IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA

Transcription

1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 13 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA W.P.No.21920/2010 (LB-BMP) c/w W.P.Nos /2012 & /2012 (LB-BMP) W.P.No.21920/2010 BETWEEN : 1. M/S REMCO (BHEL) HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.364, 5TH MAIN, R.P.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, II STAGE BANGALORE G RAVISHANKAR S/O V.K.GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, NO.295, FM CARIAPPA ROAD, BHEL LAYOUT, NORTH, BANGALORE N L MANJUNATAH SHETTY S/O ANANTARAMA GUPTA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS NO.17, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 12TH CROSS, MTS LAYOUT KENGERI UPANAGARA BANGALORE C VINAYAK S/O CHANNASWAMY MUDALIAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, NO.28A, 3RD BLOCK, 7TH CROSS, GRAPE GARDEN, THYARAGARAJANAGAR, BANGALORE L PETER D SOUZA S/O LATE LALLIS D SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

2 2 NO.437, BAPUJINAGAR, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE EJAZ PASHA S/O SHEIK MUSTAFA, NO.344, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS, GANGONDANAHALLI, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE PETITIONERS (BY SRI M.R. NAIK, Sr. COUNSEL FOR SRI D R RAVISHANKAR FOR M/S. LEX NEXUS) AND : 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE 2. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR SUB-DIVISIN, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BANGALORE. 3. P S MAHALINGAPPA S/O LT.SIDDARAMAIAH, MAJOR, R/AT VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SMT K B SHANTAMMA W/O P.S.MAHALINGAPPA, MAJOR, R/O VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SRI M R KANTHARAJU FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, C/O VIJAYAKUMAR, R/AT NO.17, SIDDHARAMAIAH BUILDING, VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SRI P B VIJAYASHANKAR S/O.LT.BASAPPA, R/O BASAPPA BUILDING, VILLAGE,

3 3 KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE RESPONDENTS (BY SRI I G GACHCHINAMATH, ADV. FOR R1 & 2 SRI P V CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R3 & 4 SRI H T JAGANATHA, ADV. FOR R5 SRI R S RAVI, ADV. FOR SRI B ROOPESHA FOR R6 ARI P N MANMOHAN, ADV. FOR R3 & 4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE R2 IN PROCEEDINGS DTD PRODUCED AS PER ANNEX-J. W.P.Nos /12 & /12 BETWEEN: 1. M/S REMCO (BHEL) HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.364, 5 TH MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR II STAGE BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI SHANKAR G BELLERY 2. RAJU N. MORE S/O NARAYAN MORE AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS NO.506, BHEL II STAGE SOUTH RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE K BALACHANDRAN S/O KUNJUNNI NAIR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS NO.29, BHEL II STAGE SOUTH RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE NARAGINGA RAO S/O KESHAWA RAO AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS NO.433/3, BHEL II STAGE SOUTH RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE

4 4 5. ANWER ALI KHAN S/O KHADHAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS NO.529, BHEL II STAGE SOUTH RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE ASHOK MALLAPPA MODI S/O MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS NO.433/4, BHEL II STAGE SOUTH RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE T P MANOHAR S/O LATE T S PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS NO.456, BHEL II STAGE SOUTH RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE MAHARUDRA KAMMAR S/O DEVENDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS NO.502, BHEL II STAGE, SOUTH RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE G SUDHA W/O SRI S. GURURAJA RAO AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS NO.204, BHEL II STAGE, NORTH RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE R KALAVATHY KUMAR W/O SRI K A KUMAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS NO.258, BHEL II STAGE, NORTH, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE K A KUMAR S/O M K ARMUGHAM

5 5 AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS NO.259, BHEL II STAGE, NORTH, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE KUBHER J AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O JAGANNATHA RAO RESIDING AT 479, BHEL LAYOUT BANGALORE MANOHAR B KULKARNI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O BIDNU RAO RESIDING AT 504, BHEL LAYOUT 14. KARUNAGARAN AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O NARASIMHAN RESIDING AT 411, BHEL LAYOUT 15. MANJUNATH KAMATH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O NARAYANA KAMATH RESIDING AT 349, BHEL LAYOUT 16. DILIP KUMAR JADHAV AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O APPASAHEB RESIDING AT 549, BHEL LAYOUT 17. DODDAMANI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O KASHAPPA RESIDING AT 619, BHEL LAYOUT

