school is claimed by a private party.

• 16636 sq.ft is earmarked for burial ground.

• 1070 ft x 111 ft towards south of the layout is

marked for park.

• 85 ft x 87 ft area pump house.

• 425 ft x 270 ft for school and play ground and

53

park

• 142 ft x 61 ft water tank

• 860 ft x 65 ft as park and water tank

• Leaving apart the roads and drainages.

42. The CMC further states that Allalasandra and

adjoining villages were included in CMC, Yelahanka

Municipal limits by Gazette Notification dated

22/8/1995. The layout was formed before the area

came into Municipal limits and the society submitted a

layout plan for approval and for transfer of khata of the

sites in favour of the members and also sanction of

building plans. CMC on 22/5/1996 resolved to transfer

the khata and sanction building plans on compliance

with the Municipal rules and procedure and on the

same day the in charge commissioner affixed the seal

and signature to the plan submitted by the Society.

Further on 17/5/2002, the Society executed a

registered Relinquishment Deed handing over the area

of road, drainage, civic amenity sites etc ANNEXURE-‘R-

54

3B’ without annexing a plan to the deed and presumed

to be accepted as of May 1996 which the Municipality

accepted by its letter dated 23/1/2003. The C.A site

measuring about 2.22 acres is said to be under private

control and the park fenced with compound wall and a

big gate by a private party as found at the time of

survey. C.A school property measuring about 1.04

acres is land of Sri. Shankarappa who had sold this

land to Somaiah in turn he had sold it to Sri.

Jayprakash of V.V.Puram as informed by the villagers

during the inspection. In respect of the other sites,

Municipality has measured and prepared sketches

ANNEXURE-‘R-3C’ series.

43. The CMC further submits that the Society is

due Rs.47,04,568/- towards development and

supervision charges in respect of the layout to the

Municipality.

44. On 6/1/2006, (found in CCC 87/2004 c/w

55

WP 40994/02 order sheet) the following order was

passed:

“Sri V.Lakshminarayan, learned counsel for the

4th respondent submits that the Annexure R-2 to the

affidavit dated 20.10.2005, particularises the details

of the 250 sites, identified by the Society, from out of

the 404 sites, said to be located in the civic amenity

area, in the report of the Bangalore Development

Authority. According to the learned counsel, the

aforesaid 250 sites fall within the areas reserved for

civic amenities. The learned counsel requests that a

direction be issued to the BDA to conduct a joint

inspection to identify the remaining 154 sites, as the

Society is unable to do so on the basis of the plan

submitted by the BDA along with the report.

Sri C B Srinivasan, learned Standing Counsel for

BDA has no objections for a joint inspection and to

identify the balance 154 sites, with reference to the

report submitted.

Recording the submission of the learned counsel

for the parties, the BDA is directed to conduct a joint

inspect after issuing notices to the 1st petitioner and

56

the 4th respondent Society fixing the date/s and

time for inspection and identify the remaining 154

sites. The 4th respondent is thereafter permitted to

file an additional affidavit in respect of the said

sites.

Sri Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for

the petitioner points out to the photo copies of the

encumbrance certificates, to contend that more than

13 sites are conveyed by the present office bearers

after the interim order was passed in this case,

which is contrary to the submission of Sri V

Lakshminarayan, learned counsel for the 4th

respondent recorded in the order sheet dated

8.7.2005. Sri V Lakshminarayan seeks time to

secure instructions as to whether all the said sites

fall within the area earmarked for civic amenity etc.,

or elsewhere.

Having regard to the fact that the 4th respondent

has identified 250 sites falling within the area

reserved for civic amenity etc., reference to which is

made in the Annexure R-2 to the statement of

objections dated 20.10.2005, it is necessary that the

nature of the said sites should be preserved without

57

effecting any change and hence, we direct that no

construction or further construction shall be put up

on the said 250 sites. But at the same time, it does

not mean that construction could be made or

proceeded within such of those sites which have so

far not been identified by the Society as falling

within area reserved for civic amenity etc., though as

a matter of fact they are in the said area. It is useful

to extract the order dated 9.7.2004, which reads

thus:

“It is also made clear that any construction made

on any civic amenity site, as per the map,

hereonwards would be at the risk and responsibility

of the person making such construction.”

In our considered view, the aforesaid order

would take care of such of those sites which have

not been so far identified by the 4th respondent

Society as falling within the areas reserved for civic

amenities, parks etc.,

We further direct the 4th respondent Society to

communicate this order to all its members.

58

List on 3rd February, 2006.

Let a copy of this order be made available to the

learned counsel for 1st petitioner, 4th respondent

Society as well as learned Standing Counsel for

BDA.”

45. In compliance with the order dated 6/1/2006,

BDA states that it conducted the Joint Survey along

with the petitioner and the Society on 4/2/2006 and

prepared a joint Inspection Report identifying 404 sites

and the Plan. As per the joint inspection report, 154

sites are identified along with the 250 sites formed by

the society, as falling within the civic amenity area.

Details of the site numbers vacant or built up, it is said,

is enclosed as ANNEXURE-A and the area reserved for

parks/open spaces and Civic Amenity Sites in the draft

layout submitted by the Society during 1992 as

ANNEXURE-B in the Report submitted by the BDA,

while roads have been tarred and electric facilities

59

provided to the layout.

46. Society filed its statement of objections to the

report submitted by BDA in compliance with the order

stating that at the time of survey, Secretary of the

society Sri. Suresh Kumar.S (who is under suspension

for misconduct), 1st petitioner and officers of the BDA

were present with a copy of the plan produced by the

petitioners which is said to be a draft plan submitted by

the Society to the BDA without signature and seal of the

Society, whence the Secretary objected to identify any

CA site as per the said plan, nevertheless officials of the

BDA continued their survey and marked the areas

reserved for Future Development sites as CA sites and

prepared report stating that there are the 404 sites. The

plan was not prepared or finalised on the spot at the

time of inspection and is not signed by the Secretary of

the Society is the objection. It is alleged that the plan

submitted by BDA to the Court is as per instruction of

60

the petitioner and prepared in the office of the BDA.

The draft plan, it is stated, submitted for approval to

BDA on 6/11/1992 is as per the old norms on the basis

of 65% sital area and 35% CA, park and road area and

same had been agreed to be sanctioned by BDA as per

its resolution dated 16/11/1192 on compliance of

certain conditions. Hence, it is stated BDA or the

petitioners cannot contend that the Society is required

to leave more than 35% as CA, park and road area.

47. The further objections are that the BDA in its

statement of objections ANNEXURE-‘R-1’, stated that

since the area is surrounded by GKVK (UAS) campus

with garden and forest area of about 4000 acres

situated on 3 sides of this layout and about 40-50 Acres

of medicinal plantation maintained by the Central

Government, some open space required to be left is

reduced in the formation of the layout as it will not

affect greenery or ecology in the area. It is submitted

61

that some of the members of the petitioner society have

obtained allotment of sites from the Society in area

shown as CA and Park area and have constructed

houses thereon obtaining plan and licence from the

CMC, hence, it is not open for the petitioners to

question the authority of Society in obtaining the

approved plan from CMC. 83 structures/constructions

being illegal or unauthorised construction in the layout,

it is stated, are incorrect as they have been duly

authorised by the CMC.

48. This Court on 22/12/2006 (in CCC 87/2004)

passed the following order:

“The Learned Senior Counsel representing the

parties submit that they would have a joint inspection

of the areas as mentioned in the application to be

earmarked for civic amenities and report on 12th

January, 2007.

It is hoped that the Learned Senior Counsel

would bring about an amicable resolution to the vexed

dispute by the next date of hearing.

62

List on 12th January, 2007.”

49. In compliance with that order, Petitioner on

19/01/2007 filed an Inspection Report after a survey

was conducted on 5/1/2007 and 18/1/2007 in respect

of certain lands mentioned in the I.As filed by the

Society which reads thus:

1. “The temple site earmarked as one in the map

submitted by the BDA was inspected. The said

site measures 80’ x 100’.

2. The area earmarked as 1203 is not in existence.

3. The park area earmarked as III was also

measured. The said area measures 424 ft x 267

ft. While the said measurements were being taken

one Muni Narayanappa S/o Muniswamappa gave

a statement that he is the owner of 0.29 guntas of

land in the said area. He stated that he is the

owner of the said land and it was seen that several

thatched roof huts were built on the said land. He

has also produced encumbrance for the same. Sri

63

Muninarayanappa is in possession of 0.28

Guntas.

4. In so far as the area earmarked as IIIA is

concerned, the measurement was taken and it is

found that the area measures 968’ x 102’ + 11/2

(54692 sq ft)

5. IIIB: Area bearing No. IIIB was also measured.

The said area measures about 40’+37/2 x 200’;

37+32/2 x 200’; 32+29/2 x 200’; 24+29/2 x 200’;

and 24+19/2 x 133’ (28860 sq ft)

6. IIIC: Railway Marginal Land: The area earmarked

as IIIC, was also measured. The said area

measures 10.10’ + 4/2 x 409’. At one end the

area measures 4 ft in width and at the other end

the same measures about 14 ft. (2863 sq ft)

7. In so far as area ear-marked as IIID in the map

submitted by the society the area was measured

and the same measures 76+76+72/3 x 898’. In

the said area storm water drain measuring

300’x15’ has been constructed. The said storm

water drain has not been fully constructed. At

northern end of the area there is a burial ground

64

and there are six tombs. Besides six tombs there

is a structure constructed by the City Municipal

Council and the same is not in use. About 10 Ft.

depth drain exits (67050 Sq Ft) through out

abutting the GKVK Compound.

8. VA: The area ear-marked as VA belongs to the

brother of Sri. Javaji Sreenivasalu, Advocate Javaji

Sreenivasalu was also present at the time of

taking measurement and he has given a statement

that the said land belongs to his brother. He is

ready and willing to show the registered sale deeds

in that behalf. Hence no measurement was taken.

The members of the society did not dispute this

fact.

9. VB: The area ear-marked as VB measures

16+12’/2 x 111’. The said area includes footpath

and transformer. (1554 sq ft)

10. VC: The said site is vacant measuring 31’ x

60’ (1860 sq ft).

11. Subsequently, the area measuring VD as

shown in the map submitted by the society was

inspected. The Respondent No.4 – Society

65

contends that the said area measures 50 ‘ x 60 ft.

However, on actual measurements, the said area

measures only 39 ft x 26 ft (1045 sq ft).

12. Area ear-marked as VE is not in existence

and hence not inspected.

13. The area ear-marked at VF at para 7 was

also inspected. The area measures

36’+4+10+14/4 x 160 ft (2560 sq ft)

14. At para 8 of the I.A. submitted by the

Respondent No.4- Society, the Society has shown

in the map that it would keep open six sites. On

inspection it was found that there are only five

sites each measuring 30’ x 40’. It is submitted

that in the BDA report there are about 38 sites

carved out in the said CA area, out of which the

Respondent No.4 – society has consented to

relinquish only five sites.

15. At Para 9 of the I.A. submitted by the

Respondent No.4 – society, the society has

consented to relinquish about 32,200 sq ft. (Burial

ground). It is submitted that the said burial

ground is not available for the benefit of the

66

residents of the judicial layout and the same is not

acquired. The said burial ground is only used by

Allalasandra people for cremation.

16. The measurements were conducted in the

presence of the petitioners as well as the members

of the society. All the areas earmarked above are

carved out of the Map produced by the society and

is not in accordance with the BDA Map.”

50. Sri.C.Shivalingaiah, President of the Society

filed an affidavit on 22/02/2007 in pursuance of the

order dated 2/2/2007 in CCC 87/2004 which reads :

“Sri.Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for some of

the contemnors had made a statement before this

court during one of the dates of hearing, under

instructions of his client, that the Society would

expend sufficient monies towards providing basic

amenities such as construction of a Post Office,

Library, Milk booth, a shelter for HOPCOMS, a Police

Station, Temple and similar such amenities in the

Judicial Layout. The said submission is not a part of

the records. Hence, the same is recorded today, to

which the learned counsel has no objection. Learned

67

counsel submits that he would have a responsible

officer of the Society to ensure filing of an affidavit,

undertaking in that regard, after a resolution is

passed by the Society. List on 23-02-2007 before

which time the Society shall file the affidavit.

Sri Keshava Reddy, learned AGA is permitted to

have an inspection of the records of this proceeding

as well as the earlier proceedings which have

reached a finality and are placed along with these

records.

List for evidence on 23-02-2007.”

51. The affidavit filed on 22/2/2007 by

C.Shivalingaiah reads thus:

“I C.Shivalingaiah, s/o. Late Shri.Channegowda,

aged about 66 years, President,Karnataka Judicial

Department Employees House Building Co-operative

Society, Bangalore-560 001, do hereby solemnly

affirm and state on oath as follows:

1) I submit that in pursuance of the order passed by

this Hon’ble Court on 2-2-2007 in the above

matters, the Board Meeting of the Karnataka

State Judicial Department Employees House

Building Co-operative Societies Ltd., was held on

68

13-2-2007 for considering the submission made

on behalf of the society by our Advocate Sri

S.K.Venkata Reddy before this Hon’ble Court for

providing amenities, that was placed on record

by passing an order by this Hon’ble Court and or

filing affidavit of a responsible officer of the

society to ensure the same. The subject was

placed before the Board meeting with the copy of

the order in Subject no.4 of the Agenda for

consideration and to pass a resolution in respect

of the same.

2) I submit it was unanimously resolved by the

Board of Management of the 4th Respondent in

the writ petition in subject No.4 to construct a

building consisting of Ground Floor and 1st Floor

in the vacant land adjacent ot the existing society

building. Being the centre of the layout to provide

HOPCOMS, Mulk booth, Police Station and Post

Office in the ground floor and Library, in the 1st

floor as per the plan got prepared through the

civil Engineer. The copy of the plan is produced

as Annexure-A to this affidavit. It is decided to

construct the said building providing all facilities

in one place under a common roof by the societies

69

funds and mobilising funds from other sources.

It was also resolved and decided to correspond

with the concerned departments for providing the

said facilities in the building proposed to be

constructed and to request them to co-operate

and co-ordinate with us in establishing the said

services in the building.

3) I submit the society has also resolved to reserve

and provide the area measuring 84 feet x 134

feet in Site No.859/B-1 for construction of the

temple and further resolved that the society

would undertake to construct the temple from out

of its own funds and funds mobilised by

donations from devotees and philanthropists. A

plan has been got prepared and annexed to the

affidavits Annexure-B. Already an application

was filed by the society on 17-11-2006

earmarking certain sites for civic amenities.

4) I submit the resolution passed by the Board of

Management of the 4th Respondent is produced

as Annexure-C to this affidavit.

5) I submit the Board of Management has passed

70

the resolution authorising me to file this Affidavit

by giving an undertaking to provide the facilities

as described above and as per the resolution by

constructing a complex and the temple as per the

plan annexed to this affidavit.

6) I swear that this is my name and signature and

the contents of this Affidavit are true and

correct.”

52. Sri S.D.Venkataramaiah, one of the

petitioners has filed an affidavit in response to the IA

filed by the Society for consideration of settlement on

17/11/2006 wherein the Society has shown certain

area in the judicial layout as available for public

purpose. It is stated in the affidavit that a joint

inspection was made by the senior counsel along with

the petitioners and the Society members. Area shown in

the IA filed by the Society is not in accordance with the

actual area as observed by the senior counsel and hence

the same was not acceptable to the petitioner. Affidavit

filed by the president of the Society on 22/2/2007 in

71

compliance with the court order stated that area initially

left for temple was measuring 195 ft x 200 ft and out of

which now the Society has made available only 130 ft x

84 ft and area left for parks etc is not sufficient for a

population of 2500 site owners. An area of 60 ft x 31 ft

as shown available for public purpose is not additional

area.

53. Having regard to the nature of controversy

brought before Court and the efforts of the learned

Senior counsel to reduce the shortfall in the area

reserved for civic amenity and open spaces in the layout

formed by the Society, although, without a sanction of

the layout plan, it is useful to notice the orders passed

and directions issued over an extended period of time

which are extracted herein below:

54. This Court on 2/3/2007 passed the following

order:

72

“Learned counsel for the petitioner files an

affidavit dated 2-3-2007 of one

S.D.Venkataramaiah, one of the petitioners, by way

of a counter to the I.A. dated 17-11-2006 filed by the

4th respondent. The same is taken on record.

Sri.Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel for

one of the contemnors submits that the Writ Petition

be heard on its maintainability. We are not

impressed by this submission. The maintainability

of the writ petition will be heard along with the merit

of the petition. The trial in the contempt case is yet

to commence. Moreover, the volume of orders

passed in this petition and the Contempt petition

only disclose the extent of leeway extended to the

Society and the contemnors, to place relevant

material before this Court. It is true that the Society

and the contemnors have evinced interest, at the

instance of this Court, to bring about a resolution.

Nevertheless, the tenor of the objections filed by the

writ petitioners, discloses that a plausible resolution

is like a mirage in a desert.

On a perusal of the order-sheet maintained in

the Writ petition and the Contempt petition, what is

73

noticeable is the fact that C.Shivalingaiah, President

of the Society made a statement, as recorded in the

order dated 19-08-2004 that a plan was submitted

to the BDA before it was transferred to the

jurisdictional City Municipal Council, Yelahanka, and

this court by order dated 17.12.2004 directed him to

furnish the said plan submitted by the BDA for its

approval, at the earliest point of time, which is not

complied with till date.

It is the allegation of the petitioners that in every

Sale Deed executed by the Society, contains a

covenant that the site allotted/conveyed was

pursuant to the sanction of a layout plan by the

BDA. Thus, the said plan assumes great importance

in order to decide the controversy brought before this

Court. We say so because, admittedly the plan

earmarked areas for civic amenity, open spaces,

playgrounds, parks, etc.. The particulars and

identity of the said areas in the layout must be with

reference to the BDA plan, which unfortunately is not

forthcoming. The Society and more particularly,

C.Shivalingaiah, President has evaded the

production of the said plan. It is not as if the Society

did not deliberate in any of its meetings over the

74

layout to be formed in the land acquired for the

Society. It is not as if the Society did not earmark

specific areas for residential, commercial,

playgrounds, parks, temples, schools, etc. It is not

as if the Society, without any basis, went about its

business of allotting sites to its members. Strangely,

though not these facts are strongly guarded secrets.

In this view of the matter, we are left with no

other option but to direct the Society to place before

this Court all and every relevant material relating to

the resolutions passed by the Society from its

inception as well as the audited statement of

accounts which might throw some light in the

direction of deciding the questions that arise for

consideration. We are aware of the past litigation,

the pleadings of which are apart of this petition

disclosing affidavits of C.Shivalingaiah, President

furnishing sketchy details of the percentages of land

earmarked for open spaces, amenities, roads, etc

and the fact that those calculations are based upon

a sanction of a layout plan by the BDA. It has been

the endeavour of the petitioners to point out to the

statement of the President of the Society, at every

stage, in each and every proceedings to point out the

75

percentages of land set apart for civic amenities, etc.

It is no doubt true that the Bangalore

Development Authority, at the instance of this Court

filed a report detailing the total number of residential

sites that fall within the civic amenity areas,

playgrounds, parks, etc., earmarked and delineated

in the plan submitted by the Society. This report is

yet to be considered and ordered. Thus, looking at it

from any angle, the answer to the questions lies in

the plan submitted by the Society to the BDA.

We are therefore constrained to direct the

Society to place before this Court before the next

date of hearing all and every material recoding the

resolutions passed from the inception of the Society,

till yesterday.

Sri.Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior counsel

seeks a week’s accommodation to commence the

trial. List on 16-03-2007 for evidence and for the

Society to comply with this order.

Let a copy of this order be made available to

both the parties.”

76

55. In pursuance of the show cause notice, the

Society filed a memo stating that Supreme Court passed

an order of interim stay of order dated 2/3/2007 until

further orders in SLP to Appeal (Civil) No.5057/2007.

56. On 10/8/2007, it was brought to the notice of

the Court that the Committee of Management of the

Society is superseded by an order of the State

Government appointing an administrator under the

'KCS Act,' hence, the Court directed the State to place

the order of supersession and appointment of

administrator to the Society.

57. Government Advocate filed a Memo on

17/8/2007 producing the order dated 8/8/2007 of the

Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies (I & M),

Bangalore superseding the Committee of Management of

the Society, in compliance with the order dated

10/8/2007.

77

58. This court on 23/11/2007 passed the

following order:

“Heard the learned senior counsel for the

Petitioners.

The learned counsel for respondents/society seeks a

week’s accommodation to explore the possibility of

bringing about a resolution to the controversy.

In the light of the report of the BDA dated

17/2/006, indicating that there are 404 sites formed

in the open sites formed in the open spaces as

shown in the layout plan submitted to the BDA by

the society, the respondent is directed to furnish to

the Court, by the next date of hearing, the names

and addresses of the allottees and subsequent

owners of the said sites.

Post on 7th December, 2007.”

59. In compliance with this order, the Society on

4/1/2008 filed memo along with the copy of the list of

names and addresses of allottees of 404 sites, whence

this court passed the following order:

78

“In compliance with the order dated

23/11/2007, Sri.Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned

counsel for the 4th respondent – Society submits that

on 30/11/2007, a letter was addressed to the Sub-

Registrar, Yelahanka to furnish the Encumbrance

Certificates in respect of 404 sites formed in the open

spaces as shown in the Layout plan submitted by

the BDA by the Society and as indicated by the BDA

in its report dated 17/2/2006, so as to ascertain the

names and addresses of the persons registered as

owners of the sites in question under instruments of

transfer, to which the Sub-Registrar has indicated

that the Encumbrance Certificates would be issued

provided Rs.68,000/- is paid as fee. According to

the learned counsel, the Administrator of the Society

is not in a position to pay the said sum of money and

secure the Encumbrance Certificates. Learned

counsel further submits that the Administrator is

currently holding charge of Deputy Registrar of Co-

operative Societies, Circle-I and hardly finds time to

administer the Society and that the State be directed

to ensure that the Administrator functions full time,

to assist the Court in this proceeding.

Having regard to the fact that the petition is a

79

public interest litigation espousing the cause of not

only the members of the Society but the citizens at

large and keeping in mind the nature of complaint

brought before this Court, we think it appropriate to

direct the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka to furnish to the

2nd respondent the Encumbrance Certificates in

respect of the 404 sites, without insisting with the

payment of fee and the State, through its

Government Advocate, is directed to place before

Court the said Encumbrance Certificates. It is made

clear that the Sub-Registrar shall furnish the names

and addresses of the Transferor and Transferee as

disclosed in the instruments of transfer, in each of

the Encumbrance Certificates. The State is further

directed to ensure that the Administrator of the

Society functions fulltime in the administration of the

4th respondent-Society so as to assist the Court in

the proceedings in this petition.

State to place on record the Encumbrance

Certificates within four weeks. Learned counsel for

the 4th respondent files a memo dated 4/1/2008

enclosing a copy of the letter dated 30/11/2007

addressed to the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka and the

names and addresses of the allottees of the 404

80

sites as found in the registers of the Society. The

same is taken on record. List on 8/2/2008. Let a

copy of this order be made available to the learned

Government Advocate.”

60. Further on 8/2/2008, the Additional

Government Advocate submitted that the encumbrance

certificates are made available and a list would be

prepared and filed. Society also filed a memo setting

out certain proposal for settlement which was

unacceptable to the Petitioner Association as stated in

the order dated 28/3/2008. The order sheet discloses

that the appointment of administrator the 4th

respondent society was quashed by order dated

26/3/2008 of a learned single Judge.

61. On 17/6/2008, the Society filed a Memo

along with copy of the order dated 21/4/2008 in SLP to

Appeal (Civil) No.5057/2007 wherein the order

challenged was dismissed with liberty to make an

81

application before the Division Bench of the High Court

on the question of maintainability of the Writ Petition.