6 6 18. ANTHONY DAS AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O CHINNAPPA Y RESIDING AT 643, BHEL LAYOUT 19. MAHADEVAPPA V TOTAD AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O VEERANA GOWDA RESIDING AT 600, BHEL LAYOUT 20. VIJAYABASKAR K R AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O RAMU RESIDING AT 518, BHEL LAYOUT 21. PRAKESH DESAI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O DESAI K B RESIDING AT 213, BHEL LAYOUT 22. NEELAKANTAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O BASALINGAPPA RESIDING AT 433/5, BHEL LAYOUT 23. NAGARAJA R AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O RAMALINGACHAR RESIDING AT 247, BHEL LAYOUT

7 7 24. DINNI N L AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O LAXMAN RESIDING AT 92, BHEL LAYOUT 25. MUKTAR SHARIEF AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O SHARIEF M D RESIDING AT 543, BHEL LAYOUT 26. JAGADEESH K AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O KRISHNAMURTHY S RESIDING AT 547, BHEL LAYOUT 27. BASAVARAJ C PYATI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O CHANNAPPA RESIDING AT 244, BHEL LAYOUT 28. BALASUBRAMANYA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O RAMASWAMY RESIDING AT 9A, BHEL LAYOUT 29. NAVAVEETHAM T AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS W/O THALASINGAM K RESIDING AT 488, BHEL LAYOUT

8 8 30. MANJUNATH K G AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O GURUMURTHY K RESIDING AT 448, BHEL LAYOUT 31. RAJANNA K Y AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O KRISHNAPPA RESIDING AT 505, BHEL LAYOUT 32. SANKARA SUBBU M AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O MAYAK KOOTHAN S RESIDING AT 174, BHEL LAYOUT 33. RAMANATHAN B V AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS S/O VASATH S N RESIDING AT 72, BHEL LAYOUT 34. JAYARAMAIAH M AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O MALARAYAPPA J S RESIDING AT 498, BHEL LAYOUT 35. SUDHAKARA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O KORAGA C SHETTY RESIDING AT 326, BHEL LAYOUT

9 9 36. SOMAIAH C M AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O MADAIAH C S RESIDING AT 500, BHEL LAYOUT 37. VASANTHA K AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O RADAKRISHNA K RESIDING AT 21, BHEL LAYOUT 38. BASKER RAO S AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O SATHYANARAYANA RAO A RESIDING AT 485, BHEL LAYOUT 39. RANGARAO B M AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O MANJUNATH D S RESIDING AT 433/3, BHEL LAYOUT 40. MANJULADEVI G AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/O GAGADHAR RAO D N RESIDING AT 45, BHEL LAYOUT 41. SUNDER RAJU S AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O SUBRAMANI RESIDING AT 534, BHEL LAYOUT

10 RANGASWAMY A R AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O RANGUDHAIAH RESIDING NO.336, BHEL LAYOUT 43. SREENIVAS MURTHY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O RAMACHANDRAIAH RESIDING AT 274, BHEL LAYOUT 44. MUNIRAJ V AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O VENKATARAYAPPA RESIDING AT 484, BHEL LAYOUT 45. MEENAKSHI S AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS W/O SHARANAPPA K S RESIDING AT 515, BHEL LAYOUT 46. SYAM RESORIYA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O LOUS MARTIN RESIDING AT 67, BHEL LAYOUT 47. NARENDRA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O SRINIVASMURTHY H R RESIDING AT 489, BHEL LAYOUT

11 SREESHA B N AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O NARAYANA B N RESIDING AT 138, BHEL LAYOUT 49. RAGHU K AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O KALIDASAPPA RESIDING AT 621, BHEL LAYOUT 50. LAXMAN BADIGER AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O VEERAPPA RESIDING AT 571, BHEL LAYOUT 51. SHANKAR G BELERI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O GURAPPA RESIDING AT 353, BHEL LAYOUT 52. BHARATH KUMAR K AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O KODANDA RAMA RESIDING AT 615, BHEL LAYOUT 53. MUTTAGI S A AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O AVVANAPPA RESIDING AT 25, BHEL LAYOUT

12 LAKSHMIPATHI AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS S/O VENKATESAN RESIDING AT 24, BHEL LAYOUT 55. ANJANEYA S/O NAGAPPA AGED 70 YEARS R/AT 14, BHEL LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR 56. RATHNAMMA B W/O MURTHY M S AGED 69 YEARS R/AT 4, BHEL LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR BANGALORE NAGARAJA DIKSHIT S S/O SHAMANNA DIXITH AGED 60 YEARS R/AT 1B, BHEL LAYOUT RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE JAYANTHI R W/O RANGANATHAN AGED 36 YEARS R/AT 75, BHEL LAYOUT RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE SHANKARI M. KAMATH S/O MANJUNATH KAMATH AGED 57 YEARS R/AT 39, BHEL LAYOUT RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE ASHOKA D S/O DASAPPA AGED 64 YEARS R/AT 65, BHEL LAYOUT

13 13, BANGALORE CHETTY K.C. S/O CHANDRASHEKAR CHETTY R/AT 483, BHEL LAYOUT, BANGALORE THERESA MARTIN A W/O MARTIN AGED 62 YEARS R/AT NO 433/6, BHEL LAYOUT RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE SURESH G J S/O GOPAL PILLAI AGED 63 YEARS R/AT 495, BHEL LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR BANGALORE NARAYANA M S/O MARIYAPPA AGED 57 YEARS R/AT 468, BHEL LAYOUT, 65. SUDHINDRA A S/O APPAJAPPA AGED 55 YEARS R/AT 554, BHEL LAYOUT BANGALORE MANJUNATH V.S. S/O SHASTRY V.S.S. AGED 57 YEARS R/AT 618, BHEL LAYOUT BANGALORE VIJAYAPRAKASH B S/O BASAVARAJAPPA AGED 55 YEARS R/AT 624, BHEL LAYOUT RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE PATIL T Y S/O PATIL Y K AGED 46 YEARS R/AT 628, BHEL LAYOUT

14 14 RAJARAJESHWARI ANGAR BANGALORE NATARAJ H L S/O SHASTRY H L N AGED 53 YEARS R/AT 558, BHEL LAYOUT RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE BASAVARU A S/O ANDANAPPA AGED 62 YEARS R/AT 433/16, BHEL LAYOUT RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE SHIVSHANKAR V S/O VEERASETTAPPA AGED 68 YEARS R/AT 433/13, BHEL LAYOUT RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE NARASIMIAH S/O NARASIMIAH AGED 61 YEARS R/AT 603, BHEL LAYOUT RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE VIRGINEA ROBERTS W/O JAYATHEERTHA R A AGED 61 YEARS R/AT 627, BHEL LAYOUT, 74. RADHA K N W/O NANJAPPA K A AGED 62 YEARS R/AT 519, BHEL LAYOUT 75. NAGARAJU V S/O VENKATARAM S AGED 47 YEARS R/AT 522, BHEL LAYOUT 76. SATHYA MURTHY H B S/O BINDHU MADAV SASTRY AGED 65 YEARS

15 15 R/AT 591, BHEL LAYOUT 77. SHANKAR H R S/O RAMASWAMY H R AGED 62 YEARS R/AT 508, BHEL LAYOUT 78. TIMMAIAH B S/O BYRATHIMAIAH AGED 61 YEARS R/AT 573, BHEL LAYOUT 79. HUCHAIAH S/O NANJE GOWDA AGED 60 YEARS R/AT 433/15, BHEL LAYOUT 80. SUMA B T D/O THAMMAIAH B R AGED 48 YEARS R/AT 252, BHEL LAYOUT 81. SREENIVAS M S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED 50 YEARS R/AT 77, BHEL LAYOUT 82. PANKAJAM O W/O ACHUTHAN NAIR AGED 58 YEARS R/AT 93, BHEL LAYOUT 83. RAVINDRA L S/O LINGARADHYA AGED 49 YEARS R/AT 510, BHEL LAYOUT 84. PRABHAKARA M V S/O RAO M V V S AGED 51 YEARS R/AT 6, BHEL LAYOUT

16 LAKCHMAN A S/O AMBIRATHNAM T V AGED 59 YEARS R/AT 524, BHEL LAYOUT 86. NAGALAKSHMI W/O VENKATARAMAPPA AGED 59 YEARS R/AT 270, BHEL LAYOUT 87. JAYARAM N S/O NAGARAJ SETTY AGED 51 YEARS R/AT 306, BHEL LAYOUT 88. MAHALINGAPPA N S/O NANJAIAH AGED 58 YEARS R/AT 501, BHEL LAYOUT 89. BHAGYALAKSHMI K W/O GOPALAN T AGED 49 YEARS R/AT 551, BHEL LAYOUT 90. SRIRAM T V S/O VAMANAN T R AGED 48 YEARS R/AT 612, BHEL LAYOUT 91. SURESH N S/O NARAYANAN A AGED 46 YEARS R/AT 352, BHEL LAYOUT 92. RAJESHWARI K N W/O BHATTA K G N AGED 56 YEARS R/AT 533, BHEL LAYOUT