62. Pursuant to the resolution dated 3/7/2008,

Society filed a memo dated 4/9/2008 along with an

affidavit of even date placing on record the layout map

ANNEXURE’R-4(4)’ (not found in the pleadings)

demarcating areas coloured in Maroon and purple,

available for being deployed as civic amenity sites and

areas coloured yellow, being sites allotted to one Sri

Ramakrishnappa and others, of which the Registrar of

Societies has passed an order to take action to

invalidate the sale deeds, who is said to be negotiating

with the society to settle the issue. Accordingly, 39% of

the extent of 184 Acres comprised in the layout

constitutes roads, civic amenities, parks, open spaces;

although only 35% was contemplated by the Society at

the earliest point of time when the layout plan was

placed before the BDA for approval. BDA while

82

imposing conditions to approve the layout plan, directed

that an extent of 35% of the land be left out for roads,

civic amenities and other open spaces.

63. On 5/9/2008, the respondent-Society was

directed to place on record the exact dimensions,

boundaries and the schedules of each of the areas

demarcated with the colours purple, pink, maroon and

yellow in the plan ANNEXURE-‘R-4(4)’ to the memo, in

addition an affidavit as to whether the aforesaid areas

are freehold or otherwise.

64. Additional affidavit of the society dated

3/10/2008 is filed along with enclosures in compliance

with the order dated 5/9/2008.

65. An affidavit is filed by the petitioner on

5/12/2008, as objections to the additional affidavit filed

by the Society on 3/10/2008, stating that the

compromise proposal put forth is not accurate and does

not inspire confidence, while the detailed description of

83

total extent of undisputed land available is more than 3

acres and 27 guntas. The list of RTC Extracts and

letters, representation addressed to the President of

Association at Janaspandana Karyakrama in Judicial

Layout in reply to 20 points grievances of the residents

is also furnished along with the affidavit.

66. A Counter affidavit is filed on 5/1/2009 by

the Society by way of rejoinder to the affidavit filed by

the Petitioner enclosing copy of the proceedings of the

Society held on 3/8/2008 as a Souharda Spandana

Sabhe ANNEXURE-‘R-4(12) ; copy of RTC extract for the

year 2008-2009 in respect of Sy.No.94/3 is filed as

ANNEXURE-‘R-4(13)’; and copy of the letter

dated30/7/2008 that the Society had submitted to the

Tahsildar on 6/8/2008 for correction as ANNEXURE-

‘R’4(14)’. While Annexure-‘R-4(15)’ is a copy of the letter

of the Tahsildar addressed to the Assistant

Commissioner. ANNEXURE-‘R-16 TO 18’ are said to be

84

the RTC Extracts of Sy.No.4 marked as Exs.P1-P2, 104-

3A-1, 104-3A-2, 14(5), 14(6).

67. Memo filed by representatives of the petitioner

when considered the following the order was passed on

17.4.2009:

“The property in question, when acquired, fell

within the territorial jurisdiction of the then

Bangalore Development Authority and thereafter

within the local authority known as City Municipal

Council, Yelahanka – respondent No.3. It appears,

by a notification, the area comprised within the City

Municipal Council, Yelahanka, has since merged

with the Bangalore City Corporation, presently

known as Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike.

Therefore, there is a need to substitute the third

respondent as Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara

Palike. The petitioners are permitted to carry out the

amendment to the cause-title, by substituting the

third respondent to that of Bruhat Bangalore

Mahanagara Palike, by its Commissioner.

The registry is directed to issue hand-summons

85

to the petitioners for service of notice of the petition

on the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike,

returnable by 24/04/2009. Steps to be taken

forthwith.

The fourth respondent is directed to prepare and

file a map encompassing an area of 156 acres and

26 ¾ guntas of land acquired for the Society by the

State, incorporating the areas earmarked for civic

amenities, open spaces etc., and sites.

The State Government to secure and place before

the Court, from the Special Land Acquisition Officer

the material particulars of acquisition of the land

measuring 156 Acres and 26 ¾ guntas together with

the map and the records relating to handing over

possession of the said lands to the Society, on or

before 24/04/2009.

List this matter on 24/04/2009.”

68. In compliance with the order dated

17/4/2009, the respondent-Society filed a memo (not

found in the record) dated 24/4/2009 enclosing a

layout map in respect of 156 acres and 24 guntas and

86

the unacquired portion of land demarcated in green

colour over which sites are formed. It is pointed out

that the CA and park area represents 4.82%, while

roads 33.65%. The areas earmarked for CA and parks

are coloured crimson, and the open space in purple,

under the nomenclature ‘acquired/vacant’, in the

abstract.

69. By order dated 24/4/2009, the Court directed

BBMP Commissioner to make a spot inspection of the

CA, park and open areas earmarked in the map and file

a report over:

a) Location

b) Measurements

c) The condition and availability of the said areas.

70. Vide Court order dated 17/04/2009, the

Government Advocate produced and placed before the

Court, three files with index and pagination, relating to

acquisition of the land.

87

71. BBMP has filed a memo dated 22/7/2009

enclosing a report with Annexure pursuant to a survey

conducted by its Engineering Department in compliance

with the order dtd.24/4/2009.

72. Society has filed a reply to the Report of

BBMP which reads thus:

“REPLY OF THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE DATED 28.07.2009:

The Respondent No.4 begs to submit as follows:

1. This Hon'ble Court by its order dated

05.09.2008 directed Bruhath Bangalore

Mahanagara Palike to measure and identify the

open areas, Parks and C.A. Sites as

demarcated in the plan submitted by this

Respondent along with the interim application

and to file a report of the same. In compliance

with the said order the Commissioner for the

Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike has

submitted a report of the lands held by this

Respondent, showing the Dimensions,

88

Boundaries and the Schedule of each of the

areas demarcated in different colours.

2. It is humbly submitted that at the outset it is

to be brought to the notice of this Hon'ble court

that only in so far as the Lands shown in the

Schedule at Sl. Nos. VI- XVII (excluding lands at

Sl. Nos. I to V) is being demarcated as Areas to

be utilized for the purposes of Civic Amenities at

the first instance by this Respondent. This

Respondent had demarcated 8.21 ¼ Acres of

land to be used for the purposes of Civic

Amenities. According to the above report filed

by the Commissioner of the BBMP, 8.15 ¼

Acres of land is reading available with this

Respondent Society for the purpose of handing

it over to the BBMP to be developed as C.A.

Sites.

3. This respondent may be permitted to

submit a reply upon each of the items

mentioned in the Schedule as here under:

I. LAND SHOWN AT SL.NO.I, AS VACANT

LAND IN SY. NO. 94/3(P) MEASURING 0.37

89

ACRES (40293 SQ. FT):

This land was not shown as reserved for the

purpose of utilization as a C.A. area by this

Respondent in the plan submitted to this

Hon’ble Court. Out of 37 Guntas of land that

was acquired for the purpose of Society, there

are certain encroachments in about 15-17

Guntas of land. Even as on today about 20

Guntas of land is vacant and this Respondent

most humbly submits that the said land

measuring 24 Guntas in sy. No. 94/3(P) can be

immediately handed over to the BBMP to be

developed as C.A. Area.

II. LAND SHOWN AT SL. NO.II, SITE NO.

2013(C) MEASURING 0.05 ACRES (5482 SQ.

FT.):

This site was not shown as reserved for the

purpose of utilization as a C.A. Area in the plan

submitted to this Hon’ble Court by this

respondent. This site has already been allotted

to a member of the respondent Society.

III. LAND SHOWN AT SL. NO.III, SITE NO.

90

2072(A) MEASURING 0.16 ¾ ACRES (18326

SQ. FT.): (20957 SQ. FT. BY BBMP)

These sites were not shown as reserved for the

purpose of utilization as a C.A. Area in the plan

submitted to this Hon’ble Court by this

Respondent. These sites are formed in an

Acquired land and the possession is with the

Respondent Society and hence the said sites

0.16 ¾ ACRES (18326 SQ. FT) can be

immediately handed over to the BBMP to be

developed as C.A. Area. The Encumbrance

Certificate of these sites has already been filed

before this Hon'ble Court.

IV. LAND SHOWN AT SL. NO. IV, AS OLD

PUMP HOUSE NEAR RAILWAY TRACK

MEASURING 0.15 ½ ACRES (16896 SQ. FT):

This land was not shown as reserved for the

purpose of utilization as a C.A. Area by this

Respondent. The Old Pump House which is

connected to the Bore well belongs to the

Respondent Society and can be handed over

to the BBMP to be used for the purpose of Civic

Amenity

91

V. LAND SHOWN AT SL. NO. V, AS SY NO. 4(P)

OF JAKKUR PLANTATION VACANT LAND

MEASURING 1.15 ACRES (59884 SQ. FT):

(55641 SQ. FT. BY BBMP)

This land was not shown as reserved for the

purpose of utilization as a C.A. Area by this

Respondent. This Land is reserved by the

Respondent Society for the purpose of formation

of sites. The details of this land are as shown

below:

(a) The land measuring 2 acres in Sy. No.4 of

the former Jakkur Plantation Village, Yelahanka

Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore had

been acquired by the State Government, for the

benefit of the Respondent Society vide

Preliminary Notification dated 11.02.1988 and

Final Notification bearing No. R.D/156/AQB/84

dated 24.02.1994. True copy of Final

Notification dated 24.02.1994 is produced

herewith and marked as DOCUMENT NO.1.

(b) In LAC No. 903/1988-89 the Special Land

92

Acquisition Officer passed a General Award of

Rs.1,96,800/- along with interest. True copy of

General Award dated 11.12.1990 is produced

herewith and marked as DOCUMENT NO.2.

(c) The Respondent-Society had filed W.P. No.

1600/1994 praying to direct the Respondents to

deliver possession of certain lands which

included the above stated 2 acres of land of

Jakkur Plantation Villages, which was allowed

by Order dated 10.02.1994 by this Hon'ble Court

with a direction to the Respondents therein to

handover possession of the lands to the Society

within six weeks from the date of receipt of the

Order. True copy of the Order dated 10.02.1994

in W.P. No. 1600/1994 is produced herewith and

marked as DOCUMENT NO.3.

(d) By an Official Memorandum bearing No. LAQ

(9) SR 12/87-88 dated 02.09.1994, the Special

Land Acquisition Officer handed over possession

of the lands mentions therein including the Lands

measuring 2 acres as stated above to the

Respondent-Society. Out of the 2 Acres mentioned

above, a part of the land has been utilized for the

93

formation of the Road by this Respondent and the

remaining measuring 1 Acre 15 Guntas is still in

lawful possession of this Respondent. True copy

of the Official Memorandum 02.09.1994 is

produced herewith and marked as DOCUMENT NO.

4

(e) The previous owner of the said land, one J.M.

Krishnappa had questioned the aforesaid

Acquisition Proceedings by filing W.P NO. 7084/

1989 before this Hon'ble Court and the same has

been dismissed as withdrawn by Order dated

13.11.1992 with observation as under:

"However, a memo has been filed stating

that an understanding has been arrived at

between the petitioner and 4th respondent

and his contentions to be kept open. There

cannot be any conditional undertaking. This

is made known to the counsel.”

Counsel submitted that he will withdraw it

unconditionally. Statement recorded. Memo

rejected.

Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn".

True copy of the Order dated 13.11.1992 in

94

W.P.No. 7084/1989 is produced herewith and

marked as Document No.5

f) As there was dispute with regard to the title

claimed by the said J.M. Krishnappa, the award

amount was deposited at the Civil Court U / S 30,

31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act for

determination of the rightful owner to pay the

compensation. Thereafter on the Claim statement

filed by J.M.Krishnappa and proving his title, the

Hon 'ble Court in L.A.C. no. 221/1999 by its order

dated 31.07.2004 held that J.M. Krishnappa is

entitled for compensation awarded and also for

interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the compensation

awarded of Rs. 1,96,800/- for one year and

thereafter at 15% which has been paid by this

Respondent. True copy of the Award in L.A.C. no.

221/1999 is produced herewith and marked as

DOCUMENT NO.6.

g) Since interest awarded by the Civil Court was

not paid by this Respondent, J .M., Krishnappa

has filed an Execution Petition in Ex. No. 1/2005

in order to avail interest upon the compensation

amount awarded and the same has been

95

deposited to the court by this Respondent.

Memorandum of Execution Petition in Ex. No.

1/2005 is produced herewith and marked as

DOCUMENT NO.7.

h) The owner J.M. Krishnappa has withdrawn

the amount by filing a memo regarding

satisfaction of the Award amount in full as per

memo dated 12.06.2008. True copy of Memo

dated 12.06.2008 is produced herewith and

marked as DOCUMENT NO. 8. Thereafter the

Cheque bearing: No.79249 dated 10.07.2008 for

Rs.1,37 895/- was issued in favour of J.M.

Krishnappa by the Registrar, City Civil Court

Bangalore which was received by him. True

copy of the Order sheet showing Endorsement

dated 10.07.2008 is produced herewith and

marked as DOCUMENT NO.9.

(i) Pursuant to the Acquisition Proceedings,

the Revenue Records in respect of the Suit

Schedule property was transferred into the

name of the Defendant Society vide MR 8/

1992-93, after due publication following the

procedure contemplated in law. True copy of the

96

Revenue Record showing the name of the

Respondent Society is produced herewith and

marked as DOCUMENT NO. 10.

(j) Though this Respondent is the owner in

possession of the said land as per the

Acquisition Proceedings and as per the entries

relevant columns of the Revenue Records, the

said J.M. Krishnappa has now filed a Suit in O.S.

No. 3124/2009 claiming that he is in

possession of the said land and he has also set

up one person to put up a Dhabha by name

Uday Huts and also to file a Suit in O.S. No.

2873/2009 before the City Civil Court at

Bangalore.

VI. LAND SHOWN AT SL. NO. VI AS C.A NEAR

60’ ROAD TOWARDS SOUTH MEASURING

1.15 ½ ACRES (59944 SQ. FT): (60026

SQ. FT. BY BBMP)

This Site is shown as a Park and the same is

readily available to be handed over to the

BBMP.

97

VII. LAND SHOWN AT SL. NO. VII AS C.A.

NEAR 60' TOWARDS NORTH MEASURING

0.028 ¼ ACRES (30764 SQ.FT) (30664 SQ.

FT. BY BBMP)

The Pump House is constructed by the

Respondent Society which is being used for the

purpose of supply of water to the residents of

the Judicial Layout. The remaining area is Park

area and the same is readily available to be

handed over to the BBMP.

VIII. LAND SHOWN AT SL. NO. VIII, AS

WATER TANK, MEASURING 0.07 ½ ACRES

(8369 SQ. FT): (8013 SQ. FT. BY BBMP)

The Water Tank is constructed by the

Respondent Society which is being used for the

purpose of supply of water to the residents of

the Judicial Layout. The said area is already

being used for the purpose of Civic Amenity and

the same is readily available to be handed over

to the BBMP.

IX. LAND SHOWN AT SL. NO. IX AS

98

SOCIETY BUILDING, MEASURING 0.03 ½

ACRES (3798 SQ. FT): (3782 Sq. Ft. by

BBMP)

The vacant area behind the building belonging

to this Respondent has been demarcated and

shown in the Affidavit already filed that it

would be used for the purpose of Library, Post

office and other Civic Amenity purposes.

X. LAND SHOWN AT SL. NO. IX AS NEAR

C.I.M.A.P, MEASURING 0.01 ½ ACRES (643

SQ. FT): (490 Sq. Ft. by BBMP)

This is a very small extent of land and needs to

be ignored.

XI. LAND SHOWN AT SL. NO.X1, AS PLAY

GROUND, MEASURING 2.24 ½ ACRES

(1,13,900 SQ. FT): [112173 SQ. FT. BY BBMP]

The entire extent of land is in Sy. no. 93 and

l04/3A-l which are acquired lands. The sheds

which shown over the said land in the Report

file by the BBMP is in a small portion of the

area and the Respondent-Society is taking

99

necessary action to get the same cleared.

XII. LAND SHOWN AT SL. NO.XII, AS SRI

MUNESHWARA TEMPLE, MEASURING 0.02 ¼

ACRES (2459 SQ. FT): (2460 Sq. Ft. by

BBMP).

This land has Sri Muneshwara Temple

constructed upon it and the same can be

handed over immediately to the BBMP.

XIII. LAND SHOWN AT SL. NO.XIII AS

PROPOSED TEMPLE, MEASURING 0.08 ½

ACRES (9315 SQ. FT):

This land is vacant and the possession is with

the Respondent Society, which was to be used

for a proposed temple. The Board which was

present at the time of Inspection by the

Authorities of the BBMP mentioning as

Muneshwara Temple has been removed and

the said land can be immediately handed over

to the BBMP.

XIV. LAND SHOWN AT SL. NO.XIV, AS C.A

ADJACENT SITE NO. 91 MEASURING 0.05 ¼

100

ACRES (5759 SQ. FT): (2880 SQ. FT. BY BBMP).

This is a vacant land in possession of the

Respondent Society

And the same can be immediately handed over

to the BBMP.

XV. LAND SHOWN AT SL. NO.XV, AS Park

adjoining GKVK compound WEST,

MEASURING 1.26 ½ ACRES (72462 SQ.

FT):

The water tank shown to be present in the said

land belongs to the Respondent Society. The area

is no longer is being used for the purpose of

burials, as per the order dated 04.09.2000 of

this Hon’ble Court in W.P. no. 18060/2000. The

toilets shown in the said land on the Northern

edge are unauthorized constructions and the

same would immediately be removed. This land

was formed out of Sy. NO. 39, 41 and 42 of

Chikkabommasandra Village. The area is now

shown as Raja Kaluve in the sketch and the

report prepared by the BBMP. Actually this land

is ‘B’ kharab land measuring 0.12 G in Sy. No.

41/1 and 0.05 G in Sy. No. 41/2 and 0.15 G in

Sy. No. 42. This 'B' kharab land was included

101

in the land acquisition proceedings and

Compensation was awarded at Rs.2,952/ - for

0.12 G in Sy. NO. 41/1, Rs.1,230/- for 0.05 G

in Sy. No. 41/2 and Rs.3,690/- for 0.15 G in Sy.

No. 42, which was deposited by this

Respondent Society which is evidenced in the

Award dated 13.03.1991. Copy of the Award

dated 13.03.1991 is produced herewith and

marked a DOCUMENT NO. 11. Copy of the sketch

in Akar Bund showing the above mentioned

extent of land as 'B' kharab land is produced

herewith and marked as DOCUMENT NO. 12.

Hence it is evident that there is no Raja Kaluve

in the said land and what is shown as Raja

Kaluve is merely 'B' kharab land which is

already been acquired for the purpose of the

Respondent Society after the compensation

amount is deposited by the Respondent Society.

Copy of order dated 4.9.2000 in WP. NO.

18060/2000 is produced as DOCUMENT NO.

13.

The above said land is vacant and earmarked

for the purpose of park.

102

XVI. LAND SHOWN AT SL. NO. XVI, AS C.A. NEAR

BURIAL GROUND, MEASURING 0.8 ½ ACRES

(9303 SQ. FT) (SHOWN AS 0.05 ½ ACRES

AND 5999 SQ.FT IN THE SCHEDULE):

This land can be used for the purpose of Civic

Amenity and can be

handed over immediately to the BBMP as it is

vacant.

XVII. LAND SHOWN AT SL. NO. XVII, AS BURIAL

GROUND, MEASURING 0.29 ¾ ACRES (32470

SQ. FT): (15785 Sq. Ft. by BBMP)

This is an acquired land and compound has

been constructed

around this Land by this Respondent.”

73. This court on 7/8/2009 in CCC 87/2004

passed the following order:

“In response to the report dated 22/7/2009 of

the Commissioner, Bangalore Mahanagara Palike,

the respondent – Society has filed a reply dated

6/8/2009. The same is taken on record. Learned

counsel for the parties contend that the vacant space

at Item No.1 to 17 as mentioned in the report dated

103

22/7/2009 could be handed over to the Bangalore

City Corporation for maintenance. In respect of the

plot shown at Sketch No.1, it is pointed out that there

are large number of small tenements at the hind

portion and that, if that portion is segregated and

provided with a corridor for ingress and egress to

and from that place to the main road, a large extent

of open space could be salvaged and used as a

park, while the Society to take steps to ensure that

the unauthorised occupants are evicted from the

tenements and thereafter hand over the said

property to the Corporation for development as a

park. The sketch at Sl.No.1 does not indicate the

exact measurements of the areas that require to be

segregated for the formation of the corridor. Learned

counsel for the Corporation submits that the

Engineers would make a further inquiry and file a

better sketch mentioning the details with specificity.

Learned counsel for the Corporation also submits

that a plan of action would be placed before this

Court over the utlilisation of the open spaces

atS.Nos.1 to 17 if granted some time.

Sri.A.K.Bhat, learned counsel for some of

petitioners points out to the memo of additional

104

documents filed on 4/1/2008 by the Society to

contend that few of the sites in respect of which Sale

Deeds had been executed after the interim order was

granted were cancelled in order to purge contempt in

addition to other vacant sites which have not been

allotted are indicated in the list. Learned

Government counsel is directed to ascertain the

status of these sites as reflected in the Encumbrance

Certificates.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Society

submits that after making necessary verification over

the vacant sites, as indicated in the memo dated

4/1/2008 and on instructions, would make his say

on the next date of hearing.

List on 14/8/2009.”

74. In pursuance of the order, Misc.W 9232/2009

was filed for correction of order dated 7/8/2009, which

was corrected vide order dated 9/10/2009 which is

extracted under:

“This application is by the respondent – Society to

correct the order dated 7-8-2009 in so far as it

105

relates to recording of the submission of the learned

counsel for the parties over vacant space at Item

Nos.1 to 17 as mentioned in the report dated 22-07-

2009 that could be handed over to the Bangalore

City Corporation to read as excluding Item Nos.2 and

5. According to the learned Senior counsel for the

applicant, it is stated that Item No.2 property was

allotted on 27-09-2002 followed by conveyance

under a registered Sale Deed No.1042/2002-03 to

one of the members of the Society. As regards Item

No.5 in the report, it is contended that the persons

claiming to be occupants have instituted

O.S.No.2873/2009 and 3124/2009 pending on the

file of the Learned City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH-

6) and CCH-16 respectively and have obtained

interim orders on 7-4-2009 and 16-05-2009

respectively, and therefore, it is not possible to hand

over the said premises. Accepting the statements

made in the application, and as advanced by their

learned Senior Counsel, the respondent Society

cannot hand over possession of Item No.2 in the

report dated 22/7/2009 of the Bangalore City

Corporation. In so far as Item No.5 is concerned,

apparently possession cannot be handed over as on

date in view of the interim orders passed by the Civil

106

Court.

Keeping in mind the nature of controversy

brought before Court in the form of public interest

litigation, the Civil Courts are directed to hear the

suits out of turn and dispose of the same in any

event, within a period of three months from the date

of receipt of a copy of this order. The application is

ordered accordingly.”

75. On 13/11/2009, the petitioner filed a memo

which reads thus:

“The petitioners/complaints in the above matter

seeks permission of this Hon’ble court to produce the

status of 404 sites formed in parks/CA areas i.e.

number of vacant sites available, number of sites

sold in violation of the interim order and sites in

which cancellation deeds were obtained by the

Society to purge contempt of Court as undertaken.”

Petitioner has also produced the list of 404 sites formed

in parks/CA areas on the basis of Plan submitted by the

Housing Society to BDA, Bangalore along with the

107

Memo filed.

76. Order dated 13/11/2009 reads thus:

“The memo dated 13-11-2009 filed by the

petitioners is taken on record.

The respondents to have their say over the said

memo.