17 RAGHURAM G S S/O KRISHNAN GDS AGED 51 YEARS R/AT 562, BHEL LAYOUT 94. BALAKRISHNAN A S/O ANAMALAI M AGED 49 YEARS R/AT 475, BHEL LAYOUT 95. PREMKUMARI G.S. W/O ARUNACHALAMURTHY, AGED 59 YEARS, R/AT 85, BHEL LAYOUT 96. RAMESH BABU C S S/O SIDDALINGA RAO, AGED 56 YEARS, R/AT 310, BHEL LAYOUT 97. JAGANATHA RAO S/O NARAYANA RAO N.S. AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT 419, BHEL LAYOUT 98. GAUTHAM SARKAR S/O KALACHAND SARKAR AGED 54 YEARS, R/AT 340, BHEL LAYOUT 99. GANAPATHY K R S/O RAMAN K.R. AGED 58 YEARS, R/AT 635, BHEL LAYOUT

18 DWARAKANATH S/O KRISHNA IYER, AGED 54 YEARS, R/AT 60, BHEL LAYOUT 101. GOPAL KRISHNA K S/O KAPINIPATHAIAH, AGED 57 YEARS, R/AT 563, BHEL LAYOUT, 102. VENKATESHALU K S/O KRISHNAN S AGED 50 YEARS, R/AT 37, BHEL LAYOUT, 103. KAMALA DEVI M A D/O ASHWATHNARAYANA SETTY, AGED 52 YEARS, R/AT 433/7, BHEL LAYOUT, 104. HARISHKUMAR S/O RAJANNA P.N. AGED 52 YEARS, R/AT 136, BHEL LAYOUT, 105. KHALEEL KHAN S/O MOOSA KHAN AGED 50 YEARS, R/AT 98, BHEL LAYOUT, 106. NAGARAJA A S/O VENKATARANGAPPA, AGED 56 YEARS, R/AT 597, BHEL LAYOUT 107. GIRISH T J S/O JAGADEESHA MURTHY T.S. AGED 44 YEARS,

19 19 R/AT 523, BHEL LAYOUT 108. MAHESH S/O VISHWANATH M.N. AGED 42 YEARS, R/AT 583, BHEL LAYOUT, 109. KESHAV S/O CHINNAIAH, AGED 60 YEARS, R/AT 599, BHEL LAYOUT, 110. SAMPATH KUMAR S/O SUBAIAH SHETTY, AGED 49 YEARS, R/AT 577, BHEL LAYOUT, 111. SANTHOSH S/O BALACHANDAR Y N, AGED 39 YEARS, R/AT 622, BHEL LAYOUT, 112. DODDAIAH N S/O NAGAPPA, AGED 55 YEARS, R/AT 426, BHEL LAYOUT, 113. MOHAN RAJ M S/O MUNISWAMY, AGED 53 YEARS, R/AT 8, BHEL LAYOUT, 114. CHANDRAMMA W/O GANESH KULLAN, AGED 55 YEARS, R/AT 237, BHEL LAYOUT, 115. SATEESH B.S. S/O SUBRAYA BHAT K, AGED 45 YEARS,

20 20 R/AT 580, BHEL LAYOUT, 116. ARUN R MUSHIGRI S/O RAMACHANDRAIAH, AGED 52 YEARS, R/AT 212, BHEL LAYOUT, 117. JAYARAMA R S/O RAMU K, AGED 55 YEARS, R/AT 570, BHEL LAYOUT, 118. RAGHUNATH H N S/O NARASIMHA MURTHY BHAT, AGED 52 YEARS, R/AT 74/1, BHEL LAYOUT 119. SHIVAKUMAR H C S/O CHENAPPA H V, AGED 56 YEARS, R/AT 491, BHEL LAYOUT, 120. BAGALI Y P S/O DASTAGEER PATEL, AGED 51 YEARS, R/AT 241, BHEL LAYOUT, 121. SATYAVATHI T R W/O RAMAMURTHY T G, AGED 47 YEARS, R/AT 62/1, BHEL LAYOUT, 122. BHEEMAPPA DASHYAL S/O PARAPPA, AGED 50 YEARS, R/AT 511, BHEL LAYOUT,

21 NANJAPPA S/O MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED 60 YEARS, R/AT 631, BHEL LAYOUT, 124. JAGADISH G S/O GIRIYAPPA, AGED 48 YEARS, R/AT 587, BHEL LAYOUT 125. SHAKUNTHALA W/O SEETHARAMA IYER, AGED 54 YEARS, R/AT 474, BHEL LAYOUT, 126. SHAMKUMAR S B S/O BHAGWAN S, AGED 34 YEARS, R/AT 626, BHEL LAYOUT, 127. VEERENDRA BHANU PRATAP S/O CHINNAPPA T L AGED 51 YEARS, R/AT 134, BHEL LAYOUT, 128. MALLU P S/O PUTAMALLAPPA, AGED 62 YEARS, R/AT 557, BHEL LAYOUT, 129. RAGHURAMA REDDY N S/O NARASIMIAH, AGED 43 YEARS, R/AT 560, BHEL LAYOUT, 130. SADAT U K S/O KHAN A B, AGED 49 YEARS, R/AT 4338, BHEL LAYOUT,

22 NAGARAJ RAO S/O NARAYANA RAO N S, AGED 75 YEARS, R/AT 639, BHEL LAYOUT, 132. BHASKAR S/O SEETHARAMAIAH, AGED 69 YEARS, R/AT 548, BHEL LAYOUT, 133. JAYAMMA W/O CHIKKA VARAM, AGED 63 YEARS, R/AT 649, BHEL LAYOUT 134. MANJUNATH H S/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED 54 YEARS, R/AT 598, BHEL LAYOUT 135. ANATHA RAMU C G AGED 52 YEARS, R/AT 499, BHEL LAYOUT 136. MAHADEVAPPA V TOTAD S/O SHETTY C AGED 53 YEARS, R/AT 109, BHEL LAYOUT 137. RAMA MURTHY N S/O NARASIMHALU NAIDU AGED 58 YEARS, R/AT 589, BHEL LAYOUT, 138. SUBRAMANI M AGED 62 YEARS, R/AT 647, BHEL LAYOUT,,

23 PRAMILA M W/O SUBRAMANI, AGED 57 YEARS, R/AT 648, BHEL LAYOUT,, 140. GOPALARAJU V R S/O RAJU N V AGED 56 YEARS, R/AT 527, BHEL LAYOUT,, 141. KRISHNA PRASAD B R S/O RAJAGOPAL, AGED 50 YEARS, R/AT 559, BHEL LAYOUT,, 142. RAJANNA N S/O NAGAIAH, AGED 58 YEARS, R/AT 410, BHEL LAYOUT,, 143. RAVI M R RAMASWAMIAH, AGED 51 YEARS, R/AT 7, BHEL LAYOUT,, 144. FLORINE ANDRADE S/O FELIDX MENEZES, AGED 47 YEARS, R/AT 175, BHEL LAYOUT,, 145. KOMALA BASAVARAJU W/O BASAVARAJU, AGED 53 YEARS, R/AT 10, BHEL LAYOUT,, 146. SRINIVASA B S S/O SANJEEVAIAH B V AGED 59 YEARS, R/AT 273, BHEL LAYOUT,

24 24, 147. GIRISH T J S/O JAGADESHA MURTHY T S AGED 44 YEARS, R/AT 523, BHEL LAYOUT,, 148. RAVEENDRA K A S/O ANANTHA RAO K, AGED 50 YEARS, R/AT 95, BHEL LAYOUT,, 149. SHANTHAMMA B N W/O PRABHU S, AGED 48 YEARS, R/AT 542, BHEL LAYOUT,, 150. UDAYAKUMARI K W/O AJITH K VASUDEVAN, AGED 51 YEARS, R/AT 486, BHEL LAYOUT,, 151. PRABHAKAR K S S/O SUBRAMANYA IYER K B AGED 52 YEARS, R/AT 83, BHEL LAYOUT,, 152. RAMU M V S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED 64 YEARS, R/AT 82, BHEL LAYOUT,, 153. RAVINDRANATH C M S/O SHARMA C V M, AGED 54 YEARS, R/AT 280, BHEL LAYOUT,,