The learned senior counsel for the respondent-

Society submitted that the Deed of Relinquishment

was executed on 16/10/2009 and lodged for

registration before the Sub-Registrar in compliance

with the order dated 9/10/2009. Sri.

K.V.Narasimhan learned counsel for the Bruhat

Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (for short BBMP)

submits that possession of the properties in terms of

the order dated 9/10/2009 is handed over and the

BBMP is presently in possession of the same and in

that regard prepared a mahazar dated 12/10/2009.

The copies of the Relinquishment Deed and the

mahazar enclosed to the memo filed by the Society is

taken on record.

The BBMP to have its say over fencing of

108

properties and plan of action over the development,

improvements and maintenance of the vacant spaces

on the next date of hearing as directed in order

dated 19/10/2009.

Sri.Subramanya Jois, learned senior counsel for

the Society, submits that in terms of the order dated

9/10/2009, notices have been issued to

unauthorised occupants of Item No.1 property,

reference to which is made in the order dated

9/10/2009 and action is taken to evict them. As

regards the vacant spaces, reference to which is

made in order dated 9/10/2009, the learned

counsel for the Society seeks time to have its say.

List on 15-01-2010.”

77. Order dated 22/01/2010 reads thus:

“The extent of land acquired by the State for the

beneficiary-Society is said to be physically surveyed

by the State and its functionaries at the time of

acquisition, as well as during the pendency of this

petition followed by a sketch prepared in that

regard. Though the Society has placed on record a

map showing the extent of land with boundaries,

109

acquired and handed over to the Society, we find a

need to identify the extents of areas kept vacant and

not utilised for any particular purpose. Thus the

necessity to secure an Aerial survey of the extent of

land acquired, which when superimposed with the

map provided by the respondent-society, would

disclose clarity over excess vacant land after

formation of sites. In that view of the matter, the

State Government, in association with the Bangalore

Development Authority, is directed to carry out an

Aerial survey and furnish a map of the extent of land

acquired for the beneficiary-Society and thereafter,

superimpose it with the map furnished by the

respondent-Society and submit a report. The

exercise, it is obvious, would take some time and in

that view of the matter, the counsel for the State and

BDA to have their say over the time required for such

exercise.

Learned Sr. Counsel for the Society seeks time to

have his say over the vacant spaces referred to in

the order dt.9/10/2009 on the next date of hearing.

List on 28.1.2010.

Let a copy of this order be made available to the

110

learned counsel for State and the BDA.”

78. Respondent-Society files a reply to the memo

dated 13/11/2009 of the petitioners where a detailed

report of vacant sites though allotted but not registered

in the names of the allottees are listed. Site used for

sinking a bore well; used by the National Highway

Authority for public purpose of NH 7, site for office

building of the society and site measuring 7200 sq.ft

handed over to the BBMP as civic amenity site are

mentioned. Sites where sale is cancelled by effecting a

cancellation deed and sites where rectification deeds

executed in view of mistakes later noticed are listed.

79. In the order dated 28/1/2010 the submission

of learned counsel for BBMP is recorded that action over

the 14 items of property is on the anvil, while BDA's

submission is that on an enquiry, the process by way of

aerial survey (Satellite Imagery) is a cumbersome

111

requiring the permission of the Ministry of Defence and

would take considerable time to carry out such survey

in respect of the land acquired for the Judicial Layout.

80. On 5/3/2010, the Society files an affidavit of

its president enclosing the map of the Layout

indicating:

a) The areas earmarked as civic amenities and open

spaces handed over to the Bruhat Bangalore

Mahanagara palike;

b) The area demarked as temple site;

c) Sites which were sold subsequent to the interim

orders including the site cancelled for purging the

contempt;

d) The sites which are said to be in dispute in civil

proceedings.

81. On 5/3/2010, the Court passed the following

order:

112

“The members of the Karnataka Judicial

Department Employees House Building Cooperative

Society, filed W.P.No.40994/2002, by way of a

Public Interest Litigation, calling in question the

action of the Society and its office bearers in forming

sites in the area earmarked for Temple and those for

civic amenities in the draft plan submitted to the

Bangalore Development Authority for approval of the

layout, known as “Judicial Layout”. This Court by

order dated 22.1.2003 directed the Society not to

change the character of the land described in IA-

I/2003 while recording the submission of the

learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the

society was in the process of forming sites in the

open space measuring 195’ x 200’ reserved for

temple. By order dt. 18.6.2003, the Society was

directed to submit a copy of the plan filed with the

Bangalore Development Authority and a list of

transfer of civil amenity sites and the 1st respondent

Bangalore Development Authority to submit a report,

while continuing the interim order dt. 22.1.2003, and

a further direction not to transfer any civic amenity

sites as shown in the plan submitted to Bangalore

Development Authority, until further orders.

113

The office bearers of the Society including

C.Shivalingaiah, the then President having conveyed

certain sites after the interim orders, contempt

proceedings were initiated in CCC.No.87/2004 in

which evidence both oral and documentary were

recorded, whence the plan of the Layout filed with

the Bangalore Development Authority was produced

and marked as Ex. P82A, disclosing the areas

earmarked for open spaces, civic amenities etc., in

the layout formed by the Society. In order to purge

the contempt, some of the sale deeds were cancelled

by execution of cancellation deeds before the Sub-

Registrar, Yelahanka.

In the Writ Petition, on the orders of this Court, a

joint inspection comprising of the Bangalore

Development Authority, one of the petitioners by

name Byra Reddy and the then Secretary of the

Society by name Suresh Kumar, was conducted at

the layout, on 4.2.2006 and a detailed report was

filed indicating that 404 (250 + 154) sites were

vacant or built up and that Site No.2118/A; 2118/B;

2118/C and 2118 being vacant were earmarked as

114

Park in the draft layout plan, submitted by the

Society to the Bangalore Development Authority for

approval.

On Vishakantegowda, s/o Nanjuna Gowda, filed

Misc.W.1277/10 in W.P.40994/02, to be impleaded

as a proper and necessary party to the proceedings,

on the premise that he was a bonafide purchaser for

value without notice of the proceedings, the site

No.2118/E formed in the Layout. It was alleged that

C.Shivalingaiah had issued a letter of allotment dt.

11.10.1999 of the said site in favour of a member by

name Smt.Vinoda, who on payment of the amounts

towards cost of site, the said C.Shivalingaiah

executed a sale deed dt. 10.2.2006, conveying the

said site and also a letter addressed to the Sub-

Registrar, Yelahanka to exempt him from

appearance, at the time of registration of the

conveyance. The Sub-Registrar by name

H.P.Ramanjaneya is said to have registered the sale

deed as Document No.13221/05-06. Thereafter the

said Vinoda, represented by her power of Attorney

Holder Smt.G.C.Prathiba Kumari is said to have

executed and lodged for registration the sale deed

conveying the said site, on 17.2.2006, in less than a

115

week of execution of the first deed. The purchaser

by name K.M.Somesh is said to have paid

Rs.60,05,000/- as against the allotment value of

Rs.1,59,000/- as recorded in the earlier alleged sale

deed. The impleading applicant claimed to have

purchased the same property under a registered sale

deed dt. 24.12.2009 for valuable consideration of

Rs.1,02,00,000/- of which Rs.80 lakhs is said to be

paid in cash in favour of K.M.Somesh.

In the objection statement filed by the Society

while denying the claims asserted by the applicant it

was contended that the Secretary Suresh Kumar

after the joint inspection, whence Site No.2118 was

shown to be civic amenity site in the layout plan,

connived with the Sub-Registrar, in manipulating the

records to have the same registered as if

C.Shivalingaiah had executed the Sale deed, and the

letter seeking exemption from appearance before the

Sub-Registrar. In addition it was contended that

there was no member by name Vinoda nor was a

site No.2118E allotted much less formed in the

layout of sites and that Suresh Kumar was the

father-in-law of K.M.Somesh. It was also contended

that during the year 2006 when illegalities

116

perpetuated by Suresh Kumar came to light a

complaint was lodged before the jurisdictional police,

who on investigation seized relevant material such

as rubber stamps, seals, documents, in addition to

the sale deed dt. 10.2.2006 registered as

Doc.13221/2005-06 and filed a charge sheet in

C.C.No.8971/2007 before the jurisdictional

Magistrate, indicting the said Suresh Kumar,

K.M.Somesh, Vinoda for offences punishable under

the Indian Penal Code.

Having noted the tenor of the statement of

objections and the execution and registration of the

sale deed dt. 13221/2005-06, dt. 10.2.2006, while

the interim orders were in force, this Court directed

the State Government - party respondent to secure

the presence of the Sub-Registrar by name

H.P.Ramanjaneya on the date of hearing.

Accordingly the said person is present before Court

and is represented by learned counsel on record and

Sri.S.P.Shankar, learned Senior Counsel.

To a question of the Court as to how the Sub-

Registrar registered the document of sale

dt.10.2.2006 conveying a portion of the civic amenity

site, and exempted the appearance of

117

C.Shivalingaiah, the then President of the Society,

the learned counsel submits that the letter seeking

exemption, was more than sufficient for the

satisfaction of the Sub-Registrar for the said purpose

under Section 39 of the Karnataka Co-operative

Societies Act. To yet another question as to whether

the Sub-Registrar was questioned in the

investigation into the complaint lodged against

Suresh Kumar and others over the fabrication of the

said documents, leading to registration of the Sale

deed, learned counsel submits that the said Sub-

Registrar was not questioned though he discharged

duties as such from June 2004 to August 2006 at

Yelahanka Sub-Registry.

In the surrounding circumstances, prima facie

there is material to show that the Sub-Registrar

H.P.Ramanjaneya, has committed contempt of Court,

and therefore initiate contempt proceedings and

issue show cause notice to H.P.Ramanjaneya, s/o

H.Pattabhiramaiah, aged 61 years, No.426, 8th

Main ‘D’ Block, Rajajinagar, II Stage, Bangalore-10,

asking him to show cause within ten days as to why

action should not be taken.

List on 15.3.2010.”

118

82. On 15/3/2010, Respondent-Society files an

affidavit dated 15/3/2010 of the President of the Society

enclosing a map depicting the layout formed in a total

extent of 181 acres 39 ¼ guntas (approximately 182

acres) of which 156 acres and 26¾ guntas of land is

subject matter of acquisition. It is stated in the affidavit

that areas are demarcated by different colours and

specifically set out in the index therein.

83. On 15/3/2010 the following order was

passed:

“Learned counsel for the 4th respondent-Society

files an affidavit dt.15.3.2010 of the President of the

Society enclosing a map depicting the layout formed

in a total extent of 181.39 ¼ (approximately 182

acres), of which 156 acres and 26 ¾ guntas of land

is subject matter of acquisition. It is stated in the

affidavit that areas are demarcated by different

colours and specifically set out in the index therein.

The affidavit is taken on record.

Having regard to the fact that in Subramania –vs-

119

Union of India (WP 35737/94 and connected

petitions), the Society had filed objection statement

indicating 2048 sites of different dimensions, as set

out therein, were formed in the acquired land, which

fact was accepted by a Co-ordinate Bench, as

animated in its judgment reported in ILR 1995 KAR

3139. Respondent No.4 is directed to file necessary

pleading in the matter of compliance with the said

statement vis-a-vis map enclosed to the affidavit. In

other words the Society to make a statement on oath

whether there is compliance with the aforesaid

statement made before the Co-ordinate Division

Bench of this Court and if not, the extent of

deviations.

The area demarcated in the Blue Colour

measuring 22,195 sq.ft earmarked by the Society for

construction of a temple, is stated to be inclusive of

9315 sq.ft of land handed over to the BBMP under

the relinquishment deed. The balance extent of land

not being part of the relinquishment deed, it is

incumbent on the part of the Society to execute a

relinquishment deed over the said balance extent of

land too.

The Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

120

(BBMP) to have its say over the rectification of the

proposed development Scheme in respect of Item

No.9 relating to the site meant for construction of

temple and to file necessary memo in that regard.

List on 19.3.2010 at 10.30 a.m.

Let a copy of this order be made available to the

learned counsel for the parties.”

84. Further on 19/32010 the following order was

passed:

“In partial compliance of the order dated

15.3.2010, the President of the 4th respondent-

Society files an affidavit dated 19.3.2010 stating

that physical verification reveals 1940 sites carved

out of 156 acres and 26 ¾ guntas of land as against

2048 mentioned in W.P.No.35837/2004 and

connected petitions. In addition, it is stated that

sites bearing Nos.1963, 1966 and 1979 to 1933

totaling to 19 are not in existence. It is further stated

that 310 sites are carved out of the land purchased

by the Society.

Sri. Subrmanya Jois, learned Senior counsel for

the 4th respondent-Society submits that allotment of

121

sites Nos.859 F and G together measuring 8000 sq.ft

marked in yellow colour with dots are cancelled and

the 4th respondent has no objection to make them

part of the site meant for temple coloured in purple,

in the plan annexed to the memo and affidavit dated

15.3.2010 and that the society is willing to execute

the relinquishment deed in respect of said two sites

measuring 8000 Sq.Ft., in favour of Bruhat

Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. According to the

learned Senior counsel, the total extent of land thus

earmarked for the temple is 22195 + 8000 Sq.Ft =

30195 Sq.Ft.

Sri.Byra Reddy, petitioner No.1 (a) and Sri.A .K.

Bhat, learned counsel representing petitioners 2, 6,

8, 10 to 14 submit that an extent of 30195 Sq.Ft. of

land left out for temple complex would be substantial

compliance with the extent of land meant for the

temple in the draft layout plan submitted by the 4th

Respondent for sanction to the Bangalore

Development Authority.

In the light of the fact that, two open spaces are

carved out in the Judicial layout for temple complex,

one being the aforesaid extent 30195 Sq.Ft., and the

122

other measuring 2400 Sq.Ft. (Muneswara Temple,

item No.7 as recorded in the spot inspection report

dated 12.10.2009 of the Bruhat Bangalore

Mahanagara Palike) being non other than item No.8

in the proposed plan of action of BBMP, handed over

to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, we

think it appropriate that there is substantial

compliance in regard to the land meant for temple in

the layout.

In that view of the matter, in partial modification

of the order dated 15.3.2010, the 4th respondent-

Society is directed to forthwith execute and register

the release and relinquishment deed of the balance

extent of land from out of 30195 Sq.Ft., excluding the

extent already relinquished (9315 Sq.Ft) in favour of

Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. It is made

clear that this extent of 30195 Sq.Ft., is to be put to

use for a temple complex including a community hall

as well as a park and the Bruhat Bangalore

Mahanagara Palike is directed to ensure the same in

its plan of action. The proposals for construction of

the Temple complex are subject to orders of this

court.

Thus the allottees of site numbers 859 C and D

123

are free to put up construction of residential building

on the said sites.

It is brought to our notice that in the joint

inspection report of the Bangalore Development

Authority it is observed that out of 404 sites there

exists building on 83 sites while others vacant,

which are cared out of sites earmarked for civic

amenity in the draft layout plan submitted to the

Bangalore Development Authority. It is submitted

that some of the allottees in violation of the interim

order have erected buildings without the permission

of the Court or sanction of building plan increasing

the total number of building from 83 to

approximately 90 to 95 buildings. It is further

submission that since the extent of land handed-over

to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike towards

open space, parks and civic amenity sites is

approximately 4.82% out of the total land use while

it is represents 5.49% of the total acquired land

measuring 156 acres and 26 ¾ guntas, the vacant

sites out of the 404 sites could be put to use for civic

amenities, parks and open space. This submission

certainly deserves consideration by of 4th

respondent – Society. Sri.Subramanya Jois, learned

124

Senior counsel submits that the Society would

endeavor to consider that submission and submit

their replies, if granted a reasonable time.

Sri.S.P.Shankar, learned Senior Counsel on

instructions from the counsel on record

Sri.R.P.Rajeshwar for H.P.Ramanjaneya to whom

the Registry had directed notice in compliance with

the orders of this court, though returned to the

Registry unserved, submits that said

H.P.Ramanjaneya is present before court as

identified by the instructing counsel, and is willing to

receive the notice. In that view of the matter, the

Registry is directed to serve the notice and its

enclosures on H.P.Ramanjaneya under

acknowledgement. Reply if any within four weeks.

If an application is made by H.P.Ramanjaneya

for issue of a certified copy of the order of this court,

taking suomoto cognizance of contempt, it is

needless to state that the Registry shall forthwith

issue the certified copy.

List the petition on 9th July 2010 for further

hearing.

125

Let the copy of this order be made available to

the learned counsel for the parties.”

85. In compliance with the detailed order dated

5/3/2010, the Sub-Registrar by name Sri

H.P.Ramanjaneya filed his counter affidavit dated

5/4/2010, the consideration of which was deferred. On

9/7/2010 the following order was passed:

“In compliance with the order dated 5-3-2010, the

Sub-Registrar by name H.P.Ramanjaneya has filed

his counter affidavit dated 5-4-2010. The

consideration of the averments stated in the affidavit

is deferred. The Sub-Registrar’s presence is

dispensed with until further orders.

There is a larger question that needs to be

addressed. The pernicious practice in Sub-

Registrar’s office, which over decades, has turned

into tradition and in respect of which, the State

Government is fully aware, has failed to take steps

to stem the rot. Therefore, we request the learned

Members of the Bar to address the question, explore

the possibilities to get over the difficulties

126

encountered by every citizen in the Sub-Registrar’s

Office so as to stream line the business transacted

therein to make it more transparent. The State

Counsel is directed to take necessary instructions

from the authorities concerned.

Sri.S.Shekar Shetty, learned counsel for the

impleading applicants, submits that copies of the

application could not be served on the petitioners

since the learned counsel for the petitioners had

declined to accept the same having retired from the

case. One Sri.Byrareddy, one of the petitioners who

was present before the Court, accepts the copy of the

application. For objections over

Misc.W.No.5846/2010 and Misc.W.No.5847/2010,

call on 16-7-2010.

List on 16-7-2010.”

127

86. On 24/9/2010, BBMP files a memo along

with action report over the fixing of barbed wire fencing

encompassing the civic amenities and open spaces

relinquished in its favour by the Society.

87. The following order was passed on 4/2/2011:

“Sri.K.V.Narasimhan, learned counsel for the

BBMP submits that the BBMP has calked out a plan

of developmental activities providing necessary

infrastructure in the areas reserved for amenities

and would soon be translated into benefits for the

residents.

It is hoped that the BBMP would take up action

on a war-footing and place material before Court

over the action taken.

It is a matter of fact that the layout is not

provided with a sewage treatment plant and

therefore, the State Government to have its say over

providing the treatment plant at the earliest, having

regard to the fact that if sewage remains untreated,

it would cause serious health hazard as well as

pollution to the environment.

128

List on 25.02.2011.”

88. On 25/2/2011, BBMP filed a memo enclosing

a letter dated 25/2/2011 relating to the works carried

out by the BBMP and copies of the photographs.

89. Misc.W. 4181/2010 was filed to implead the

legal heirs of one Marappa who was the owner of Site

No.759/D and the application was allowed vide order

dated 24.6.2011 and the applicants were permitted to

come on record as Respondents 5 to 16.

90. On 30/7/2011, R-5 to R-16 filed their

statement of objections stating that they are the legal

heirs of Late Marappa and Late Lakshmamma, the

absolute owners of agricultural lands in Sy.No.12/2C,

measuring 0-22 Guntas and Sy.No.12/4B, measuring 0-

22 Guntas, situated at Allalasandra village, Yelahanka

Hobli, Bangalore, who offered to sell the land to the

Society for Rs.80,000/- per acre and received an

129

advance of Rs.50,000/- on 30/01/1985, as the sale

consideration was not paid, late Marappa and Late

Lakshmamma objected for interference. According to

the Legal representatives, O.S.NO.4361/2000 was filed

by the Society, to execute registered Sale deed in their

favour, which was settled by intervention of elders and

well wishers and compromise memo filed and decree

passed on 9/7/2003 ANNEXURE –“R-1” TO “R-3”. It is

stated that after obtaining the decree, application was

filed before the Municipal Commissioner, Town

Municipality, Yelahanka for change of khatha whence

an endorsement was issued ANNEXURE R-5 to furnish

the approved layout plan. Legal notice was issued on

9/11/2001, to withdraw the endorsement, which the

Municipal Commissioner, it is said did not comply,

hence W.P.5152/2002 was filed which was disposed of

on 9/7/2003 directing the Municipal Commissioner to

effect the Khata without insisting on layout plan

ANNEXURE-“R-4”.

130

91. It was further stated that after BBMP took

possession of the entire area, application was filed to

effect change of Khata but BBMP issued an

endorsement ANNEXURE-“R-6” stating the khata could

not be given effect as it was identified as CA site. As the

Society was trying to dispose of the site,

O.S.No.894/2010 was filed ANNEXURE-“R-7”.

92. Written arguments of petitioner No. f, h, j, k,

l, m and n (6, 8, 10 to 14) was filed on 12/2011 while

written submissions and citations of other petitioners

was filed on 30/12/2011 following which reply

submissions of the Respondent-Society was filed on

12/01/2012.

93. On 27/7/2012 the following order was

passed:

“ORDER ON IA.12/2011

Sri.Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel for

the Society, submits that reasonable time be

extended for compliance with the order dated

131

11.11.2011 as the Society is in the process of

making a search in the layout for a vacant site to be

made available to a member, by name

Mr.R.M.Nagarajaiah, an allottee of a site falling in

the 404 sites mentioned in the BDA report.

In the circumstances, we think it appropriate to

extend eight weeks time from today. The application

is ordered accordingly.

The land acquired for formation of the layout

measures 156 acres 26 ¾ guntas. The unacquired

land being revenue pockets inside the layout

measures 25 acres 12 ½ guntas. The total extent of

land forming the layout is 181 acres 39 ¼ guntas as

described in the map enclosed to the memo dated

21/4/2012 for the fourth respondent-Society. In the

abstract to the map, as against 156 acres 26 and ¾

guntas, the percentages of areas utilized for

formation of sites, civic amenity with parks and

roads are furnished as 61.64% cents, 5.49% cents

and 32.87% cents, respectively.

The application for sanction of a layout plan in

the year 1992 filed by the fourth respondent-Society

was for an extent of 156 acres and 26 ¾ guntas, by

132

permitting the utilization of 65% of the area for sites,

and the balance of 35% towards civic amenity area,

parks and roads. The BDA having considered the

said representation and the plan resolved to approve

the plan subject to conditions as set out in Ex.P.83A

(CCC No.87/2004). PW-2 the Town Planning Officer,

by name Mahendra examined on 13/7/2007 in CCC

No.87/2004 testified that the requirement for

approval/sanction of a layout plan was 50%

towards sital area; 15% towards parks and open

spaces and 35% towards roads and civic amenities.

What is not forthcoming is the requirement of the

percentages contained either in a rule or a circular

issued by the Government or regulation.

In that view of the matter, the BDA to furnish

material in that regard, while it is also open to the

petitioners and the fourth respondent-Society to

place such material on record, more so, since the

fourth respondent asserts that it was entitled to a

sanction for utilizing 65% of the area for sites, as has

been extended to similar such societies.

There is no dispute that the civic amenities and

parks mentioned in the layout plan submitted by the

fourth respondent during the year 1992 for approval

133

by the BDA are not at the same location, at site, but

are at other locations in the layout since released

and relinquished in favour of Bruhat Bangalore

Mahanagara Palike, as demarcated and described in

the sketch appended to the memo dated 21/4/2012.

In order to ascertain the correctness of the

measurements and percentages of the areas utilized

for civic amenities, parks, open spaces and roads as

reflected in the said map, the Bruhat Bangalore

Mahanagara Palike to conduct a spot inspection and

record measurements in the presence of anyone of

the petitioners and anyone of the officer bearers of

the fourth respondent-Society, and submit a report in

that regard. The fourth respondent-Society to make

available copies of the ketch noticed supra to the

learned counsel for the petitioners and the Bruhat

Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. The aforesaid parties

to assemble at 11.00 a.m on 10/8/2012 at the office

of the fourth respondent-Society in the layout without

further notice.

List on 24.8.2012.”

94. In compliance with the order dated

27/7/2012, the respondent-BBMP filed a report along

134

with enclosures on 24/8/2012, with the abstract of the

percentage of utilization of land for formation of layout

in respect of 181 acres and 39.25 guntas (including

unacquired land), disclosing shortfall of 20.20% in CA,

parks and open spaces and excess of 4.42% against

roads and 15.78% towards sites.

95. BDA filed a memo enclosing a photocopy of

the notification dated 12/10/1984 along with the Zonal

Regulations approved under the Comprehensive

Development Plan, in compliance with the order dated

27/7/2012.

96. The Society, filed a memo enclosing the

sketch prepared by a private surveyor, in respect of 156

acres 26.75 guntas of land and its utilization both in

percentages and areas in sq.mtrs and sq.ft. According

to the Society, 60.13% constitutes residential area;

5.53% is relinquished in favour of BBMP; and roads

including roads in un-acquired land constitute 34.34%.

135

The enclosures include photocopies of order passed by

the BDA imposing penalty in respect of areas excess

utilized for sites in a layout formed by MPM Housing

Society and regularizing the layout.

97. The Society presented a memo dated

31.8.2012 enclosing a map of layout Annexure-R4(G)

signed by the Deputy Commissioner, Senior

Superintendent of Land Records and countersigned by

the Tahasildar, Bangalore North Taluk, indicating that

an extent of 154 acres 11¾ gunta is acquired, while 28

acres 6¼ guntas is the unacquired portion, totalling to

182 acres and 18 guntas, and that an extent of 2 acres

15 guntas, is in unauthorised occupation while 7 acres

11 guntas is said to be unutilized by the Society. Also

enclosed to the memo is a photocopy of a portion of the

Zoning Regulations of the year 2015 providing

prescription of 55% of sital area; 15% of civic amenities

and parks, in a layout, and exemption to be accorded in

136

the event of short fall in the CA site area. The order

dated 31.8.2012 reads thus:

“Respondent No.4-Society files a memo enclosing

two maps as Annexures-R4(G) and R-4(K), as well as

photocopy of Chapter VI of Zoning Regulations of the

Master Plan 2015 and a list Annexure-R4(J)

containing the names, site numbers and dimensions

of the sites allotted to the land owner by name

Subbaiah, since deceased s/o Pillappa.

Learned Sr.counsel for the 4th respondent

submits that from out of 156 acres 26 ¾ guntas of

land acquired, an extent of 16,880 sq.ft equivalent to

15 ½ guntas is acquired by the National Highway

Authorities for the expansion of NH-7 road as

described in ANNEXURE-“R-4(K)” map. Learned

counsel further points to Map ANNEXURE-“R-4(G)”

and more particularly to the area marked as Ex.1 to

Ex.8 said to be extra sites allotted to late Subbaiah’s

family on the assurance that it would be utilised for

construction of a choultry which is said to be vacant

and unutilised. According to the 4th respondent, the

total area of the sites marks in Ex.1 to Ex.8 works

out to 33,427 sq.ft including the road portion

137

excluding the road portion is 33,227 sq.ft.

Learned Sr.counsel further submits that sites

bearing Nos.2119-2114 totally measuring 16,575

sq.ft, located adjacent to the land measuring 16,896

sq.ft marked as ANNEXURE –“R-4(G)”, handed over

to the BBMP, the 4th respondent-Society is willing to

utilise the same to make good the shortfall in the

civic amenity areas. 4th respondent-Society as well

as petitioners are at liberty to place on record such of

those sites found to be vacant and forming part of

404 sites as also vacant land remaining unutilised,

so as to utilise the same to reduce the shortfall in the

civic amenity areas.

Having heard the learned Sr.counsel, we think it

appropriate to direct the respondent-BBMP to take

measurements of the extents of land noticed supra

and as indicated in the plan ANNEXURE-“R-4(G)”

and submit a report, for further orders.

List on 6.9.2012.

Let a copy of this order be made available to the

learned counsel for the BBMP.”

138

98. On 6/9/2012, Sri.G.Papi Reddy, learned

Advocate for some of the representatives of the

petitioner-Association files a reply to the memo dated

31/8/2012 of the society stating that the area marked

as ANNEXURE-“R-4(G)(B)” measuring 16,896 sq.ft is in

the possession of the BBMP, hence cannot be construed

as yet another CA site that could be handed over to the

BBMP. As regards sites marked as Ex.1 to Ex.8, it is

stated that they are transferred in favour of member of

Subbaiah’s family under separate registered sale deeds

hence unavailable, though some of the sites have not

been utilized for construction of a choultry.

99. Society files a memo containing the details of

the sites which Sri.Byra Reddy has made mention of in

the list of 404 sites, and the version of the Society with

reference to the list are as follows:

a) Sites/Property already handed over to BBMP

b) Sites which have been proposed to be handed over

139

to the BBMP

c) Sites which have been allotted to the Members of

the society wherein registered deeds of conveyance

have not been executed in favour of any of them in

view of the interim directions issued by this Court.

d) Sites/properties in respect of which civil disputes

and disputes before the authority/department

have been pending between the society and the

respective persons concerned.

e) Properties which have been settled in favour of the

former land owners with whom Compromise has

been entered into by the society for enabling

smooth completion of the Layout.

f) Sites which having been registered posterior to the

interim order passed in the aforementioned writ

petition and later cancelled though unilaterally.

g) Deeds of rectification executed by the society –

sites having been registered in favour of the

respective members earlier to the interim order,

140

but have cancelled with their consent, for purging

the contempt attributed to R-4.

h) Sites which have been registered, posterior to the

interim order, respecting which no remedial action

to retrace the steps trodden by the Society have

been taken till date.

i) Sites which are lying vacant in the layout, details

of the utilization thereof and particulars as to

whether the same have or have not been allotted

to any member/s are not immediately traceable

from the record of the society.

j) Site No.2106 which is once registered on

29/9/2001 in favour of a member and same

registered on 23/01/2001 in favour of different

party.

k) Site No.2007 which is registered before the interim

order.

l) Sites where rectification deeds have been executed

by the society, after the interim order

141

m) Site No.362/18 which does not at all exist in the

layout.

100. A detail order is passed on 6/9/2012 reads

thus:

“In compliance with the order dated

31.08.2012, the respondent-Bruhat Bangalore

Mahanagara Palike has filed a report enclosing a

statement showing percentage of the land utilized for

roads in the Judicial Layout; area statement of roads

in unacquired land of Judicial Layout; statement

showing details of sites of Judicial Layout as per

Annexure R-4(J) to the memo filed by the respondent

No.4 Society on 31.8.2012; statement showing

details of two vacant sites of Judicial Layout

together measuring 16575 sq.ft. identified as

Annexures-R4(G)(A) and R4(G)(B) in the map

Annexure-R4(G); as also a copy of the memo dated

31.8.2012 and the plan annexed thereto.

According to the learned counsel for the Bruhat

Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, the area measuring

16575 sq.ft. marked as Annexures-R4(G)(A) and (B)

142

have been check measured and being vacant sites

could be handed over to the Bruhat Bangalore

Mahanagara Palike as civic amenity sites. As

regards the vacant areas marked Ex.1 to Ex.8 in the

map Annexure-R4(G), it is submitted that they form

part of the 42 number of sites indicated in the

statement Annexure-R4(J), allotted to some persons

and that if that is made available, the Corporation

would be willing to put them to use as a compact

civic amenity site. Learned counsel hastens to add

that a check measurement of that area too was

conducted and measurements are disclosed in the

Annexure-3 to the report.

Sri.G.Papi Reddy, learned Advocate for some of

the petitioners, files a reply to the memo dated

31.8.2012 of the fourth respondent stating that the

area marked as Annexure- R4(G)(B) measuring

16,896 sq.ft. is in the possession of the Bruhat

Bangalore Mahanagara Palike hence cannot be

construed as yet another CA site that could be

handed over to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara

Palike. As regards sites marked as Ex.1 to Ex.8, it is

stated that they are transferred in favour of

members of Subbaiah’s family under separate

143

registered sale deeds hence unavailable, though

some of the sites have not been utilized for

construction of a choultry. In that view of the matter,

it is stated that the fourth respondent Society cannot

seek appropriate directions of this Court to consider

the said sites for the purpose of reducing the

shortfall in the civic amenity area.

As regards the claim of the fourth respondent

that 15½ guntas of land in Sy.No.4 of Jakkur

Plantation was acquired by the National Highway

Authority, it is stated, is not correct and the area

utilized by the National Highway Authority is not

more than 1000 sq. ft. and that out of 1 acre 15

guntas, a portion of it remains unutilized and is in

the possession and control of the Society which is

undisclosed with an intention to alienate the same to

private parties.

In paragraph No.6, it is stated that out of 2 acres

of land in Sy.No.4 of Jakkur Plantation, the fourth

respondent -Society has in its possession 1 acre 14

guntas while 20 guntas is utilized for the road while

another portion measuring 900 sq. ft. for the National

Highway.

144

In paragraph No.8, it is stated that the land

measuring 37 guntas in Sy.No.94/3 of Allalasandra

village acquired by the fourth respondent -Society of

which restoration was sought by the owners of the

said land was dismissed by an order of this Court

with a direction to take possession, despite which

the Society has done nothing though has lawful

authority to take over the land. This piece of land, it

is stated, is not disclosed in the memo filed by the

fourth respondent -Society on 31.8.2012. According

to the petitioners, 37 guntas of land could be taken

into consideration to reduce the deficit in the civic

amenity area.

In paragraph No.9, it is stated that out of 404

sites, 35 sites are vacant, available since not allotted

nor any transactions taken place, out of which 14

sites are relinquished and handed over to the Bruhat

Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, and the remaining 21

sites are not handed over. It is stated that 369 sites

out of 404 sites are in the area earmarked for civic

amenity and parks. The petitioners further state that

in the contempt proceeding the fourth respondent -

Society has extended an undertaking that it would

cancel the transfer of 40 sites in view of the interim

145

order while as a matter of fact what is done is

cancellation of sale-deeds in respect of 22 sites while

18 sites remain as such.

At paragraph No.10 of the reply it is stated, a

sketch of the layout covering an area of 156 acres

26.75 guntas of land is annexed with markings in

red and green colours, while the area marked in the

green colour is handed over to the Bruhat Bangalore

Mahanagara Palike the red colour is required to be

handed over to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara

Palike, earmarked as civic amenity sites and parks.

At paragraph 11, it is stated that the Society has

handed over a burial ground measuring 30 guntas to

the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike which has

been in existence for a long time used by the

villagers wherein tombs exist and the land cannot be

utilized either for civic amenity purpose or park and

therefore cannot be taken into consideration to

reduce the shortfall.

At paragraph No.12, it is stated that a sarkari

halla or kharab land exists at the extreme west of

the layout meant for the flow of rain and drain water

146

over which the City Municipal Council, Yelahanka,

constructed a storm water drain. Apart from the said

drain, an area measuring 6 guntas is utilized for

burial ground by the residents of Chikka

Bommasandra and the total area of sarkari halla

measuring about 1 acre 26 ½ guntas is handed over

to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike by the

fourth respondent Society as a civic amenity site.

According to the petitioners, sarkari halla was not

acquired by the fourth respondent Society and

therefore, cannot be included as a civic amenity

area. Petitioners assert that the shortfall shown in

the report submitted by the Bruhat Bangalore

Mahanagara Palike, over land utilization in the

judicial layout is to be reckoned over 182 acres

instead of 156 acres.

.

Sri.Papi Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioners, reiterates that if the undisclosed areas

by the fourth respondent -Society are taken into

consideration, they could reduce the shortfall in the

extent of civic amenity site. It is further submitted

that if the sites which were transferred after the

interim order passed and subject matter of contempt

proceeding are restored, they could be put to use as

147

civic amenity area.

Sri.Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel for

the fourth respondent -Society files a memo

disclosing the details of utilization of 75 sites from

out of 404 sites pointed out by Sri.Byrareddy.

Learned Senior counsel submits that at Sl.No.II, the

sites allotted to the family of Subbaiah and more

appropriately marked as Ex.1 to Ex.8 in the map

Annexure-R4(G) are unavailable since allotted and

the parties have entered into a compromise in a

proceeding before the Registrar of Co-operative

Societies. Though the learned Senior Counsel

submits that the sites in excess of 34 sites allotted to

Subbaiah’s family was with the condition that the

excess sites would be put to use for construction of a

choultry a public purpose, and in breach are entitled

to take necessary action in accordance with law,

may do so if law permits since an answer to that

dispute is extraneous to this proceeding. It is also

submitted that in the proceeding of the meeting held

in the committee room under the chairmanship of the

Chief Minister on 20.7.1987, it was decided that the

Co-operative House Societies in Bangalore be

permitted to form layout of sites of maximum

148

dimension 50’ x 80’ and minimum dimension of 30’ x

50’ keeping in view the actual requirements of their

members. According to the learned Senior Counsel

the fourth respondent -Society, by representation

dated 20.8.1987, sought formation of sites

measuring 60’ x 90’; 80’ x 120’ and 100’ x 150’ in

view of large number of applications. The copies of

the proceedings of the meeting and the application

are enclosed to the memo which are taken on record.

Learned Senior Counsel further submits that

regard being had to the reply statement filed by the

petitioners through their counsel Sri.G.Papi Reddy,

further efforts would be made to locate the areas

which could be put to use for civic amenity so as to

make good the shortfall and place the same before

Court on the next date of hearing.

List on 21.09.2012.”

101. On 21/9/2012, court passed the following

order:

“Learned counsel for the Society submits that

effort would be made to ensure reduction of the

149

shortfall in areas meant for open spaces, civic

amenities, etc.,

Sri.K.V.Narasimhan, learned counsel for BBMP is

directed to furnish a list of sites together with PID

numbers and their location on the map which have

been subjected to corporation taxes.

List on 5/10/2012.”

102. The order dated 5/10/2012 reads thus:

“The fourth respondent files a memo dated

5.10.2012 stating that noticing the vacant sites and

properties that could be handed over to the BBMP in

continuation of the memo dated 31.8.2012 enclosing

sketch of the area, followed by the order dated

21/9/2012 recording that the Society would make

efforts to ensure reduction of the shortfall in the

areas meant for civic amenities, open spaces etc., a

tabular statement appended as APPENDIX-I is

enclosed.

Item No.I in Appendix-I contains the particulars of

six vacant sites and as indicated as R-4(G)(A) in the

map R-4(G) annexed to the memo dated 31/8/2012,

measuring 16,500 sq.ft., is adjacent to the civic

150

amenity sites identified as R-4(G)(B) in the said map.

The Society is willing to hand over the same to the

BBMP if so ordered by the Court. The road

measuring 42,600 sq.ft adjacent to the said sites is

said to be the only approach road to the layout and

in which Railway authorities are constructing a

‘Magic Box’.

Learned Senior Counsel for the fourth

Respondent – Society submits that site No.2119 at

Sl.No.1 in Item No.I measures 2625 sq.ft., though

allotted to one Nagarajaiah.R.M, the Society is

agreeable to allot a site carved out of the land

bearing Sy.No.94/3 of Allalasandra village in

exchange for the said site, as requested by the

allottee.

Sl.No.2 bearing site No.2120 allotted to one

Anitha.B, measuring 2675 sq.ft; Sl.No.3 bearing site

No.2121 allotted in favour of Chandregowda.G, is

said to measure 2725 sq.ft “the allotment made in

his favour undeniably posterior to the interim order,

the cancellation thereof has not been affected till

date”(corrected vide court order dated 7/12/2012

for being spoken to); Sl.No.4 bearing site no.2122

allotted in favour of Prema.S, measuring 2775 sq.ft;

Sl.No.5 bearing site No.2123 allotted in favour of

151

Vasanthakumar.B.A. and measuring 2825 sq.ft,

since allotted post the interim order followed by

registration have since been cancelled unilaterally,

while in respect of site allotted to

Vasanthakumar.B.A., the Society has instituted a

suit for declaration and cancellation of the registered

sale-deed on the premise that the said person is

neither a member nor has made payment towards

the sale consideration, according to the learned

Senior Counsel. It is stated that Sl.No.6 bearing site

No.2124 measuring 2875 sq.ft is vacant and

unencumbered.

In the light of the fact that allotment and

registration of certain sites belonging to the Society

made post the interim order have since been

cancelled in order to purge the contempt, it is

needless to state that these sites found to be vacant

belonging to the Society offered to be put to use as

civic amenity sites, we find no impediment to direct

the fourth respondent -Society to release and

relinquish the said sites in favour of the Bruhat

Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. While we are

conscious of the fact that there has been unilateral

cancellation of the sites as also registration of the

sites, keeping in mind the blatant violation of the

152

interim order, we think it appropriate to accept such

unilateral cancellation in order to purge the contempt

as just and proper.

The fourth respondent -Society is directed to

execute and lodge for registration the release and

relinquishment deed in favour of Bangalore

Mahanagara Palike, in respect of the aforesaid sites,

as civic amenity sites, within a month from today.

Though Sri.Subramanya Jois, learned Senior

Counsel for the fourth respondent, points to Item

No.II to the Appendix No.I to submit that 11 items of

properties being sites in the layout totally

admeasuring 28,803.25 sq.ft., are subject matter of

civil suits pending before the Courts at the instance

of the Society on the premise that none of the

allottees are members of the Society and Society has

not received any payment towards sale

consideration, to contend that the sites are also

offered so as to make good the shortfall in the civic

amenity areas, is unacceptable at this stage. We say

so because civil suits are pending and their final

outcome may not be in the near future unless

directions are issued by this Court for speedy

153

disposal of the said suits. Even otherwise, as on

today, we find that these properties are not

appropriate for being handed over to the Bruhat

Bangalore Mahanagara Palike towards reducing the

shortfall in the civic amenity area. We think it

appropriate to direct the Civil Court seized of these

suits to conclude the proceedings at the earliest and

not beyond 15.12.2012.

As regards Item No.III, it is stated that there are

eight sites and roads in between totally

admeasuring 39,587.62 sq.ft., allotted in violation of

the bye-laws and that some of the sites are within

the 404 sites identified by the Bangalore

Development Authority in its report as falling within

the civic amenity areas. The note to the said item

states that eight sites are allotted to the erstwhile

landlords family and that pursuant to the order

dated 6.9.2012 in this petition, remedial action

would be taken by the Society. Learned Senior

Counsel hastens to add that the fourth respondent -

Society has entered into a compromise with the

parties who actively prosecuted the proceedings

before the Additional Registrar of Co-operative

Society, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, in a dispute

154

under section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative

Societies Act. Without adverting to the merit or

demerit of the compromise entered into between the

parties, while being conscious of the fact that the

question as to whether the landlords could be

termed as associated members of the Society, a

question pending consideration in the connected writ

petition, we think it appropriate to defer considering

whether these sites could be handed over to the

Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike towards

shortfall in the civic amenity sites.

Item No.IV, without a nomenclature is said to

consist of 22 sites with two roads admeasuring

52,882.06 sq.ft., located adjacent and abutting the

properties relinquished in favour of the Bruhat

Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. The allottees of sites

at Sl.Nos.7 to 13 and 15, it is stated, are required to

be rehabilitated by providing alternate sites in III

Phase in Hejjala or alternatively, reimbursed and

compensated monetarily. Sites at Sl.Nos.1 to 3, 5, 14

and 21 are said to be vacant while sites at Sl.Nos.4,

6, 16 to 19 and 22 were allotted post the interim

order are subject matter of cancellation unilaterally.

In respect of site No.20 allotted to one

155

R.M.Nagarajaiah, it is stated that an alternative site

would be allotted in the land bearing Sy.No.94/3 of

Allalasandra village as has been requested by the

allottee. The learned Senior Counsel submits that all

the 22 sites form part of 404 sites identified by the

Bangalore Development Authority in its report as

falling in the civic amenity area.

Item No.5 with the nomenclature Sites registered

posterior to the interim order consists of ten sites

totally admeasuring 16,731.81 sq.ft., said to be

registered after the interim order and cancelled with

consent or unilaterally except for three sites at

Sl.Nos.1, 2 and 5. Learned Senior Counsel submits

that in respect of Sl.Nos.1, 2 and 5, action would be

initiated to cancel the registration in order to purge

the contempt. The note in the said Item No.V states

that a vacant land measuring 3600 sq.ft., lies in

between site No.1 (Temple site) and the water tank.

Learned Senior Counsel submits that the Society is

agreeable to hand over this portion of the site to the

Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike to reduce the

shortfall in the civic amenity area.

156

The aforesaid sites at Sl.Nos.1 to 10 are spread

out in different places in the layout and not at one

place and therefore, the utility of each one of these

sites for civic amenities or open spaces would be

considered at an appropriate stage.

We direct the fourth respondent to execute and

lodge for registration a release and relinquishment

deed of the land measuring 3600 sq.ft., lying in

between site No.1 Temple site and the Water Tank in

favour of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

within a month from today.

The fourth respondent -Society files a memo

dated 5.10.2012 enclosing an index with copies of

nine documents relating to certain orders passed by

the State Government; resolution of the Bruhat

Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and a copy of the

order dated 16-11-2010 in W.P.No.18496/2007 and

connected petitions of a coordinate Division Bench.

Learned Senior Counsel, while pointing to the said

documents, submits that though they cannot be

construed as valid precedents nevertheless throw

some light over methodology that was the adopted

by the State and its functionaries in a matter of

157

resolving the controversy of a like nature disposed

off by this Court and in respect of other Societies

plagued with the very same issues over utilization of

large extents of land meant for civic amenities, open

spaces and public purpose. The same is taken on

record.

List on 18.1.2013.”

103. Society on 11/01/2013 filed a memo a/w IA

1/13 for deletion of site No.670/H in the statement filed

vide statement No.V at Sl.No.1 and the same was

allowed vide order dated 11/01/2013 which reads thus:

“ORDER ON I.A.NO.1/2013 AND MEMO DATED

11.1.2013

This application is by the fourth respondent-

Society to delete site No.670/H shown at Sl.No.1 in

the statement No.V accompanying the memo dated

5.10.2012. It is stated that one M.R.Rangaswamy, a

Member of the Society, when allotted site No.670/H

a conveyance deed was presented for registration on

22.3.2002, whence, the Sub-Registrar impounded

the document under section 45-A of the Karnataka

Stamp Act and thereafter released the document on

158

31.10.2004 as indicated in the copy of the registered

instrument enclosed to the memo dated 11.1.2013.

The conveyance of the said property being prior to

the interim order dated 18.6.2003 the inadvertent

mistake in item No.1 of statement No.V needs to be

deleted.

In the light of the submissions of the learned

Senior Counsel being a reiteration of the statements

in the application and the memo and having perused

the copy of the conveyance deed, we think it

appropriate to allow I.A.No.1/2013 and the memo.

Item No.1 in statement No.V in respect of site

No.670/H stands deleted.”

104. Further Court order dated 11/01/2013

reads thus:

“Although the fourth respondent-Society has

furnished the names of the allottees of the 404 sites

which are in the list of Bangalore Development

Authority as sites falling within the area earmarked

for the civic amenity, we direct the fourth respondent

to furnish all material particulars of each of the

allotees including as to whether they are member

159

employees of the Judicial department, presently

employed or since retired and the particulars of their

membership and if not such employees relationship

with any of the office bearers of the Society, past or

present and the particulars of their membership.”