25 PARADKAR G V S/O VASUDEV PARADKAR V AGED 66 YEARS, R/AT 260, BHEL LAYOUT,, 155. SUBRATHA KUMAR MANDAL S/O GURU PADA MANDAL, AGED 49 YEARS, R/AT 305, BHEL LAYOUT,, 156. HALDAR A S/O SIHURANJAN HALDAR AGED 56 YEARS, R/AT 270, BHEL LAYOUT,, 157. DIWWAKAR M L S/O RAJU N V AGED 54 YEARS, R/AT 125, BHEL LAYOUT,, 158. NAGARAJ K S/O KAPPINAIAH, AGED 54 YEARS, R/AT 26, BHEL LAYOUT,, 159. ASHOK D S/O TATAIAH, AGED 60 YEARS, R/AT 9, BHEL LAYOUT, 160. M N KOWSTHABHA W/O NANDAKUMAR AGED 55 YEARS, R/AT 73, BHEL LAYOUT,, 161. SHIVASHANKARAYYA S/O BASAIAH, AGED 69 YEARS, R/AT 74, BHEL LAYOUT,,

26 SHIVEGOWDA S/O LAXMAN GOWDA AGED 67 YEARS, R/AT 71, BHEL LAYOUT,, 163. MANJULA K C W/O MUDDARAJU K M AGED 42 YEARS, R/AT 78, BHEL LAYOUT,, 164. JALAJA S W/O SHESHADRI, AGED 54 YEARS, R/AT 586, BHEL LAYOUT,, 165. JANAKAMMA M C W/O MUKUND, AGED 50 YEARS, R/AT 588, BHEL LAYOUT,, 166. GURUSHANTHAPPA S/O APPANAPPA, AGED 62 YEARS, R/AT 31, BHEL LAYOUT,, 167. KRISHNA S/O PUTTASWAMY, AGED 46 YEARS, R/AT 3, BHEL LAYOUT,, 168. SANGAPPA B G S/O BASAVALINGAPPA, AGED 52 YEARS, R/AT 414, BHEL LAYOUT,, 169. KUSUMAKAR SHETTY V S/O MANJAIAH V AGED 55 YEARS, R/AT 601, BHEL LAYOUT,,

27 PADMANABHA PUNJA S/O P S PUNJA, AGED 57 YEARS, R/AT 602, BHEL LAYOUT,, 171. SHAKILA S SHETTY W/O SUNIL SHETTY, AGED 60 YEARS, R/AT 606, BHEL LAYOUT,, 172. KANCHANA RAO W/O ANUP RAO, AGED 58 YEARS, R/AT 613, BHEL LAYOUT,, 173. DAYANANDA SHETTY S/O KUSHALA SHETTY, AGED 52 YEARS, R/AT 107, BHEL LAYOUT,, 174. SHEKAR SHETTY B S/O MANJAIAH SHETTY, AGED 54 YEARS, R/AT 393, BHEL LAYOUT,, 175. NIRMALA SHETTY D/O MUTHAIAH SHETTY, AGED 46 YEARS, R/AT 394, BHEL LAYOUT,, 176. LAKSHMI B W/O MANJAIAH SHETTY AGED 75 YEARS, R/AT 395, BHEL LAYOUT,, 177. CHARLOTTE MATHEW W/O MATHEW, AGED 48 YEARS,

28 28 R/AT 397, BHEL LAYOUT,,... PETITIONERS (BY SRI M.R. NAIK, Sr. COUNSEL FOR SRI D R RAVISHANKAR FOR M/S. LEX NEXUS) AND : 1. THE BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER 2. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR SUB DIVISION BBMP, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR BANGALORE 3. ASST. COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) BBMP, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE 4. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE PENTAGAPPA VILLAGE RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE C NIRAJAN MURTHY S/O LATE CHANDRANNA VILLAGE RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE R S GANGADHARAIAH S/O LATE PATEL NANJUNDAPPA VILLAGE RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE K V RAMAIAH S/O LATE SEENAPPA NO.34, PANCHAVATI, 13 TH CROSS KETHMARANEHALLI, I BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE

29 29 8. BASARAJAPPA S/O LATE PATEL NANJUNDAPPA OPP: DODDANNA VIDYA SAMSTHE SHILPA KRUPA, SUNKADA KATTE VISWANEEDAM POST, BANGALORE CHANDRAKALA W/O HEMANTH KUMAR NO.382, 9F MAIN ROAD VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE VENKATESH S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA VILLAGE, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE MIRLE VARDARA NO. 544, 5TH MAIN KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN BANGALORE N R NAGARAJ S/O LATE RAME GOWDA HANUMANTH NAGAR NELAMANE POST SRIRANGAPATTANA MANDYA DISTRICT 13. R MANJUNATH NO.1174, PADUVANA ROAD I CROSS ROAD IV STAGE TK LAYOUT, KUVEMPU NAGAR MYSORE GIRIJA V RAJ D/O LATE RAME GOWDA HANUMANTH NAGAR NELAMANE POST SRIRANGAPATTANA MANDYA DIST 15. ANJANAPPA S/O LATE GALAPPA VILLAGE RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE

30 NOORULLA SHARIEFF ALIAS MASTAN SHARIEFF 19/D, JP NAGAR, UMARBAGH LAYOUT BANGALORE V NAGARAJ NO.4, VADARAPALYA KENGERI POST BANGALORE T B JAYACHANDRA MLA, SIRA CONSTITUENCY TUMKUR 19. SMT. VIMALA GOWDA DEPUTY CHAIR PERSON M L C, BANGALORE... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, Sr. COUNSEL FOR SRI D L JAGADEESH, ADV. FOR R4,5,6,7,8,10-17 SRI SUBRAMANYA R, ADV. FOR M/S. ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSOCIATES FOR R1-3 SRI R THARESHA, ADV. FOR R18 R9 & R19 ARE SERVED) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO FILE NO.DC(R) PR-955/ AND PERTAINING TO THE PROCEEDINGS IN NO.BBMP/RaRaNaVa/05/ & QUASH ANNEXURE-P THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED AND ALSO THE PROCEEDINGS LEADING TO THE ANNEXURE-P AS PER THE NOTE SHEET AT ANNEXURE-N. THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

31 31 O R D E R The petitioners in W.P.No.21920/2010 are assailing the order dated The petitioners in W.P.Nos & /2012 are assailing the order dated The orders which are impugned in both these batch of writ petitions are purported to have been passed under Section 114A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act ( the Act for short) ordering revocation of Khatha standing in the name of the petitioners in respect of the sites owned by them. 2. The petitioners in both these petitions are the Housing Cooperative society and its members who have been allotted sites from the first petitioner-society. The private respondents are the erstwhile owners of the property, whereon the layout is said to have been formed. The official respondent is the authority who has passed the orders which are impugned in these petitions. The persons against whom malafides is alleged are also made the respondents. Since the issues

32 32 which arise for consideration in these petitions is with regard to the very similar order passed relating to cancellation of khatha, the petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. These cases have a chequered history. The first petitioner which is a House Building Cooperative Society with the intention of forming a layout and allotting sites to its members, had negotiated with the owners of the property in respect of an extent of 58 acres in Pattanagere village. Pursuant thereto, the owners of the property have entered into agreements with the Society. Based on such agreements, the Government has acquired the lands by issue of notification as provided under the Land Acquisition Act. When this was the position, similar acquisitions for different Housing Co-operative Societies as also the instant acquisition were questioned before this Court in several writ petitions. This Court was of the opinion that the acquisition made was not in accordance with

33 33 law and as such the acquisition was set aside. Ultimately the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated upheld the order setting aside the acquisition. The order included the acquisitions which were made in favour of the first petitioner-society. It is in that circumstance, keeping in view the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to revert back the lands to the owners subject to the owners depositing the amount received as compensation, the further action was taken in the matter. 4. In the instant case, it is contended that in view of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the process of calling upon the erstwhile land owners to deposit the amount in compliance with the order, had been adhered. Thereafter the petitioner society is said to have entered into a separate ratification agreement with the land owners to ratify the earlier privately negotiated transactions, dehors the process of acquisition. It is in that circumstance, the first petitioner contends that the transactions which have taken place thereafter is due to

34 34 the agreement between the land owners and the petitioners and not in furtherance of acquisition of the property. Pursuant to such agreements, the petitioner has formed the layout and sites have been allotted to its members. It is in that circumstance the members who have been allotted with the sites have secured revenue entries and in certain cases have also put up construction after obtaining approval of the plan and are in possession and enjoyment of the said property. 5. When this was the position, in respect of certain of the sites owned by the members of the society, proceedings was initiated for cancellation of the khatha which was standing in their name. The said action had been taken by publishing the notice in the newspaper. The said site owners were before this Court in W.P.No 13169/2006. This Court while disposing of the said writ petition on was of the view that the notice issued by paper publication was not sufficient and therefore, reasonable opportunity be extended to the petitioners and thereafter appropriate orders be