105. The Society filed the following three memos

on 8/3/2013:

1) “MEMO OF COMPLIANCE OF THE ORDER DATED

11.1.2013 REGARDING EXECUTION OF A

RELEASE AND RELINQUISHMENT DEED:

i. The 4th respondent hereby reports the

due compliance of the undertaking

furnished to this Hon’ble Court on its

behalf of its learned Senior Counsel as

regards the execution of

Release/Relinquishment Deed a copy of

the said registered relinquishment deed

dated 1.32013 is enclosed to this

memo, with a respectful prayer that this

Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to

take the same on record.

ii. It is submitted accordingly.”

2) “MEMO:

i. The 4th Respondent herewith produced

160

a copy of Deed of Exchange of

immovable property dt.1/3/2013 in the

above petition for kind perusal of this

Hon’ble Court.”

3) “MEMO FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT:

i. In compliance of the order dated the

11th January 2013, passed in the

aforementioned writ petition, the 4th

respondent-Society files herewith a

Tabular Statement containing all the

available material particulars in respect

of each of the allottees of the 404 sites

referred in the said order of this Hon’ble

Court, the said Tabular Statement

containing interalia the description of

the membership of the site owners

concerned. The same may kindly be

ordered to be taken on record.

ii. As seen from the said Tabular

Statement some amongst the site

owners named therein were/are not

employed in the Judicial Department or

in the office of the Hon’ble High Court of

161

Karnataka. Even though the 4th

respondent has sincerely tried to

ascertain the relationship of any of such

members, with any of the office bearers

of the Society-past or present it is

deeply regretted that the said

information has not been able to be

obtained by the Society, despite sincere

efforts as to whether the said site-

owners are or were employees of the

Judicial Department or of the Hon’ble

High Court of Karnataka.

iii. It is submitted accordingly.”

106. On 8/3/2003 the following order was

passed:

“Learned counsel for the 4th respondent-Society

files three memos of even date 8.3.2013, the first of

which relates to compliance with the direction to

execute release/relinquishment deed in favour of the

BBMP in respect of site Nos.670/7 measuring 1200

sq.ft; Site No.2119 measuring 2625 sq.ft; site

No.2120 measuring 2675 sq.ft; site No.2122

162

measuring 2725 sq.ft; and site No.2124 measuring

2875 sq.ft. The second of the memo is in relation to

the exchange deed executed by R.M.Nagarajaiah,

the member of the 4th respondent by which site

bearing No.1 measuring 2806 sq.ft. is conveyed.

Learned Sr.Counsel for the 4th respondent submits

that the member is entitled to yet another site

measuring about 1200 sq.ft which the 4th

respondent would identify and also execute a

conveyance deed. The third memo is enclosed with a

list of names, addresses, membership, site Numbers,

dimensions and remarks of allottees of sites.

According to the learned Sr.Counsel the use of the

word ‘sadasyaru’ would take into fold members who

are employees of the Judicial Department while

‘Sahasadasyarau’ are with reference to associate

members. The list, it is said, pertains to 404 sites

which the BDA in its report stated fall within the

area earmarked as civic amenities. Learned

Sr.counsel hastens to add that the direction to

furnish the relationship of the allottees with the

employees/member office bearers of the 4th

respondent-Society, despite efforts could not be

ascertained and that the 4th respondent would

make further sincere efforts in that regard.

163

The memos are taken on record. 4th respondent

to ensure copies of the memos and enclosures are

made available to the petitioners and their counsel

and also counsel representing other parties.

Regard being had to the fact that BDA in its

report having made reference to 404 sites falling

within the civic amenity area coupled with the

remarks as are mentioned in the enclosure to the

memo dt. 8.3.2013 furnishing material particulars of

the allottees, more appropriately over the pendency

of the suits for cancellation of the deeds of sale

conveying sites executed posterior to the interim

orders, and in order to ascertain the extent of land

that could be retrieved as civic amenities in that

area, the 4th respondent would have to make

necessary enquiries and place before Court a report

as to how many of the sites could be put together to

constitute a composite block to be put to use for a

civic amenity site so as to reduce the shortfall in civic

amenity area to be provided in the layout.

Learned Sr.counsel further submits that efforts

would be made to lay before court detailed

particulars of the 2238 number of sites in the layout

164

including the areas earmarked for civic amenity

areas which are in the unacquired lands and since

allotted as civic amenity areas.

ORDER ON IA-III/12 There is no representation for the applicant. Application rejected.

ORDER ON IA-IV/13

In view of the endorsement on IA No.IV/13 by the

learned counsel for the applicant stating that he

does not press the application, the same is

accordingly dismissed as not pressed.

ORDER ON IA-II/12

Although office objections raised on the application

are not complied with nevertheless having had a

glimpse at the application the relief to grant

permission to construct a residential house in

property bearing Site No.2113, III Cross, Judicial

colony, Jakkur, Allalasandra, is unavailable.

The site in question is one amongst the 404 sites

falling within the civic amenity areas in terms of the

report filed by the Bangalore Development Authority

and in view of the interim order not to change the

165

character of the land, the relief sought for is

unavailable. Application is, accordingly rejected.

List on 5.4.2013.”

107. On 5/4/2013, Court passed the following

order:

“Learned Sr.counsel for the 4th respondent

submits a memo and statement dt. 5.4.2013

furnishing a tabular statement containing

information of sites owned/not owned by office

bearers of the Society in the names of their family

members, in compliance with the order dt. 8.3.2013.

The same is taken on record.

It is noticed that the contemnors, by name

Basavarya C.M. and Kempathimmaiah, have not

responded to the information sought for by the

Society. However, other Office bearers have

furnished information as indicated in the tabular

column.

Learned Sr.counsel files yet another memo of

even date enclosing copy of a notice dt. 20.3.2013

166

Annexure-1 seeking information from the ex-office

bearers as set out therein. Also enclosed is a map

describing the areas in seven blocks which could be

handed over to the BBMP to make good the shortfall

in the civic amenity areas in the Judicial Layout at

Yelahanka. The Map also contains a legend

describing the areas indicating the proposed lands to

be handed over along with the lands since handed

over, together with the roads to constitute 43.20% of

the lands utilized for civic amenity purpose. In the

memo, it is stated that some litigation is pending in

respect of portions of properties in the Blocks, steps

would be taken to put an end to the litigation and

recover possession of the said properties subject to

orders of this court.

If the 4th respondent is inclined to hand over the

properties in Blocks 1 to 7 as indicated in the map,

to reduce the shortfall in the civic amenity areas, it is

needless to state that it is for the Society to take

necessary action in that regard, in accordance with

law and indicate the date on which possession

would be handed over to the BBMP.

Learned counsel for the BBMP seeks sometime to

167

make his due diligence over the lands proposed to be

handed over as civic amenity areas. List on

26.4.2013.”

108. Order dated 26/4/2013 reads thus:

“Learned counsel for the respondent -Society

files a memo dated 26.4.2013 enclosing an

additional tabular statement furnishing information

as regards sites owned/not owned by the office

bearers of the Society in the names of their family

members. In the said statement, it is noticed that

Kempathimmaiah, Shiresthedar in the City Civil

Court at Bangalore, an ex-officio office bearer, while

holding the post of Director secured allotment of a

site measuring 40’x 50’ in the name of his wife

Smt.Ranjini, as an associate member of the Society.

We think it appropriate to extend an opportunity to

Kempathimmaiah to put in his explanation.

Memo is taken on record.

Sri.Subramanya Jois, learned senior counsel for

the fourth respondent -Society, submits that as and

when the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

168

carries out its due diligence, as recorded in the order

dated 5.4.2013, the Society would indicate the date

for handing over possession of the properties.

Sri.Narasimhan, learned counsel for the Bruhat

Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, submits that in the

wake of the elections to the State Legislative

Assembly, the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

requires a fortnight’s time commencing from

10.5.2013 to carry out its due diligence.

List after summer vacation.

It is needless to state that the Bruhat Bangalore

Mahanagara Palike, after carrying out its due

diligence, may indicate to the fourth respondent

Society, in writing, in the matter of taking possession

of the properties. The Society is permitted to fix a

date to hand over possession of the properties and

execute and lodge for registration the release-cum-

relinquishment deed, without awaiting further orders

of this Court and report on the next date of hearing.”

169

109. Court by its order dated 23/8/2013 passed

the following order:

“In the order dated 26.4.2013, it is noticed that,

one Kempathimmaiah, Sheristhedar of the City Civil

Court also an ex-office bearer of the fourth

respondent Society, while as a Director, secured

allotment of site measuring 40 feet x 50 feet (should

be read as 40 feet x 60 feet) in favour of his wife

Smt.Ranjini (to be read as ‘Rajini’ though in the sale

deed dated 13th July 1998, it is mentioned as

Smt.Rajani, an associate member of the society.

In compliance with the order dated 26.4.2013,

that Kempathimmaiah has filed an affidavit along

with three documents as enclosures, admitting the

fact of allotment of a site in favour of his wife and

the subsequent conveyance of the said site under the

registered sale deed way back in the year 1998 for a

valuable consideration and that the wife of the

deponent is willing to deposit the sale consideration

and if permitted, minus Rs.61,598/- paid to the

society.

Learned Senior Counsel for the deponent submits

170

that the affidavit be accepted and directions be

issued as regards the deposit of the sale

consideration. In the circumstances, we think it

appropriate to defer orders on the request made in

the said affidavit.

Sri.Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel

files a memo dated 23.8.2013 indicating that the

Society has always been ready and willing to hand

over the sites as indicated in the earlier memo dated

5.4.2013, which includes sites indicated in Block

Nos.1 to 7 in the map annexed thereto. However, due

to certain difficulties faced in the form of litigation

pending before court and also interim orders of

injunction operating, learned senior counsel submits,

on instructions from the President, who is present

before court, that such of those sites, which are not

subject to litigation and are freehold, would be

handed over to the B.B.M.P. by making out a list at

the first instance and furnishing the same to the

learned Counsel for the B.B.M.P. and

thereafterwards complete and conclude the process

of delivery of possession by execution of necessary

instruments of release-cum-relinquishment.

171

As regards the properties over which disputes

are pending, learned Senior Counsel submits that a

list would be prepared and made available to the

court furnishing all material particulars.

We think it appropriate to relist these petitions on

20th September 2013.”

110. On 20/9/2013, Court passed the following

order:

“The fourth respondent - Society files a memo

dated 20.9.2013 in compliance with the specific

proposals contained in the earlier memo dated

5.4.2013 and a further memo dated 23.8.2013. To

the memo is enclosed Annexure-R4(L) containing a

list of 18 numbers of sites with their property

numbers and the areas comprised therein which

according to the learned Senior Counsel for the

fourth respondent are free-hold properties to be

handed over to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara

Palike by way of release-cum-relinquishment deeds,

to reduce the shortfall in the civic amenity areas

comprised in the layout in question. Annexure-R4(N)

is said to contain relevant material particulars of the

172

boundaries and the extents comprised in the 18 sites

mentioned in Annexure-R4(L), while, Annexure-R4(M)

is said to be a letter addressed to the Joint

Commissioner of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara

Palike, Yelhanka Range, with the acknowledgement

over the proposal to concede in favour of the Bruhat

Bangalore Mahanagara Palike the said sites.

Learned Senior Counsel for the fourth respondent

Society submits that the fourth respondent is ready

and willing to ensure a joint spot inspection of the

said 18 numbers of sites, with the officials of the

Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and execute

release-cum-relinquishment deed.

Sri.K.V.Narasimhan, learned counsel for the

Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, submits that

the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike is willing

to have a joint spot inspection of the said sites,

conducted at about 11.00 a.m. on Tuesday i.e., on

24.09.2013 and if found to be freehold sites to take

possession of the same where afterwards the

respondent No.4- Society to execute the release-cum-

relinquishment deeds on Wednesday i.e., on

25.09.2013.

173

In the memo, at paragraph No.3, it is stated that

Annexure -R4(P) is a tabular statement containing

list of all known disputes and litigations respecting

certain properties. Learned Senior Counsel submits

that better particulars of the litigation would be

made available to the Court by the next date of

hearing.

Learned Senior Counsel points to the lay-out map

annexed to the memo dated 5.4.2013 to submit that

the fourth respondent would explore the possibility of

including the road adjacent to block No.7 which

stands redundant so as to form a part of the other

areas in Block No.7, to be handed over to the Bruhat

Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, to further reduce

shortfall in the civic amenity area.

Sri.Papireddy, learned counsel for the applicant

in I.A.Nos.VI and VII of 2013, submits that the fourth

respondent -Society having not kept up its promise

has resulted in these applications. The fourth

respondent - Society to file its response to each of the

applications.

174

The fourth respondent-Society to comply with the

requirement of joint inspection and execution of

release-cum-relinquishment deed as indicated supra.

List this matter on 25.10.2013.”

111. Court order dated 24/01/2014 reads thus:

“Learned counsel appearing for Mr.Shaker

Shetty, learned counsel for applicant in I.A.No.1 of

14 submits that he does not press I.A.1 of 14 filed

for direction. I.A.1 of 14 is, accordingly, rejected.

2. Mr.Shivappa, learned Sr.Counsel appearing for

fourth respondent, society, submits that the memo

filed on 8-1-2014 is pursuant to the execution of a

relinquishment deed dated 25-9-2013 in favour of

BBMP in compliance with the order dated 20th

September, 2013 and that in a joint inspection that

was held, it surfaced that certain properties to be

relinquished are in possession of persons whose

particulars are mentioned in Annexure-R4(R)

enclosed to the memo, more appropriately in Block

Nos.5, 6 and 7 of the layout.

3. Learned Sr.Counsel submits that some of the

175

immoveable properties in Blocks 5 and 6 are subject

matter of original proceedings before City Civil Court,

Bangalore in CCH No.6, are ripe for evidence and

appropriate direction be issued for disposal of those

suits expeditiously.

4 Mr.K.V.Narasimhan, learned counsel for

respondent BBMP, submits that the society has since

executed a relinquishment deed in terms of the order

dated 20th September 2013 while some of the

properties in R4(R) are not handed over in the light of

the remarks found in the said Annexure.

5. The entire effort is in the direction of enabling

the fourth respondent society to ensure maintenance

of civic amenity areas more appropriately to an

extent of 45% as was the prescription of B.D.A at the

relevant point of time and in that regard, according

to learned Sr. counsel, the society has reached 42%

with a shortfall of 3%. If the properties as are set out

in Annexure-R4(R) to the memo are made available to

BBMP towards civic amenities it would pave way for

reducing the shortfall. Learned Sr. Counsel is very

confident that the said properties would be sufficient

to make good the shortfall. Regard being had to the

176

fact that the subject matter of pending litigation in

the City Civil Court, Bangalore relates to properties

which form part of the area meant for civil amenity,

we deem it appropriate to direct the City Civil Court

to expedite the conclusion of the proceedings in the

suits desirably before the commencement of summer

vacation of 2014. It is needless to state if fourth

respondent society, which is the plaintiff in the suits,

were to make a request to the civil court we have no

reason to believe that the civil court would not take

up the matter on day-to-day basis for disposal.

6. Since the names of the parties who are non-

members and to whom sale deeds of certain sites

are executed are not forthcoming and also failure to

provide the name of the person who allotted the sites

or under whose authority the execution of the sale

deeds were permitted, it is not possible for the court

at this juncture, to initiate action as is necessary in

law against such persons and, therefore, fourth

respondent is directed to make available all the

names of non-member allottees and the name/s of

the person/s who made the allotments or executed

the conveyance deeds.

177

7. The fourth respondent-society has also filed a

memo today enclosing true copies of two layout

plans Annexure R4(L) and R4 (M) said to be

concerning two House Building Co-operative

Societies which were permitted to have 36.30% and

35.21% as civil amenity areas and the remaining as

residential areas by the respondent BDA. The same

is taken on record.

8. Sri.Krishna, learned counsel for B.D.A seeks

time to take instructions in the matter, of the memo.

9. Society and the BBMP to file objections to

I.A.No.6 and 7 of 2013. BBMP and furnish

information as to whether kathas have been issued

to persons allegedly in possession of lands or portion

of land as are mentioned in annexures to the

applications, by the next date of hearing.

Re-list on 14-2-2014.”

112. Order dated 14/2/2014 reads thus:

“Learned Senior Counsel for the fourth

respondent-Society files a memo furnishing the

178

names of non-member allottees and the name/s of

the person/s who made allotment or executed the

conveyance deeds in compliance with paragraph

No.6 of the order dated 24.1.2014. The same is

taken on record. Further orders on the memo

deferred.

Learned Senior Counsel further submits that

when a memo enclosing copy of the order dated

24.1.2014 was filed before the City Civil Court in the

pending suits, memo was not accepted and

therefore, I.A. is filed to-day.

The Presiding Officer of the City Civil Court,

CH.No.6, is directed not to make any further ado

over the subject matter, but to hear and dispose the

suits on day to-day basis commencing from today.

Learned counsel are requested to make submissions

before the City Civil Court to-day, in this regard.

Sri.Krishna, learned counsel for the BDA and the

learned Government Advocate for the State seek time

to make their submission.

Learned counsel for the Bruhat Bangalore

Mahanagara Palike submits that the relevant

179

material particulars of information, sought for in the

order dated 24.1.2014, is on the anvil and would be

made available to the learned counsel for the fourth

respondent-Society and thereafter filed into the

registry.

Sri.V.Padmanabha Kedilaya, learned counsel for

the applicant in I.A.No.2/2014, submits that an

alternative site may be made available to the

applicant in view of the fact that the site allotted to

him is one among 404 sites identified as civil

amenity sites.

Learned Senior counsel for the fourth respondent-

Society submits that besides the objections over

technicality and maintainability of the application,

nevertheless Society would endeavour to identify an

alternative site at the earliest and make its

submissions.

Re-list on 7.3.2014.”

180

113. On 7/3/2014, Court passed the following

order:

“Regarding being had to list brought before this

Court coupled with facts stated by the 4th

respondent/Society that one of its earlier director by

name Sri N Shivanna and a former President by

name Sri C Shivalingaiah had executed documents

conveying the sites formed in the layout to persons,

who were neither members nor resolution passed for

allotment of sites, it is appropriate to implead these

persons as party respondents No.18 and 19.

Petitioners are permitted to amend the cause title.

The 4th respondent/Society submits that the

aforesaid ex-office bearers are party defendants in

the suits instituted by the purchasers said to be

pending before the Civil Court, as stated in the

statement of pending suits enclosed to the memo

dated 14.2.2014 (Annexure-R4N). Petitioners to serve

copy of the memo alongwith enclosures on the two

ex-office bearers/respondents No.18 and 19. The

former President, Sri C Shivalingaiah, who is one of

the accused in the contempt case, is present before

Court. The 4th respondent/Society is permitted to

181

serve memo forthwith on the said persons.

Sri N Shivanna as identified by the President of

the 4th respondent/Society is present before Court.

The 4th respondent is permitted to serve copy of this

memo on the said Sri N Shivanna.

For the statement of respondents No.18 and 19,

list on the next date of hearing i.e. on 28.3.2014.

Sri K V Narasimhan, learned counsel for the

BBMP submits that the BBMP is unable to locate the

37 guntas of land and if the office bearers of the 4th

respondent/Society were to assist the staff of BBMP,

they would prepare a report in the matter.

Sri Subrahmanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel

submits that the President of the 4th

respondent/Society will assist the BBMP after giving

prior information.

Sri Krishna, learned counsel for the BDA files the

statement of facts dated 7.3.2014 with affidavit and

photo copies of certain resolutions and orders

passed by the Authority relating to certain benefits

182

extended to two Societies viz: Mysore Paper Mills

Employees House Building Co-operative Society and

Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative

Society. The same is taken on record.

Relist on 28.3.2014.”

114. On 28/3/2014, the following order was

passed:

“Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 18 and 19

are permitted to file power in the registry and the

registry to print their names.

Post order passed on the last date of hearing, Sri.

K.V. Narasimhan, learned Counsel for the

respondent - BBMP submits that though a spot

inspection was conducted, nevertheless, the area

apparently identified as land belonging to the

Society, since acquired is presently a slum known as

‘Hanumappa Layout’.

183

Learned counsel submits that Engineers of BBMP

were unable to actually identify the area and would

do so if granted some more time.

It is trite that after the land is identified, then the

question would be whether the constructions therein

are legal or illegal or otherwise and as to who

permitted those constructions. Many questions

would arise for decision making thereafterwards.

The office bearers of the society are directed to

ensure assistance to the survey department of BBMP

to conduct survey and identify the exact location of

the land that belongs to the Society.

Respondent Nos. 18 and 19 to file their statement

of objections, if any, by the next date of hearing.

Sri. K.V. Narasimhan, learned Counsel having

made a statement that at the time of spot inspection,

they had noticed that in a particular area released

and relinquished in favour of the BBMP was being

used as a burial ground, action has been initiated to

prevent recurrence. In that view of the matter, the

BBMP to file a comprehensive report over the exact

184

status and the condition of all the lands released

and relinquished in their favour in the Judicial

Layout together with photographs both positive and

negative by the next date of hearing.

Sri. Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel for

the Society submits that in compliance with the

directions issued by this court, the proceedings in

the sixteen civil suits pending before the Trial Court

is conducted on a day to day basis.

Although learned Senior Counsel suggests that a

direction be issued to the civil court to furnish reports

over the progress, we are not inclined to do so. It is

for the Society to persuade the city civil court to

ensure that proceedings in each of the cases listed

on day to day basis, should not turn out to be an

empty formality, but there must be something

substantially done in the progress of each of the

cases. The Society may file its report to the court in

the form of the affidavit of an Officer as to exact

status of each of the cases.

Relist on 13.6.2014”.

185

115. Court by its order dated 10/10/2014,

passed the following order:

“Respondent No.19 i.e., Sri.C.Shivalingaiah is

reported to have died on 14.8.2014 as recorded in

the order sheet dated 10.10.2014 in CCC

No.87/2004. In that view of the matter, the petition

against the respondent No.19 stands abated.

Respondent No.18 to file statement of objections

by today i.e., 10.10.2014 into the registry.

The petitioners are permitted to implead as party

respondent the Karnataka State Pollution Control

Board represented by its Member Secretary as

respondent No.20. Sri.Gururaj Joshi, learned

Stadning Counsel, to take notice for the respondent

No.20. Learned counsel to secure instructions over

the installation of sewage treatment plant outside

the Judicial Layout. The registry is directed to make

out a copy of this order to be furnished to the learned

counsel.

Learned counsel for the respondent Bruhat

Bangalore Mahanagara Palike submits that the

respondent is collecting materials to comply with the

186

order dated 28.3.2014 and would file the report, if

extended some more time. Learned counsel is

granted time till 14.11.2014 to comply with the order

dated 28.3.2014.

Relist on 14.11.2014.”

116. Order dated 10/4/2015 reads thus:

“Learned Advocate for the 18th respondent

submits that statement of objections dated

10.10.2014 though filed, would file an affidavit

furnishing material particulars leading to the sale-

deed executed in favour of one Vijayakumari,

including the details of the site, copy of the sale deed

and authorization etc., before the next date of

hearing.

Sri.Gururaj Joshi, learned counsel for the

Karnataka State Pollution Control Board submits

that the then Presiding Officer and the Chairman of

the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board,

Bengaluru, by order dated 31.8.2007, in the matter

of Karnataka State Judicial Employees House

Building Co-operative Society, recorded findings that

it was the responsibility of the Bengaluru Water

Supply and Sewerage Board authorities to provide

water supply and maintain sewerage facilities in the

layout, and directions were issued in that regard to

take immediate action. Learned counsel files a memo

187

enclosing a copy of the said proceeding. Learned

counsel submits that the Bengaluru Water Supply

and Sewerage Board installed a Sewage Treatment

Plant for short _STP_ to treat sewage generated from

Yelahanka New Town and areas very close to the

Judicial Layout and all that is required to be done is

to connect the underground drainage system of the

Judicial Layout for free flow of sewage into the

_STP_. Learned counsel promises the Court that by

the next date of hearing relevant material

particulars, including technical details, after an

inspection, would be made available to the Court.

Sri.Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel

for the respondent _Society, files a memo dated

10.4.2015 enclosing copies of letter dated

20.10.2010 addressed to the Bengaluru Water

Supply and Sewerage Board and its response dated

8.11.2010. In the light of the response stating that

the disposal of sewage system in the Judicial Layout

would be taken up through the execution of

Karnataka State Pollution Control Board work, which

is said to be pending, the Bengaluru Water Supply

and Sewarage Board, by its Secretary, is impleaded

as a party respondent No.21. Let a copy of this order

be addressed to the Secretary, Bengaluru Water

Supply and Sewerage Board, forthwith for their

response.

It is stated, one K.B.Mounesh Kumar, is the

standing counsel for Bengaluru Water Supply and

188

Sewerage Board. Registry to print the name of the

learned counsel.

Sri.K.V.Narasimhan, learned counsel for the

Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, for short

_BBMP' submits a report as directed in the order

dated 28.3.2014, followed by the order dated

10.10.2014. Learned counsel submits that the report

contains necessary particulars of the areas in the

layout relinquished by the 4th respondent House

Building Society in favour of BBMP, as civic

amenities and open spaces and BBMP proposed

utilization, and further that the word _future

development_ as shown in the report, requires proper

identification which would be placed on record in the

form of an affidavit. Learned counsel refers to the

map enclosed to the report to submit, that,

possession of certain portions of civic amenity sites,

is not handed over which submission is responded to

by Sri.Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel, to

submit that some of those areas are under litigation

before Civil Courts in 16 civil suits, at the instance of

the Society which it intends to pursue and secure

possession thereof, hence requests the Court to issue

suitable direction to the Civil Courts to post all the 16

civil suits to be tried by one single court since some

of the suits are pending before two courts, in

Bengaluru.

At this stage, Sri.Subramanya Jois, learned

Senior Counsel, submits that in the area marked as

189

park Nos.16 and 17 in the map, there are two roads

which are perpendicular and that by amalgamating

them with the civic amenity site located adjacent

there to, would make it a compact civic

amenity/open space and on instructions of the

present President of the Society who is personally

present, a relinquishment deed would be executed

and possession of the road handed over to the

BBMP. In addition, learned senior counsel hastens to

add that certain small sheds that have come up in

three of the portions marked in red colour in the said

map are of unauthorized occupants who would be

evicted and possession of the same would also be

delivered to the BBMP so as to reduce the deficiency

in the total civic amenity areas in the layout.

If regard is had to the submission of the

learned counsel for the BBMP and the report placed

on record, there is a need to issue direction to the

BBMP to ensure the allocation of funds in its budget

for the financial year 2015-16 for development

activity over the areas specified in the map and as

particularized in the report and also to file an

affidavit in that regard before the next date of

hearing.

It is hoped that the joint enterprise of BWSSB

and the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

would ensure connectivity of the passage for sewage

through the underground drainage system in the

Judicial Layout into one of the STPs atleast before

190

the next date of hearing. The request to post all the

16 cases before one Civil Court, in Bengaluru, to be

considered on the next date of hearing.

Re-list on 19.6.2015.”

117. On 04/09/2015, Court passed the following

order:

“In compliance with the order dated 10.4.2015,

the respondent-Society is said to have addressed

letters enclosing draft of the relinquishment deed

and a sketch calling upon the Joint Commissioner to

be present at the time of execution of the

relinquishment deed, nevertheless, since there was

no response, a registered letter was addressed

through a legal counsel on 27.7.2015, to which too,

there was no response, according to Sri Subramanya

Jois, learned senior counsel for the society.

Sri Sreenidhi, learned counsel for respondent-

BBMP submits that he has filed power recently and

has no instructions from the Joint Commissioner and

would secure instructions and report to court on the

next date of hearing.

If the respondent-Society, has, in compliance with the order dated 10.4.2015 taken steps in regard to execution and lodging for registration a release and relinquishment deed of the area more-fully set out in

the order, more appropriately, the area covered by two roads to be amalgamated with the civic amenity site located adjacent to them, respondent-BBMP to

191

authorize its representative to appear before the Sub-Registrar on 8th September 2015, and take possession of the said relinquished properties. For the purpose of registration, the Joint Commissioner

to furnish well in advance the name and designation of the officer to represent the respondent-BBMP.

Learned senior counsel, submits that 16 suits in

different courts have since been brought together

and are tried in CCH.No.6, City Civil Court,

Bangalore, and if that is so, the learned Judge

presiding over the Court, is requested to hear all the

suits on the question of court fee, since a preliminary

issue and pass orders, in any event, by the end of

this month, without further time. Respondent-society

is permitted to furnish a copy of this order to the

learned Judge presiding over CCH No.6.

Sri K.B.Monesh Kumar, learned Counsel for

respondent BWSSB submits that sewerage

treatment plant of size not known is installed in the

periphery of Jakkur, to which the sewerage lines

from the judicial layout are connected. Learned

counsel to file a memo furnishing all material

particulars of the said sewerage treatment plant

including its capacity to treat the volume of sewerage

that flows from Judicial layout.

If the plant is in operation, the Pollution Control

Board to inspect the plant by 8th September 2015

and submit a report by the next date of hearing.

192

Re-list on 11.9.2015.

ORDER ON I.A.2/15

Application to be heard along with main matter.

ORDER ON MEMO FOR RETIREMENT

Memo for retirement of learned counsel for

respondent No.3 Mr.K.V.Narasimhan is accepted

since Sri Sreenidhi, learned counsel has filed power.

Memo is ordered accordingly.

ORDER ON I.A.5/2013

I.A.NO.5/2013 is rejected as office objection is

not complied with.”

118. On 11/09/2015, Court passed order which

reads thus:

“Sri.Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel

submits that a relinquishment deed has been

executed and lodged for registration on 8.9.2015, a

copy of which is enclosed to the memo dated

11.9.2015. According to the learned Senior Counsel,

the following are the total areas and dates on which

the relinquishment deeds have been executed in

favour of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

towards civic amenities, open spaces, parks and

roads as well as storm water drains:-

193

Total Sq. Ft. Relinquishment Deed date

1. 365206 Sq.Ft. 16.10.2009

2. 20108 Sq.Ft. 21.06.2010

3. 12100 Sq.Ft. 01.03.2013

4. 28011.75 Sq.Ft. 25.09.2013

5. 17577.50 Sq.Ft. 08.09.2015

443003.25 Sq.Ft. - 10A 17G

1. C A 443003.25 Sq.Ft. * 10A 17G

2. Storm Water Drain 47710.00 Sq.Ft. * 01A 04G 3. Road 2393082.92 Sq.Ft. * 54A 37G

66A 18G Total 156A % 42.423

On 10.4.2015, the following submission of the

learned Senior Counsel was recorded:

In addition, learned Senior Counsel hastens to

add that certain small sheds that have come up in

three of the portions marked in red colour in the said

map are of unauthorized occupants who would be

evicted and possession of the same would also be

delivered to the BBMP so as to reduce the deficiency

in the total civic amenity areas in the layout.

Learned Senior Counsel submits that in

furtherance of the said submission, the Bruhat

Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and the office-bearers

of the Society would jointly endeavour to ensure the

194

eviction of the unauthorized occupants so as to put to

use the said properties for the purposes for which

they are earmarked.

Learned counsel for the Bruhat Bengaluru

Mahanagara Palike submits that they would assist

the Society and its office bearers in that regard and

would take steps to fence the areas and also file a

report over the development activity over the areas

specified in the map and as particularized in the

earlier report and file an affidavit in that regard.

Learned counsel for the Pollution Control Board files

a report of what was noticed in the spot inspection

by the officers of the Board indicating gross

deficiencies in the sewage treatment plant, a copy of

which is made available to the learned counsel for

the Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewerage Board -

respondent No.21.

Learned counsel for the Bengaluru Water Supply

and Sewerage Board files a memo stating that the

STP was installed in the year 2003 under the

Cauvery IV Phase to the capacity of 10 MLD and that

the average inflow of sewage per day is about 8.9

MLD, as per the inflow meter which is functional and

other details of the capacity of the motors in the

pumps as well as discharge. Same is taken on

record.

The particulars furnished is as sketchy as it can

be and it is not what was expected of the Bengaluru

Water Supply and Sewerage Board. The report of the

Pollution Control Board is quite exhaustive and

195

therefore, the Bengaluru Water Supply and

Sewerage Board to answer over the points raised in

the report of the Pollution Control Board and if

possible, rectify the defects by the next date of visit

of the officers of the Pollution Control Board which is

to take place on 25.9.2015.”

119. Court passed the following order on

6/11/2015:

“In compliance with the order dated 11.9.2015,

the respondent BBMP files an affidavit of one

Mr.Jagadish, Assistant Executive Engineer stating

that the development activity proposed is appended

in a Compendium and seeks leave of the Court to

take necessary steps to implement such development

activity.

Affidavit along with Compendium is taken on record.

It is made clear that since BBMP is a civic authority

required under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation

Act, 1976, to maintain orderliness and also carry out

development activity for and on behalf of general

public, a statutory duty and obligation, there is no

necessity for orders of Court to carry out

development activity as proposed in the report.

Respondent-BBMP to file affidavit on a timely basis

over the development activity carried on.

196

Re-list on 20.11.2015.”

120. Respondent No.4 – Society filed a memo on

4/12/2015 furnishing a pen drive in which the contents

of the entire Layout plan are found. In addition to it, a

Hard Copy thereof is also filed. In the memo the

following information is furnished:

1 ENCROACHED AREAS 35,945.96 SQ.FEET

2 LAND ACQUIRED BY THE

NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY

13,067.92 SQ.FEET

3 UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTIONS

41,381.76 SQ.FEET

4 VACANT SITE EAR-MARKED FOR THE PROPOSED TEMPLE IN THE

LAYOUT

3,721.18 SQ FEET

5 RESIDENTIAL AREA

6 THE PROPERTY CONCEDED IN

FAVOUR OF AND HANDED OVER

TO BBMP

4,36,847.57 SQ.FEET

7 UNACQUIRED LANDS DE-MARKETED

11,02,878.55 SQ.FEET

8 STORM WATER DRAIN 47,710.00 SQ.FEET

In the map enclosed to the memo, the legands read

thus:

197

LAND USE ANALYSIS

ACQUIRED LANDS 156 A – 26.75 GUNTAS

DESCRIPTION AREA IN SQMT

AREA IN SQMT

AREA IN ACRE &

GUNTAS

%

BBMP 40,584.12 4,36,847.57 10 A – 01 G 6.40

ROADS (INCLUDING

THE ROADS IN UNACQUIRED

LANDS)

2,22,322.83 23,93,082.94 54 A – 37.6 G 35.41

STORM

WATER DRAIN 4,432.36 47,710.00 1 A- 3.8 G 0.70

INDEX

ENCROACHED AREAS 33 G (35,945.62 SQFT

RESIDENTIAL ACQUIRED – 36,68,988 SQFT UNACQUIRED - 6,89,212 SQFT

ACQUIRED BY NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY 12 GUNTAS (13,067.92 SQFT)

BBMP AREA 10 A – 01 G (4,36,847.57 SQFT)

UNAUTHORISED

CONSTRUCTION 38 G (41381.76 SQFT)

UNACQUIRED LANDS 25 A – 12.75 G (11,02,878.55 SQFT)

PROPOSED TEMPLE SITE 3.41 G (3721.18 SQFT)

404 SITES (9,26,001.50 SQFT)

404 SITES IN UNACQUIRED LANDS (79,565.77 SQFT)

STORM WATER DRAIN (47,710 SQFT)

198

The memo further states that in so far as the

unacquired area of 25.12 guntas of land, a contiguous

part of the same layout, is concerned proceedings had

been taken under Sections 79A and 79B of the

Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and in the light of

the report of the Committee constituted by the

Government headed by Sri.A.T.Ramaswamy, the

proceedings culminated in favour of the Society which

paid the penalty imposed under Section 96 of

Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, for diversion of

agricultural land for the residential purposes of the

Society.

121. In addition it is stated that prior to the

initiation of such proceedings and the levy of penalty

and the payment thereof made by the Society, the City

Municipal Council, Yelahanka Town, within the

territorial jurisdiction of which the layout in question

falls had resolved on 22/5/1996 to provide all the

facilities to the Society and even to levy and collect

199

Property Tax in respect of the sites formed by the

Society, from the respective owners thereof, and that

service charges and Development Charges have been

demanded and collected by the City Municipal Council,

Yelahanka Town, to which the Society has paid as early

as on 10/9/2008, a total sum of Rs.43,27,320/-.

122. On 11/12/2015, BDA has filed a memo

stating:

“Society has submitted Residential Layout Plan in

several Sy.Nos. of Allalasandra, Chikkabommasandra

and Jakkur Plantation villages to an extent of 156 Acres

26 ¾ guntas for approval.

Authority in its meeting held on 16/11/1992, vide

Sub.No.503/92, resolved to approve the Layout Plan in

Sy.Nos.9/1, 2B & 3, 11/1 and 2, 12/2A, 2B, 3, 4A,

13/1A, 1B and 2, 14/2, 3, 5 and 6, 89/1 and 2, 90,

91/2A, 4 to 6 , 94/3, 97, 98/1, 5, 6 and 9, 99, 100,

100/P, 101/1, 2 and 3, 102/2, 3 and 4, 104/1, 3A, 3B,

200

108, 108/P, 110/1 and 2, 3A, 3B and 4, 111/2 and 3,

112 of Allasandra Village and Sy.Nos.39, 41/2 and 42 of

Chikkabommasandra Village and Sy.Nos.3/1 and 2, 4P

of Jakkur Plantation, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North

Taluk to an extent of 156 acres 26 ¾ guntas in favour of

Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees HBCS

Ltd., subject to the following conditions:

1) To furnish possession certification from Revenue

Department before issue of intimation

communicating layout charges.

2) To furnish NOC from KEB and BWSSB authorities

before issue of work order;

3) To remit contribution of Rs.2.00 lakhs per acre

towards Cauvery Water Supply Schemes as per

the revised rates;

4) To furnish NOC from the Co-operation

Department before release of sites.

5) To entrust the civil works to the Society itself

under the supervision of BDA

6) To pay ring road surcharge @ Rs.1.00 lakh per

acre as per the Authority Resolution;

7) Other usual terms and conditions.

201

Now the Society has produced the Layout Plan as

built on the ground in an extent of 156 Acres 26.75

guntas and out of this extent, the area reserved for

roads, CA is to the extent of 67 acres 7.45 guntas. The

Society has already handed over an area of 10 acres 01

gunta to the BBMP to retain as Park.

As per the then Master Plan approved on

12/10/1984, the Society should have reserved upto

50% for residential purpose and remaining extent to

Park, open spaces, play grounds, CA, Road.

As per the prevailing Master Plan, the area to be

reserved for residential purpose is 55% and 45%

towards Park, CA and Road. Since the Society has

executed the Layout, the residential area is around 57

½ %. It means that Society has utilized the excess area

of about 2 ½ %.

In the earlier occasion BDA passed a Resolution

under subject No.140/2004 on 29/8/2004 in the case

202

of MPME HBCS Ltd., and therein the Authority

permitted excess residential area of 13.70% and also

considered 4.10% of Park and open space area which

was less than minimum prescribed in the ZR. The

above Resolution was passed after taking into

consideration all the facts and circumstances involved.

Similar decision was also taken in the case of

Vishwabharathi HBCS as per Court order in WP

Nos.18496/2007 c/w 6945/2008, 10377/2008,

10343/2008, 9990/2008, 11127/2008, 9832/2008,

19026-87/2010, 16108-16112/2010, 16113-

16123/2010, 2182/2008 and 18960-19025/2010 (LA-

BDA) dated 16/11/2010. In the present case, Layout is

fully developed, residential buildings have come up. On

humanitarian grounds, BDA is prepared to approve the

Layout Plan keeping in mind the procedure followed in

the earlier two cases referred to above it there is a

direction by the Hon’ble High Court.”

203

123. On 14/12/2015, Petitioners No.f, h, j, k, l, m

and n (6, 8, 10 to 14 have filed Memorandum of Written

Submissions stating:

“The Writ Petition was filed by the Judicial Layout

Residents & Site Holders Association (Regd), on the

premises that the 4th respondent House Building

Society had obtained a sanctioned layout plan from the

competent authority the BDA the first respondent

herein and the 4th respondent society is alienating the

civic amenity area reserved in the said layout plan.

Now from the latest build layout plan submitted

by the BBMP and from the 4th respondent society it

transpires that the acquired area is 156 acres 26.75

guntas and out of that 67 acres and 7.45 guntas road

and 10 acres 01 gunta civic amenity area is handed over

to the BBMP the first respondent herein, in compliance

with the interim directions issued in the case.

As per the Master Plan existing as on the year

204

1992, the year in which the 4th respondent society

applied for sanctioned plan, it was required to utilise

not more than 50% for residential purpose. However as

per the Master Plan now prevailing, the area to be

utilised for residential purpose is 55% and remaining

45% is to be utilised for roads and civic amenities,

resulting in excess utilisation by the 4th respondent

society for residential purpose to an extent of 2.5% even

if the present Master Plan requirement norms are

considered.

Now the 4th respondent society claims that it has

substantially complied with the legal requirements of

the Zonal Regulations as existing now in respect of the

layout plan executed by it.

Considering the absence of sanctioned approved

plan from the planning authority, the BDA and under

the changed circumstances and keeping in mind the

welfare of the bonafide members the 4th respondent

205

society who have secured sites in the layout, including

the members in 404 sites, the relief claimed by the

petitioners in the writ petition may kindly be suitably

moulded so that a sanctioned plan is obtained from the

BDA by the 4th respondent society.

Hence the petitioners are filing this submission

requiring the BDA, the first respondent to issue

sanctioned plan to the 4th respondent society in respect

of the layout, the subject matter of the writ petition on

such terms as this Hon’ble High Court deems just

under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,

in the interest of justice.”

124. On 4/12/2015 the 4th respondent filed a

synopsis of this case.

125. On 18/12/2015, this Court passed the

following order:

“Sri Subramanya Jois, learned senior Counsel

submits that a synopsis of the case, in brief, is filed

on 14.12.2015 furnishing relevant information, in a

206

nutshell, about the case put-forth by the society, in

defence, and further that the actual extent of

shortfall in the civic amenity areas is 2½% of 156

acres 26.34 guntas of land acquired and handed

over to the society for formation of the layout.

Learned senior Counsel further submits that this

extent of land could be considered by the Bangalore

Development Authority (for short ‘BDA’) so as to

forward a recommendation to the State Government

to condone the shortfall as has been done in the

previous past in respect of similarly circumstanced

House Building Co-operative Societies, numbering

more than 5. According to learned Senior Counsel,

the layout plan submitted to the BDA for approval

under the Bangalore Development Authority Act,

1976 when placed before the Board, in its meeting

held 16.11.1992 resolved to approve the layout plan

subject to certain conditions, of which condition No.3

and 6 relating to payment of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre

towards Cauvery Water supply Schemes and

Rs.1,00,000/- towards legal right surcharge when

subject matter of writ petition 11144/1993 instituted

by Aircraft Employees Co-operative Societies Ltd.

and others subjected to very similar conditions, a

207

Division Bench of this court by order dated 20th April

2001, quashed the said two conditions and applying

the very same principle, the BDA cannot insist on

compliance with the aforesaid two conditions, by the

4th respondent-society.

In addition, it is asserted that the Board of the

BDA did not, subsequent to resolution No.503/1992

dated 16.11.1992, accord sanction to the layout plan

nevertheless, the civil works carried out by the

society to form the layout is well within the four

corners of the policy of the State government relating

to percentages of land to be put to use for residential

purposes, roads, civic amenities etc.

Learned Senior counsel points to paragraph 8 of

the statement of objections dated 24.5.2004 of the

BDA admitting the fact of there being no sanction

accorded to the layout plan while also pointed to the

memo dated 10.12.2015 filed by the BDA signed by

the Commissioner and Town Planning Member

interalia admitting that the shortfall is 2½% i.e.

42½% instead of 45% towards park, civic amenity,

road and on humanitarian ground BDA would

approve the layout plan as has been done in earlier

cases.

208

It is lastly submitted that the society has, over

twelve years, complied with all the directions issued

by the Court, time and again, to reduce the short fall

in the civic amenity area to 2½%, hence necessary

directions be issued to the State Government and the

BDA.

Sri K.Krishna, learned counsel for the BDA

reiterates the averments set out in the memo dated

10.12.2015 to submit that 2½% deficit in the civic

amenity areas could be considered in the like

manner as has been done at the instance of the

State Government in respect of other House Building

Co-operative Societies.

Sri A.Krishna Bhat, learned counsel for

petitioners No.6, 8, 10 & 11 to 14 submits that memo

dated 9.12.2015 is filed and the same be taken on

record and reiterates the averments setout therein.

In other words, submits that considering the absence

of the sanction to the layout plan by the BDA and in

the changed circumstances over a period of twelve

years and keeping in mind the welfare and benefits

of members of the 4th respondent-Society who are

allottees of sites in the layout, the relief in the

petition be moulded suitably so as to sanction the

layout plan submitted to the BDA by the 4th

209

respondent.

Sri G.Papi Reddy, learned counsel representing

the petitioners 1, 3, 4 & 5, submits that in the

changed fact situation of the layout providing civic

amenity areas, the shortage being 2½%,

nevertheless, I.A.6/2013 is for a direction to the BDA

to consider survey of the entire extent of land and

submit a report, over land in possession of the

society, which if released would further reduce the

shortfall. Learned Counsel submits that having

noticed, in the report of BBMP, that 32 guntas of

land from out of 1 acre 15 guntas is since

relinquished, I.A.6/2013 does not survive for

consideration. As regards the merit of the petition,

learned counsel very fairly submits that the changed

circumstances coupled with the fact that shortfall of

2½% in the area for civic amenities would be

considered by the BDA or the Government, nothing

further survives for consideration in the petition.

Learned counsel for the BWSSB submits that he

would file an affidavit of the Chairman relating to

establishment of Tertiary Treatment Plant of capacity

of 10 MLD in the 41 acres of land allotted to it

210

though presently what is commissioned as a

secondary treatment plant existing over an area of

10 acres. Affidavit to be filed within a week.

Learned counsel for the BBMP, submits that an

affidavit dated 6.11.2015 is filed enclosing

Development Plan/Scheme in relation to properties

released and relinquished in its favour by the 4th

respondent-society.

Learned counsel responding to the query,

submits that item No.17 measuring 15785 Sq.ft.

described in compendium of BBMP dated 6.11.2015,

at page 43, is used by the people in the vicinity as a

burial ground and that Section 393 of the Karnataka

Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, applies to burials

and its management under bye-laws.

Learned counsel hastens to add if granted a

week’s time he would file the affidavit of the

Commissioner enclosing copy of the bye-laws over

the management of the burial ground.

Government Advocate submits that affidavit of

the Principal Secretary, Urban Development would

be filed within a week clarifying the power of the

State Government to condone the deficit of 2¿% of

land for Civic amenity and other common areas.

211

Learned counsel for the Pollution Control Board

respondent No.20 maintains that it is for the BWSSB

to ensure proper treatment of sewage flowing into

the Secondary and Tertiary treatment plants by

establishing necessary infrastructure of STPs since

41 acres is allotted to BWSSB.

All learned counsel submit that they have concluded

their arguments.

Reserved for Judgment.”

126. In compliance with the order dated

18/12/2015, BWSSB filed an affidavit on 4/1/2016

stating the feasibility of the construction of a Tertiary

Sewer Treatment Plant at Jakkur. The Petitioners have

filed a detailed synopsis/written submissions on

20/1/2016 in addition to the written submissions filed

on 30/12/2011 ANNEXURE-‘A’.

212

CONTEMPT PETITION: CCC 87/2004:

127. Writ Petitioner filed a complaint invoking

Article 215 of the Constitution r/w Sec.11 and 12 of the

Contempt of Courts Act 1971 alleging wilful

disobedience of the order dated 18/6/2003 in WP

40994/2002 arraigning 19 respondents as contemnors,

registered as CCC No. 87/2004.

128. Petition was opposed by filing statement of

objections of the 6th respondent Sri.C.Shivalingaiah

since deceased denying the allegations while specifically

asserting that the interim order dated 18/6/2003 was

passed exparte and that though Sri.B.L.Acharya learned

advocate had filed vakalath on behalf of the Karnataka

State Judicial House Building Society arraigned as 4th

respondent, nevertheless his name was shown in the

cause list nor was present when the order was passed

on 18/6/2003. It was denied that the site measuring

213

195 ft x 200 ft, subject matter of interim order dated

21/2/2003 in WP 40994/2002 directing not to change

the nature of land termed as a temple site, is infact not

a temple site but comprises of several residential sites in

the layout plan sanctioned by the Yelahanka Municipal

Council and that all those sites had been transferred

much before the interim order was passed. As regards

the plan of the layout submitted to the BDA and

directed to be produced by order dated 17/6/2003 in

the Writ Petition, it was stated that such a record was

not available with the society nor is aware of any plan

having been prepared and submitted to the BDA. While

the only layout plan prepared was submitted to the

Yelahanka Municipal Council. In addition, it was

asserted that the BDA had issued an endorsement

stating that a layout plan pertaining to the society was

not available. The further allegation in the contempt

petition that the interim order dated 18/6/2003

directed the society not to transfer any civic amenity

214

sites shown in the map was misleading statement while

what was directed was not to transfer the civic amenity

sites as shown in the plan submitted to the BDA. The

further allegation that the interim order dated

18/6/2003 was made in the presence of the learned

counsel for the society, it is stated, is false.

129. 1st respondent -BDA filed statement of

objections interalia denying the allegation of having

violated the interim order as complaint. In addition, it

denied that the layout plan annexed to the contempt

petition and marked as ANNEXURE-E is not the plan

submitted by the society to the BDA for approval. So

also, the endorsement on ANNEXURE-E that the BDA

had accorded approval to the said plan is not true. It is

stated that the recording in the aforesaid endorsement

of approval by resolution No. 506/1992 of the BDA is

false since that resolution related to utilization of land

in Sy.No.60 of Domlur Village for formation of 100 ft

215

inner ring road. It was asserted that by resolution

No.503/1992 the BDA had imposed certain conditions

for approval of the plan submitted to the BDA. In

addition, it is stated that the head note on ANNEXURE-

E plan states that the plans submitted to the BDA for

approval are not yet released. At Paragraph 6, it is

stated that the application dated 6/11/1992 of the

Society for approval of layout plan, was accompanied by

a layout plan, copy of which is annexed as ANNEXURE-

R-3(a) and that approval was with held till the fulfilment

of the conditions by the society, which was not pursued

further.

130. Respondents 4, 5,6, 7 and 8 to the contempt

petition jointly filed a reply dated 17/2/2006 interalia

denying the allegations while however admitting that

after 18/6/2003, 24 sites were sold from out of which 7

sale deeds were cancelled and the balance of 17 sale

deeds, notices were issued to the beneficiaries for

216

cancellation. In addition, it was mentioned that 2 sites

bearing Nos.859/C and 859/D were allotted and

conveyed in favour of two Hon'ble Judges on 8/11/2002

and 2/12/2002 respectively carved out of the land

measuring 195 ft x 200 ft while, site No.859/B1

measuring 10,000 sq.ft is kept vacant for a temple. It is

further stated that the 6th respondent Shivalingaiah

was not informed of the interim order passed in Writ

Petition on 18/7/2003 and respondents 5, 7, and 8

have not executed any sale deeds in violation of the

interim order. It is further stated that the party

respondents in WP 40994/2002 were the Bangalore

Development A; State of Karnataka; City Municipal

Council and The Karnataka State Judicial Department

Employees House Building Co-operative Society

represented by its Secretary. According to the

respondents, 5, 6, 7 and 8, were not parties to the Writ

Petition.

217

131. By memo dated 24/3/2006 of respondents 4

and 6 produced cancellation sale deeds dated

23/2/2006, numbering 16.

132. An affidavit of one Kempathimmaiah, the 6th

respondent and Director of the Society as also its

Treasurer was filed on 24/3/2006 disclosing that the

Secretary of the society by name S.Suresh Kumar was

placed under suspension and that the alleged wilful

disobedience, with due deference to the directions

issued by the court, the society would purge itself of the

contempt alleged by cancelling the deeds executed post

the interim order.

133. By order dated 29/1/2004, respondents 2

and 3 i.e. State of Karnataka, and City Municipal

Council, Yelahanka were deleted in CCC 87/2004.

Respondent 6, Sri C.Shivalingaiah was reported dead on

14/8/2014 as recorded in the order sheet dated

218

10/10/2014. In the order dated 28/4/2007, it is

noticed that Respondents 2 and 3 were deleted from the

array of parties by order dated 29/1/2004 and

contempt proceedings against Respondents 1, 9 and 19

were dropped by order dated 7/7/2006. Therefore

Respondents 4 to 8 were directed to be renumbered as

Respondents/Accused 1 to 5.

134. By order dated 28/7/2006, the following

charge was framed:

“That you accused 1 to 5 (Respondents 4 to 8 in the

complaint) being the Registered Co-operative Society and

office bearers of the Registered Co-operative Society have

sold sites in violation of the order dated 18th June 2003

passed by this Court in W.P.No.40994/2002 and thereby

you have committed contempt of this Court by wilful

disobedience of the order dated 18th June 2003 within

the meaning of Sec.2(b) of the Contempt of Court Act,

1971 which is punishable under Sec.12 of the said Act.

That we hereby direct you to be tried by this Court

on the said charge.”

219

135. So also the plea of the accused by name

Kempathimmaiah, Treasurer, C.M.Basavarya,

C.Shivalingaiah, representing the society and his

personal capacity as also that of M.Rudraiah were

recorded whence they pleaded not guilt.

136. B.V.Byra Reddy, Complainant No.1-a was

examined as PW-1 and marked documents Exhibits P-1

to P-3 and on being further examined on 30/03/2007

marked Exhibits P-4 to P-62. In the further

examination-in-chief on 13/4/2007, documents Ex.P-

63 to Ex.P-80(a) were marked. On 8/6/2007, PW-1 was

cross-examined in part and Ex.R-1 was marked. One

B.Mahendra Town Planner Member of BDA was

examined as PW-2 on 13/7/2007 and documents were

marked as Ex-P 81, 81-A, 82, 82-A, 83, 83-A, P-84 and

P-85. In the cross examination on 3/8/2007

documents R-2 to R-6 were marked. One

S.D.Venkataravanaiah, the member of the Society was

examined as PW-3.

220

137. The Court exercising jurisdiction under

Clause (b) of Sub section (1) of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C

recorded the statements of Accused No.2,3 and 4 on

24/8/2007 while the statement of Accused No.5 was

recorded on 31/8/2007.

138. The State Government having superseded

the society appointed an Administrator who took charge

and that order when called in question by the society in

writ proceedings were quashed.

139. On 9/10/2009, this Court recorded the

submission of the learned Government Advocate that on

verification from the office of the Sub-Registrar,

Yelahanka, that site Nos.362/6 to 11 are not allotted

and are vacant, unencumbered while the sale deeds of

22 sites executed after the interim order were cancelled

and are also unencumbered, by placing on record a

memo enclosing the Encumbrance Certificate.

140. Having heard the learned counsel for the

221

parties, perused the pleadings, examined the evidence

both oral and documentary, the following points arise

for decision making:

I) Whether in the facts, circumstances and evidence

on record, the petitioner proves that:

(a) layout plan for sanction/approval was

prepared by the Society and submitted to the

BDA ?

(b) the layout plan Annexure-'E' to the petition

is the very same layout plan prepared by the

Society and submitted to the BDA ?

(c) the BDA in its Resolution No.503/1992

dated 16/11/1992 approved the layout plan

submitted by the Society?

(d) the Society altered the use of parks, civic

amenity sites and other open spaces as

specified in the approved layout plan duly

sanctioned by the BDA, as alleged ?

II) Whether the percentages of areas reserved for

residential use, civic amenities, parks, open spaces and

222

roads in the layout formed by the Society are in

accordance with the 'Old Policy' of the State

Government prior to the year 1992 as claimed by the

Society ?

III) If not, what order?

IV) Whether Petitioner proves that the Contemnors in

CCC 87/2004 are guilty of willful disobedience of the

interim order dated 18/6/2003 in WP 40994/2002?

141. POINT No.I (a)

The State Government acting on the

representation of the 4th respondent – Society proposed

to acquire large extents of lands comprised in

Allalasandra, Chikka Bommasandra and Jakkur

Plantation by invoking the LA Act. However, by

notification dated 28/2/1999, issued under 6(1) of LA

Act 169 acres 12 guntas as against 170 acres was

notified for acquisition for and on behalf of the society.

It appears from the records, more appropriately

223

Annexure-R4(G), layout plan that the actual extent of

land acquired and possession delivered was 154 Acres

11¾ guntas, although it is claimed that under the

possession certificates dated 13/11/1992 and

2/9/1994, a total extent of 156 acres and 26 ¾ guntas

was acquired and possession delivered. Without taking

possession of even a portion of said land, the Society

made a representation dated 6/11/1992 Ex.P-81 to the

BDA enclosing a draft layout plan Ex.P-82 for sanction

of the layout over an extent of 193 Acres 02¼ guntas

which when considered in the meeting held on

16/11/1992 vide Resolution No.503/1992 Ex.P-83(a)

resolved to approve the private layout to an extent of

156 Acres and 26¾ guntas subject to fulfilment of the

conditions as communicated to the Society in its letter

dated 28/11/1992. The factual matrix discloses that

the BDA in its resolution No.503/1992 did not accord

sanction to the layout plan submitted by the society

over an extent of 193 Acres 02 ¼ guntas nor was a

224

modified plan duly approved and furnished to the

Society over an extent of 156 acres 26 ¾ guntas, or 154

acres 11 ¾ guntas but subjected the approval of 156

acres and 26 ¾ guntas to compliance with the

conditions imposed. Fact remains that the society did

not pursue the matter of obtaining approval and

sanction of the layout plan since several other Co-

operative House Building Societies, similarly situated

called in question the conditions imposed by the BDA,

by filing Writ Petitions and further more since the

Special Land Acquisition Officer had not issued a No-

objection Certificate, one of the conditions imposed by

the BDA. That challenge to the said conditions when

considered by a Co-ordinate Division Bench in WP

11144/1993 and connected petitions by common order

dated 20/4/2001 quashed the conditions. Although the

Society did not challenge the conditions as had been

done by the other societies, nevertheless, the effect of

the order of the Division Bench was equally applicable

225

to the Society.

142. The factum of BDA having not approved the

layout plan as submitted by the Society is admitted in

its statement of objections dated 25/2/2004, at

Paragraph 8 which reads thus:

“It is submitted that the 1st respondent has not

sanctioned or approved a layout plan in favour of the

4th respondent as on date since the 4th respondent

failed to comply with the conditions laid down by its

letter dated 28/11/1992 as on date.”

143. In the evidence of PW-2, B.Mahendra, the

Town Planning Member, BDA in CCC (Civil) 87/2004, it

is elicited in examination-in-chief that Ex.P-82 is the

blue print of the proposed layout enclosed to the

application dated 6/11/1992 Ex.P-81 (the very same

plan copy of which is marked ANNEXURE -R-3(a) to the

statement of objections of the BDA and exhibited as P-

64(d). That witness further testified that the BDA

226

issued a communication dated 8/12/1993 calling upon

the society to comply with the conditions within a period

of 15 days for consideration of approval of the layout

plan over an extent of 156 acres 26 ¾ guntas which

was responded to by a reply of the society enclosing the

interim order in WP 1600/1994 directing the authorities

to hand over possession of 17 Acres 18 Guntas acquired

for formation of the layout, being part of the entire

extent 193 acres 02 ¼ guntas. PW-2 further states

thus:

“Thereafter till date the BDA has not sanctioned any

layout plan in favour of the 1st Accused Society”

144. In the light of the aforesaid statements, it is

obvious that the petitioner is able to establish a fact

that the Society prepared the layout plan Ex.P-82 over

an extent of 193 acres 02 ¼ guntas comprised in

Allalasandra, Chikkabommasandra and Jakkur

plantation and submitted the same for approval as

227

enclosed to its application dated 6/11/1992 Ex.P-81.

Hence Point I (a) is answered in the affirmative.

145. Point I(b) :

The plan Ex.P-1, annexed to the petition as

Annexure-E, the admissibility of which was directed to

be considered at a later stage, when introduced in the

evidence of PW-1 on 16/3/2007 as a copy of the very

same plan Ex.P-82 introduced in the evidence of PW-2.

Ex.P-1 is a copy of the draft plan which PW-1 claims

was exhibited in the 2nd meeting conducted by the

Society at the time of formation of the layout, in

connection with the development of the layout. Ex.P-1

has an index stating the total extent of land for

development in the 1st stage is 154 Acres 16 ¼ guntas

and the 2nd stage is 37 acres 30 ¼ guntas, totally

measuring 192 Acres 06 ½ guntas. According to PW-1

a certified copy of Ex.P-1 though applied for, the BDA

228

did not furnish a copy. In the cross examination of PW-

1 it is elicited thus:

“I am not aware whether the original of Ex.P-1 –

plan was produced to the BDA. I do not know

whether the original of Ex.P-1 – plan was

replicated, duplicated or triplicated. I do not know

if a duplicate, replicate or a triplicate of the original

of Ex.P-1 – plan was produced to the BDA. I do not

know which plan was produced to the BDA.” xxx

“ It is true that I have not obtained the certified

copy of the plan alleged produced by the 4th

respondent, either from the BDA or from the office

of the society xxxxx. I do not have copy of that plan

produced by the society to the BDA .”

146. The testimony of PW-2 in the cross

examination, a relevant fact is admitted as regards the

plan Ex.P-1 which reads thus:

“It is true Ex.P-1 shown to me now was not

submitted to the Bangalore Development Authority

by the society for approval. The witness volunteers

that another plan Ex.R-3(A) bearing the signature

229

of the President of the Society was submitted for

approval. The plan Ex.R-3(A) was enclosed to the

letter dated 6/11/1992 addressed by the society to

the BDA. The following endorsement “1st stage

layout plan approved vide Resolution No.506/92 of

BDA” found in Ex.P-1 is not found in Ex.R-3(A)

(Ex.P-64-D) filed by the society to the BDA for

approval.”

147. The aforesaid interpolation in Ex.P-1 not

found in the original blue print Ex.P-82 being the draft

of the layout plan submitted by the Society, coupled

with the facts noticed supra that the extents of land in

Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-82 are neither similar nor identical, it

is manifestly clear that the Petitioner is unable to

establish the fact that Ex.P-1 is a copy of the very same

Ex.P-82.

148. In the light of the aforesaid testimony of PW-

1 and the xerox copy of the plan marked as Ex.P-1

subject to objections over its admissibility, not being the

230

very same copy of Ex.P-82 since the extent of land

shown therein is 193 Acres 02 ¼ guntas as well as the

demarcation of the land are neither similar nor identical

to Ex.P-82, cannot but be said to be inadmissible in

evidence. In that view of the matter the point I(b) is

answered in the negative.

149. POINT I (c):

It is indisputable that Ex.P-82 the layout plan

enclosed to the application Ex.P-81 of the society

addressed to the Bangalore Development Authority on

6/11/1992 was for according sanction to the private

layout over an extent of 193 Acres and 02 ¼ guntas

comprised in Allalasandra, Chikkabommasandra and

Jakkur Plantation specifying the boundaries thereof. It

is also an undisputed fact that the BDA having

considered the application passed a resolution

No.503/1992 dated 16/11/1992 approving a private

layout in several survey numbers in Allalasandra

231

village, some of them in Chikkkabommasandra village

and others in Jakkur Plantation of Yelahanka Hobli,

Bangalore North taluk to an extent of 156 Acres 26 ¾

guntas in favour of the Society without issuing an

approved layout plan over that extent which was less

than the extent of land proposed by the Society to form

the layout. That approval, it is undisputed was

subjected to certain conditions which were not fulfilled

by the society. It is also an undisputed fact that the

Special Land Acquisition Officer did not put the society

in possession of the entire extent of land proposed for

formation of layout as on the date i.e. 6.11.1992 when

the application along with layout plan was submitted to

the BDA for approval/sanction. The society was unable

to secure the No-objection Certificate from the Special

Land Acquisition Officer as on the date of filing the

application for sanction of the layout plan. Thus the

society without taking possession of all the lands from

the Special Land Acquisition Officer could not have

232

made the application Ex.P-81 and enclose a plan Ex.P-

82 for approval. When the plan itself was without

necessary particulars over acquisition of title to the

lands therein, it cannot be said that there was a valid

approval of the said plan by the BDA.

150. Much was made about Sec.32 of the BDA

Act asserting that Ex.P-1 was, infact, the plan that was

approved by the BDA and even assuming that such an

approval was not granted, nevertheless, in the light of

Sub Section 8 of Section 32, the said plan was deemed

to have been sanctioned. This submission having

regard to the facts supra is noticed only to be rejected.

The plan Ex.P-1 was not submitted to the BDA and

therefore resolution No.503/1992 did not apply over

sanction of the said plan by the BDA. The entire case of

the Petitioner is over the 'alleged' approval by the BDA

for the formation of a layout of residential sites in

accordance with the layout plan Ex.P-1 (marked as

Annexure-E to the Petition). Hence Point 1 (c) is

233

answered in the negative.

151. POINT I(d):

The testimony of PW-1 that the site meant for

'temple' and other civic amenity sites as shown in Ex.P-

1 were put to use for residential purpose, in other words

by altering its usage at the instance of the respondent

society is sought to be corroborated by the testimony of

PW-2 who in cross examination however admits that in

the original blue print Ex.P-82, there is a pencil entry

'temple' as against the site denoted as CA and that entry

was made for the purpose of working when the

authorities went for inspection to ascertain the nature

and usage of CA sites and further that the entry was

made by the Head Draftsman on the basis of statement

made by Petitioner and Accused although PW-2 was not

present at the time of spot inspection.

152. Regard being had to the testimony of PWs-1

and 2 and the material on record, coupled with the

234

finding on Points 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) the allegations that

sites earmarked for CA as well as temple in the plan

Ex.P-1 were diverted to use for residential purpose is

unacceptable. Petitioner is unable to establish the said

allegations and therefore Point 1(d) is answered in the

negative.

153. POINTS II and III:

In order to answer these issues, it is necessary to

refer to relevant materials relating to the exact extent of

lands with their boundaries comprised in Allasandra,

Chikkabommasandra and Jakkur Plantation in the

matter of making private layout by the society. Ex.P-82

the plan said to have been submitted by the society on

6/11/1992 is over an extent of 193 Acres 02 ¼ guntas

comprised in the aforesaid three locations. In addition

the material discloses certain portions of land

comprised within the said area were unacquired land,

since, acquired by private negotiation with the owners of

235

the said lands, excluded from the extent of land shown

in Ex.P-82.

154. It is borne out from the order sheet that the

society prepared and submitted to Court a

comprehensive layout plan comprising of the extents of

land both acquired by the State and those purchased by

the Society by way of private negotiations and that

litigation is pending before the Civil Court in respect of

lands purchased under private negotiations, more

appropriately in respect of 22 guntas in Sy.No.12/2C

and 22 guntas in Sy.No.12/4B belonging to decree

holders-respondents 5 to 16, the legal representatives of

deceased Marappa. All the parties have agreed that the

extent of land for the purpose of determining the

percentages of land to be put to use for residential, civic

amenities, open spaces, roads, and parks ought to be

156 Acres 26 ¾ guntas. The order sheet further

discloses that during the pendency of the petition,

approximately 6.4% i.e., 10 Acres and 01 gunta from

236

out of 156 Acres 26¾ guntas is handed over to the

BBMP towards parks, open spaces and civic amenities

while an extent of 35.41% equivalent to 54 Acres 37.6

guntas is utilised for roads some of which is included in

the unacquired lands and that storm water drain

measures 1 Acre and 3.8 guntas equivalent to 0.07%

totalling to 42.51% or 67 Acres 70.45 guntas. The

balance of 57.49% is said to be put to use for residential

purposes.

155. In this regard, the 4th respondent society

filed a Memo dated 4/12/2015 enclosing a layout plan

furnishing the description of the aforesaid utilisation of

various portions of the land including but not confined

to the unacquired land also, while highlighting the

following particulars:

1 ENCROACHED AREAS 35,945.96 SQ.FEET

2 LAND ACQUIRED BY THE

NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY 13,067.92 SQ.FEET

3 UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTIONS 41,381.76 SQ.FEET

237

4 VACANT SITE EAR-MARKED FOR THE PROPOSED TEMPLE IN THE

LAYOUT

3,721.18 SQ FEET

5 RESIDENTIAL AREA

6 THE PROPERTY CONCEDED IN

FAVOUR OF AND HANDED OVER

TO BBMP

4,36,847.57 SQ.FEET

7 UNACQUIRED LANDS DE-MARKETED

11,02,878.55 SQ.FEET

8 STORM WATER DRAIN 47,710.00 SQ.FEET

156. The BBMP has filed its reports disclosing the

extents of lands which the society has handed over

under several relinquishment deeds duly registered and

the action taken by the BBMP to develop the said areas.

157. The BDA in its memo dated 10/12/2015

does not dispute the extent of land i.e., 156 Acres 26 ¾

guntas from out of which 67 Acres 7.45 guntas are

reserved for CA and parks, and handing over of

possession of 10 Acres and 01 gunta to the BBMP

towards parks and open spaces submits that in terms of

the Master Plan approved on 10/12/1984 under the

238

KTCP Act, the Society could have reserved 50% of land

for residential purpose and the remaining towards

parks., open spaces, play grounds, CA and roads.

However, it is also stated that under the prevailing

Master Plan the area to be reserved for residential

purpose is 55% and 45% towards parks, CA etc., and

since the Society having formed the layout reserving 57

½% towards residential, the excess utilisation is about 2

½%.

158. The statement of BDA is in contrast with the

claim of the society that prior to the year 1992 the

reservations to be provided in a layout plan for sanction

is 65% towards residential purpose and the balance of

35% towards civic amenities, parks, open spaces and

roads as was permitted by the State Government under

its “Old Policy”. PW-2 the Town Planning Member of

the BDA in his examination-in-chief in CCC 87/2004

testified over the norms prescribed by the State

Government during the year 1992 for approval of a

239

private layout were 50% of the area to be reserved for

residence; 15% for parks and open spaces; and 35% for

roads and civic amenities. Hence, in the absence of

relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence

of the fact asserted by the Society, it is not possible to

accept the percentages of reservation claimed by the

Society.

159. It is a matter of fact as admitted by the BDA

in its Memo dated 10/12/2015, that in the case of

MPME HBCS Ltd the BDA passed a resolution in

Subject No.140/2004 dated 29/05/2004 permitting

excess residential area of 13.70% and an extent of

4.10% less than the prescribed minimum extent for

parks and open spaces in the Zonal Regulations. So

also, it is admitted that in the case of Vishwabharathi

HBCS in terms of the order dated 16/11/2010 in WP

18496/2007 and connected petitions, similar such

resolution was passed by the BDA favouring the society.

The Memo further states that the Society having carried

240

out all the civil works by fully developing the layout in

question and several residential buildings are

constructed, the BDA is prepared to approve the layout

having regard to and in the light of the resolution in

other societies, as may be directed by this Court.

160. Petitioner 1(f), (h), (j) to (l) being Directors of

the Petitioner Association, through their legal counsel

filed a statement dated 9/12/2015 interalia admitting

the fact of the Society having fully developed the layout,

the extents put to use for residential, CA, open spaces,

parks and roads as also the percentages of lands to be

reserved for the aforesaid purposes under the present

Zoning Regulations, submit that in the absence of a

sanction and approval of a layout plan by the Bangalore

Development Authority, in the changed circumstances

and keeping in the mind, the welfare of the members of

the society the reliefs in the Writ Petition may be

suitably modified so as to permit sanction of plan by the

BDA.

241

161. The Synopsis dated 20/1/2016 is filed by

the learned counsel for the Petitioner Association

interalia reiterating the allegations set out in the Writ

Petition as well as the Contempt Petition with a request

to allow the Writ Petition and also to recall the orders

dated 18/12/2015 on IA Nos. 6 and 7 and 15/3/2010

in respect of Site Nos. 859C, 859D and 670/H.

162. The Society filed its synopsis on 14/12/2015

while reiterating its averments set out in the statement

of objections as well as the correspondence between it

and the BDA including the non-approval and sanction

of the layout plan as well as the private acquisition of an

extent of 25 Acres of land from out the said villages in

addition to the demand and collection of development

charges by the City Municipal Council, Yelahanka from

the society coupled with the compliance of orders in the

Petition from time to time, there being substantial

compliance with statutory provisions in the matter of

forming the private layout in the acquired lands nothing

242

further would survive for consideration in the Petition.

163. Undoubtedly, the society without obtaining

prior sanction or approval for formation of a private

layout, did so which is contrary to the provisions of the

KTCP Act as well as the BDA Act. The development

works even according to the witnesses, was carried out

by the society without there being a plan released by the

BDA according approval and sanction for the private

layout. The allottees of the sites in the layout have

constructed buildings thereon presumably after

obtaining permission/sanction of building plans from

the local authority being the Municipal Council. The

petition presented in the year 2002 by members of the

Petitioner-Association, none other than the members of

the Society, being allottees of sites in the layout

complaining of certain illegalities is in itself at a belated

stage of development, though being under the

impression that the layout plan was approved by the

BDA in its resolution No.503/1992.

243

164. In the light of several orders passed in the

Petition extracted supra, and the layout developed

reserving areas noticed above, it would be in the best

interest of all concerned i.e., the Society, its members

and allottees to ensure that the comprehensive layout

plan d-alienating the areas put to use for residential,

parks, civic amenities, open spaces and road, is placed

before the BDA- the Planning Authority under the BDA

Act and as the area in question falls within the

territorial jurisdiction of the BDA, for sanction and

approval. Points II and III are answered accordingly.

165. Although a faint assertion was made by the

4th respondent society that the City Municipal Council

Yelahanka exercising the jurisdiction under the

Municipalities Act had accorded sanction and

permission for formation of the layout in question, that

Council arraigned as Respondent No. 3 in the Petition

filed an additional statement dated 11/3/2005 that the

244

Council when constituted for the villages of Allalasandra

and those adjoining were included in its territorial

jurisdiction by Gazette Notification dated 22/8/1995

and that elections to the office bearers of the Council

was held on 7/1/1996 while the elected officer bearers

took charge on 14/2/1996. In addition it is stated that

the 4th respondent Society submitted a layout plan with

a request to accept the layout formed and transfer the

Khata of the sites in the name of the members in

addition to sanction of building licences following which

the Council on 22/5/1996 resolved to transfer the

Khata and sanction building licences on compliance

with the rules and procedure of the Municipality. It is

further stated that the in-charge Commissioner was the

Chief Officer of the Town Municipal Council on

22/5/1996 who affixed the seal and signature to the

layout plan submitted by the society. That on

17/5/2002 the society executed a Registered

Relinquishment Deed in respect of roads, drainage, civic

245

amenity sites, parks, schools etc., ANNEXURE R-3(b)

and that the plan said to be annexed to the deed was

infact not done so; and that the society is due

Rs.47,04,568/- towards development and supervision

charges in respect of the layout.

166. To the statement of objections dated

9/7/2004 of the 3rd Respondent-CMC, is enclosed a

copy of the resolution dated 22/5/1996, ANNEXURE R-

1, which reads thus:

“There were detail discursions on the subject. The

Circular of Director of Municipal administration dated

17-4-1990, bearing No D.M.A.: A.D.M.: 89/90was

taken into consideration. The owners, that is the

house Building Co-0operative Society has carried out

the development work in the said Layout formation of

Road putting Tarr to main road and cross Roads,

drainage, underground drainage, electricity supply are

all carried out and same satisfies the conditions of the

circular. Subject to payment of 9% layout formation

expenditure by the Society, the transfer of Katha

Building license etc, may be granted subject to

246

payment of necessary fees, damages etc.”

167. Thus the inevitable conclusion is that the

CMC, Yelahanka did not accord sanction or approval to

the layout plan for the formation of a private layout

except to demand payment of 9% of the layout

formation expenditure from the society and permit

transfer of Khata, building licence etc., subject to

payment of necessary fees, damages etc.,

168. For the aforesaid reasons, it is impermissible

to accept as a matter of fact the claim of the Society to

have obtained sanction and approval of the layout plan

from the CMC, Yelahanka.

169. POINT NO.IV

The Complaint Petition is grounded on the

allegation of the Contemnors having caused wilful

disobedience of the order dated 18/6/2003 in WP

40994/2002. According to the complainant none other

247

than the Writ Petitioner when the Writ Petition was

listed for Preliminary Hearing on 22/1/2003, Emergent

Notice was directed and an interim order restraining the

Respondents in the Writ Petition from changing the

nature of land with regard to the temple side measuring

195 ft x 200 ft. That on 18/6/2003 the Court directed

the 4th respondent society, therein, to produce the map

submitted to the BDA along with a list of civic amenity

sites which were transferred within one month and the

BDA to place a report within two months thereof, while

continuing the interim order with a further direction to

the society not to transfer any civic amenity site shown

in the map. That on 2/7/2003 the Complainant served

a copy of the interim order dated 18/6/2003 on the

Secretary/Manager of the Society and that the interim

order was made in the presence of the Counsel for the

Society.

170. The Accused are the President,

248

Secretary/Manager and Directors of the Society

although only the society was arraigned as Respondent

No.4 in the Writ Petition represented by its Secretary. It

is said that the society filed a memo on 18/7/2003 in

compliance with the order dated 18/6/2003. It is the

allegation that despite service of notice of the interim

order the society deliberately sold residential sites in the

open area in wilful disobedience of the interim order. In

addition, it is alleged that the society changed the

nature of the civic amenity sites by converting them as

residential sites and selling and registering the same to

different persons after the interim order dated

18/6/2003, as disclosed in the Encumbrance

Certificates, ANNEXURE – C series while the list of civic

amenity sites as ANNEXURE-D and the layout plan

ANNEXURE-E said to have been submitted by the

society to the BDA for approval. In addition, it was

stated that the society furnished a modified plan

approved by the CMC Yelahanka ANNEXURE-F. Hence,

249

it is contended that all the respondents committed

Contempt of Court and being officer bearers of the

society are personally liable.

171. In the statement of objections of the 6th

respondent, by name C. Shivalingaiah, who was the

President of the society ever since the year 1999 denied

the allegations and contended that the society though

engaged Sri.B.L.Acharya, learned Counsel, Bangalore to

represent the society and had filed vakalath,

nevertheless, on 18/6/2003 when the case was listed

for orders, the counsel's name was not shown, hence he

did not represent the case. That the interim order dated

21/2/2003 though directed the respondents not to

change the nature of land in respect of site measuring

195 ft x 200 ft termed as temple site nevertheless, in the

layout plan sanctioned by the CMC Yelahanka, that

area comprised of several residential sites, some of

which were transferred before the interim order while

250

others remained as such. As regards production of a

copy of the layout plan submitted to the BDA, it was

asserted that the said respondent was not aware of the

same while the records maintained in the society

disclosed one layout plan submitted to the CMC

Yelahanka as also an endorsement issued by the BDA

stating that no layout plan is available in its records.

The assertion that the order dated 18/6/2003 directing

the society not to transfer any civic amenity sites shown

in the map is a mis-leading statement. And further that

the Board of Directors of the society having considered

the interim order were of the opinion that it did not

prevent the transfer of civic amenity sites reserved in

the layout plan submitted to the CMC Yelahanka. It

was admitted that certain residential sites sold were not

subject matter of interim order since not civic amenity

sites. The Encumbrance Certificates, it is said, relate to

sale of residential sites while the layout plan

ANNEXURE-E is not the plan submitted by the society

251

to the BDA for approval.

172. 1st Respondent BDA also filed its statement

of objections interalia denying the allegations stating

that they were not parties to any of the transactions of

sale. While ANNEXURE-E plan is not a copy of the plan

submitted by the society to it for sanction or approval

and that no sanction or approval was accorded to any

plan by Resolution No.503/1992.

173. The BDA by memo dated 22/2/2005 placed

on record a statement of number of sites formed by the

society in the area shown as CA sites and park area in

the layout plan submitted by the society to the BDA for

approval. It was specifically pointed out that in terms

of the layout plan the area reserved for the civic

amenities is 271248.12 sq.ft (3.97% of total area) and

area reserved for park as 13,99,782.39 sq ft (20.51% of

the total area). According to the BDA, in terms of the

directions contained in the order dated 8/7/2005, it

252

superimposed plan submitted by the society to the BDA

for approval with the enlarged plan since submitted to

Court on 8/7/2005 found that the society had formed

131 Nos. of sites in the area reserved for civic amenities

(271248.12 sq.ft) and 273 Nos. of sites in the area

reserved for park (1051768.41 sq.ft) totalling to 404

sites.

174. Respondents 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 filed their

objections denying the allegations, while however,

admitting the execution of sale deeds in respect of the

following 24 sites.

SL. NO.

SITE NO. DATE OF

REGISTRATION NAME OF ALLOTTEES CANCELLATION

DEED 1 2057 19.9.2003 MR.M.A.SURESH 9.2.2005 2 1976 19.9.2003 MR.SHEKHAR 9.2.2005 3 1970 19.9.2003 MR.G.R.NARAYANAPPA 9.2.2005 4 1973 19.9.2003 MR.S.RAVINDRA BABU 18.2.2005 5 2119 5.9.2003 MR.C.R.NARAYANAPPA 14.2.2005 6 701/C 23.8.2003 SMT.GEETHA

NARAYANASWAMY 9.3.2005

7 1971 19.9.2003 N.SREEDHAR 9.2.2005 8 2120 29.10.2003 B.ANITHA 9 2122 8.10.2003 PREMA.S 10 2117 22.11.2003 K.M.NATARAJ 11 2048 3.10.2003 G.RADHAKRISHNA 12 2023 4.11.2003 KRISHNAPPA 13 859/F 16.10.2003 H.P.LEELADHAR 14 859/E 16.10.2003 SHAMANTH 15 670/5 12.12.2003 B.RAMESH

253

16 670/4 12.12.2003 SHESHAGIRI 17 670/3 16.12.2003 B.MALLIKARJUNA 18 362/17 12.12.2003 K.S.MANJUNATH 19 362/15 12.12.2003 MUNINAGAPPA 20 308/B 12.12.2003 R.YATHISH 21 859/A 22.12.2003 HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE

B.K.SOMASHEKHAR

22 670/9 27.12.2003 B.BHAVYA 23 2047 29.9.2003 M.KRISHNAPPA 24 859/B 2.4.2003 R.N.NAGARAJ

175. The 6th respondent being the President of

the society, it is stated was a party respondent in the

Writ Petition and was not informed of the orders passed

in the Writ Petition while Respondents 5, 7 and 8 did

not execute any sale deeds as alleged nor were they

parties to the Writ Petition and were not aware of the

interim orders. The BDA filed a memo dated

17/2/2006 enclosing a joint inspection report along

with the statement of 404 sites and a layout plan.

176. Respondents 4 to 6 filed a memo enclosing

copies of 16 cancellation deeds dated 23/2/2006.

177. Charges were framed and plea recorded on

28/7/2006 in respect of the Accused who pleaded not

guilty. Evidence of three witnesses was recorded and

254

thereafter arguments were made.

178. For a better understanding of the allegations,

it is useful to extract the interim order dated 18/6/2003

which runs thus:

“Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that

despite the order dated 22/1/2003 the civic amenity

sites are being sold by the 4th respondent-Society

and in this way it is changing the character. The

Petitioners are directed to file the details of such

sites, which have been sold in violation.

2. Respondents 3 and 4 are served, but not

appeared despite service. Learning Standing

Counsel for the B.D.A., and the learned Government

Advocate are present, but no counter has been filed.

3. It is necessary to ascertain the facts.

Therefore, Respondent No.4/Society is directed to

submit a copy of the map filed to B.D.A., to this Court

and a list of transfer of civic amenity sites, if any,

within one month. Respondent No.1/B.D.A., shall

also submit its report within two months.

4. The interim order dated 22/1/2003 shall

255

continue and in addition it is also made clear that

during the pendency of this Petition, the Society shall

not transfer any civic amenity sites as shown in plan

submitted to B.D.A., until further orders. In the

meanwhile the respondents can file their counter.

Put up after two months.”

179. In essence what is complained of is wilful

disregard to the direction contained in Paragraph 4 of

the interim order, insofar as it relates to transfer of civic

amenity sites as shown in the plan submitted to BDA.

180. In order to sustain the allegations, the

indispensable requirements of the complainants are to

prove the act of Contempt. In other words, complainant

would have to prove the following:

a) Service of notice and knowledge of the

interim order dated 18/6/2003 on the

respondents/contemnors

b) Precise act of contempt

c) Date of alleged act of contempt

d) Responsibility of the contemnors.

256

(a) Service of notice and knowledge of the interim

order dated 18/6/2003 on the

respondents/contemnors:

As regard (a), it is not in dispute that the society when

arraigned as 4th respondent in WP 40994/2002 was

served with the notice as evident from the postal

acknowledgement dated 25/1/2003 pursuant to the

order dated 22/1/2003 and Sri.B.L.Acharya, learned

Counsel filed vakalath for and on behalf of 4th

respondent society on 10/2/2003. These facts are

admitted in the statement of objections dated 4/8/2004

of the society.

181. PW-1 in the further examination-in-chief on

13/1/2007 introduced in evidence the certified copy of

the Register for delivery of copies for the year 2003

Ex.P-80 and entry No. 8047 dated 19/6/2003 recording

257

the name of Suresh Kumar, Secretary of the society

having applied for the certified copy of the order dated

18/6/2003 in WP 40994/2002 marked as Ex.P-80(a).

This evidence remains unchallenged. The documentary

evidence discloses that Suresh Kumar received the

certified copy of the interim order on 24/6/2003. The

testimony of PW-3 that he personally served a copy of

the interim order on Suresh Kumar, the then secretary

of the society on 3/7/2003 as an enclosure to a

covering letter under an acknowledgment, though the

acknowledgement is missing, is not seriously contested

nor anything incriminatory ellicited in the cross-

examination. Infact, in the objection statement of the

6th respondent, contemnor by name Shivalingaiah, it is

stated that the interim order was considered by the

Board of Directors of the Society who opined that it did

not prevent the sale of residential sites. In Ex.P-61,

Memo dated 18/7/2003 filed by the 4th respondent in

WP 40994/2002 the heading reads thus:

258

“MEMO FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

PRODUCING DOCUMENTS AS DIRECTED BY THIS

HON'BLE COURT ORDER 18/6/2003”

182. In the light of the aforesaid evidence both

oral and documentary there can be no more doubt that

the 4th respondent and its office bearers had not only

notice but also knowledge of the interim order dated

18/6/2003. The contention that the office bearers not

being parties to the Writ Petition were unaware of the

interim order pales into insignificance and deserves to

be rejected.

(b) Precise act of contempt:

The act complained of is that the society

represented by its President C.Shivalingaiah sold

various sites reserved for civic amenities and parks as

shown in the plan of the year 1992 submitted by the

society to the BDA. In view of this allegation, the layout

plan submitted by the society to the BDA assumes

259

importance.

183. PW-2 the Town Planning Director of the BDA

testifies to the filing of the application dated 6/11/1992

Ex.P-81 enclosed with a layout plan Ex.P-82 by the

respondent society for sanction and approval of the

layout plan in respect of development of 193 Acres 02 ¼

guntas reserving lands for residential, civic amenities,

parks, playgrounds etc., This fact is not in dispute

although, the complainant asserts that the layout plan

ANNEXURE-E marked as Ex.P-1 in the testimony of

PW-1 is a copy of Ex.P-82. For reasons already

recorded supra, Ex.P-1 is not same or similar to Ex.P-

82. Therefore, it can be safely assumed that the layout

plan submitted by the society to the BDA for sanction

and approval was Ex.P-82.

184. The fact that 24 sites of various dimensions

as extracted supra were allotted and conveyed under

several sale deeds executed by C.Shivalingaiah

260

representing the society, on and after the interim order

dated 18/6/2003 is not in dispute. These documents of

conveyance, including eight such documents at Sl.Nos.

2 to 8 in IA dated 4/2/2005 are found in the

Encumberance Certificates Ex.P-14 to Ex.P-41.

185. Both PW-1 and PW-3 having testified to the

aforesaid documents coupled with the statement made

by C.Shivalingaiah, there is no more dispute over

execution of sale deeds. However, it must be noticed

that in the affidavit of Shivalingaiah Ex.P-72, filed in WP

40994/2002, it is stated that the said documents have

been cancelled, although in the layout plan approved by

the CMC, Yelahanka, these sites do not form a part of

the civic amenity areas. In other words, the alleged act

of contempt stands purged.

(c) Date of alleged act of contempt:

The date of act of contempt as disclosed in the list of

documents executed, extracted supra is between August

261

2003 and December 2003.

(d) Responsibility of the contemnors:

The President of the Society by name

Shivalingaiah, since deceased having admitted to the

execution of the sale deeds, the defence is that the sites

conveyed under the sale deeds do not form a part of the

civic amenity area and even otherwise, the documents

as well as the allotment of sites are cancelled.

186. It is the assertion of the BDA that it held a

joint inspection of the area in the presence of the parties

and having superimposed the two plans i.e., Ex.P-82

and the plan submitted to the Court on 17/02/2006,

prepared a report Ex.P-75 (a) identifying 404 sites

formed in the civic amenity area and parks. In the

testimony of PW-2, there is not a whisper over the so

called superimposition of the maps, while, it is stated

that in Ex.P-82, there is a pencil entry 'temple' in the

site denoted as CA which entry was made by a Head

262

Draftsman at the time of inspection on the basis of the

statement of the Complainant and the Accused

although PW-2 was not present at that time.

187. It is noticed supra that Ex.P-82

encompasses an extent of 193 Acres 02 ¼ guntas of

land while resolution No.503/1992 is in respect of 156

Acres 26 ¾ guntas of which a rectified or modified plan

is not issued with an endorsement of either a sanction

or approval. Therefore, to say that the 404 sites

identified in the report Ex.P-75 (a) falls within the CA

site in Ex.P-82, in the given facts and circumstances is

far from acceptance.

188. It is matter of fact that C. Shivalingaiah one

of the Contemnors is no more.

189. Although learned Senior Counsel for the

complainant submits that the decision of the Co-

ordinate Division Bench in Subramani vs Union Of

India ILR 1995 KAR 3139 supports the case of the

263

Petitioners, we are afraid the decision is inapplicable

since what fell for consideration was over the challenge

to the acquisition of the land by the State Government

for and on behalf of the Society and whether the

acquisition was tainted on account of engaging a middle

man under an agreement for the purpose of acquisition

and allotment of sites to sitting and retired judges of

this Court and that of the Apex Court.

190. In the circumstances, since there is

substantial compliance with the formation of layout

reserving areas for residential, parks, open spaces, CA,

roads, etc., coupled with sufficient dispute over the

exact extent of land and their location as also the

reservation in the lands acquired and unacquired, while

Society has settled the dispute of the unacquired land

before the Civil Court in the Suits instituted against

respondents 5 to 16, there is a need to issue directions

to the BDA and the State Government over the sanction

of the layout plan.

264

191. In the result, though petitioner is not

entitled to the reliefs, nevertheless the writ petition is

disposed of with the following directions:

(a) The Society to prepare and submit on

or before 30th June, 2016 to the BDA a

layout plan over an extent of 154 acres 11 ¾

guntas since acquired by the State

Government and 28 acres 06 ¼ gunta being

the unacquired portion, totalling to 182

acres and 18 guntas comprised in

Allasandra, Chikkabommasandra and

Jakkur Plantation, as indicated in the plan

Annexure-R4(G) , for approval and sanction

in accordance with the KTCP Act as also the

BDA Act;

(b) The layout plan to depict the areas

reserved and handed over to the BBMP as

civic amenities and open spaces under the

Relinquishment Deeds executed by the

Society, and in the event of shortfall in the

area so reserved, in accordance with law, the

265

Society shall make available the deficit of the

land from out of the said layout or in the

alternative, pay penalty determined by BDA

as done in the case of Vishwa Bharati House

Building Cooperative Society and Mysore

Paper Mills Employees' House Building

Cooperative Society;

(c) BDA to consider the layout plan to be

submitted by the Society and pass resolution

after due inspection and verification of the

land and accord sanction, strictly in

accordance with law, within four months

thereafter;

(d) The State Government to consider the

resolution to be passed by the BDA strictly

in accordance with the KTCP Act and pass

orders thereon within one month from the

date of recommendation from the BDA;

(e) Respondents 5 to 16 are at liberty to have

their grievance redressed before the

competent Civil Court in respect of land

measuring 22 guntas each in Sy.Nos. 12/2C

and 12/4B, claimed to be subject matter of

266

Judgment and decree dated 9.7.2003 in

O.S.4361/2000 on the file of the City Civil

Court, Bangalore and as also in

W.P.3152/2002 DD 9.7.2003;

(f) This order shall not be construed as a

precedent or one of regularising allotment of

sites, if shown to be illegal;

(g) The Society to pursue all legal

proceedings pending before the Civil Court,

as also before the Authorities of the Co-

operative Department in respect of the sites

formed in the layout, including the evicting

of unauthorised occupants, taking

possession of the sites and allot them to

members who have lost the allotment due to

cancellation on account of reservation of the

sites for civic amenities and open spaces or

have not been allotted sites, in accordance

with their seniority in membership;

(h) The BBMP is directed to ensure the

development within 6 months and

maintenance of the layout including the

areas delineated as parks open spaces etc of

267

which they are put in possession by the

Society under several relinquishment deeds

and in accordance with the promise set out

in the compendium filed in 6/11/2015, so

as to show case the layout as a Model

Layout;

(i) All the statutory bodies namely the BDA,

BBMP, the BWSSB and KSPCB are directed

to act, in tandem, in the matter of ensuring

proper functioning of the sewage treatment

plan at Jakkur established during the year

2004, including its maintenance based on

established standards for treating the

sewage and to pump the treated water into

the water tank adjoining the STP;

(j) The State Government and all its

authorities are directed to consider, within

six months the establishment of a tertiary

treatment plant in the light of the quantity of

sewage flowing from the Judicial Layout and

surrounding layouts at Jakkur;

(k) The Society is directed not to allot or

alienate any site until the layout plan to be

268

submitted by the Society is approved and

duly sanctioned by the BDA and the State

Government;

(l) In the light of the aforesaid findings,

conclusions and directions, the Contempt

petition is dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

ln R$*