35 35 passed in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the proceedings have been held and in the said proceedings in respect of certain of the site owners, the khatha has been allowed to be retained in their names. However, with regard to the four owners the khatha had been set aside. 6. In that circumstance, yet again further action had been taken in a separate proceedings for change of khatha. The society had assailed the same before this Court in W.P.No.2045/2007. The said writ petition was disposed of on Keeping in view the nature of the consideration by the Statutory Authority based on a direction issued by the Government, this Court had set aside such direction and further directed the Statutory Authority to reconsider the matter in accordance with law. Once over again the parties were before this Court in W.P.No.7364/2007 which was disposed of by order dated The said proceedings also ended in a similar fashion and the orders were set aside and the Statutory Authority was

36 36 directed to reconsider the matter. It is in that circumstance, the matter has been reconsidered and the present impugned order dated has been passed, the correctness of which is to be considered. The said situation would apply to the facts arising in the connected writ petition as well except that the order assailed therein was passed on It is in the above circumstance, in the instant case, the issue for consideration by this Court is with regard to the manner of retention of the khatha. The respondents have however disputed the right as claimed by the petitioner-society and the allottees of the site who are claiming right for such retention. In the situation that the acquisition had been set aside, it is the contention on behalf of the respondents that the society does not acquire any right to form the layout and thereafter allot the sites in favour of its members. It is their contention that when the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the acquisition, all actions prior to the same wherein the petitioner-society had entered into any agreement with the land owners, would also loose

37 37 its relevance and therefore, when there is no document of ownership in favour of the Society or its members, the khatha cannot be effected in their names. Hence it is contended that the ratification document relied upon by the petitioner-society is of no consequence whatsoever. In that regard the validity of the document is also assailed. It is their further contention that the petitioners cannot also claim right under the suits said to have been decreed in favour of the society inasmuch as the compromise decree obtained is by fraud since the respondents herein had not been notified. On the other hand, compromise had been entered into by one of the representatives of the society claiming to be the power of attorney holder. It is therefore their contention that when the instant proceedings initiated is for giving effect to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no technical contentions can be advanced to defeat the right of the private respondents herein. Hence, they seek for dismissal of these petitions.

38 38 8. In the light of the above, I have heard Sri Madhusudan R.Naik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Sri Nanjunda Reddy, learned senior counsel, Sri R.S.Ravi, learned counsel, Sri Manmohan, learned counsel appearing for the respective private respondents, Sri R.Subramanya learned counsel, Ms.Asha Kumbargerimath, learned counsel appearing for the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and Sri Taresh, learned counsel for respondent No.18. I have perused the writ papers. 9. The question for consideration in the matter is relating to the khatha entries and such khatha entries would normally revolve around title and there would be not much to be decided in a writ petition except noticing that aspect relating to the existence of title documents. However, keeping in view the nature of the contentions which have been put forth and also the long history of the case whereunder certain rights are being claimed which are peculiar to the instant case, the arguments have been heard elaborately. Further, in the instant

39 39 facts, what requires to be considered is also the nature of right that is being claimed by the rival parties in the background of the manner in which the Society claims to have formed the layout and allotted sites to its members. Though in the instant writ petition there are several disputed questions of fact which have been raised and no finding could be rendered on that aspect in the instant proceedings since it can only be considered in an appropriately constituted suit, the basic issues relating to the manner of the right as claimed with regard to the right of the petitioners for retention of the khatha which is already in their name or otherwise in any event would have to be considered. 10. The fact that the petitioner- Society had initially entered into certain agreements of sale with the private respondents herein and such other owners of the properties for purchase of the lands relating to the formation of the layout cannot be in dispute. It is in that context, the land owners had also executed irrevocable Power of Attorneys in favour of the society

40 40 though the said transactions were prior to the process of acquisition. However, in view of the scheme for formation of the layout being approved by the State Government whereunder the properties were to be acquired keeping in view the fact that the society had entered into agreements with the land owners, the land was sought to be acquired. The fact that the matter relating to acquisition has been considered and has been ultimately decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its orders dated is a matter of record. It is in that context, the rights of the parties is required to be considered. 11. First and foremost, the legal position that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would bind all parties concerned needs no elaboration. Therefore, in the present facts, whether the said judgment becomes a bar for the society to lay further claim with regard to the property in all eventualities or not is required to be noticed. In the circumstance of the judgment being passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the land owners

41 41 including the private respondents herein had been called upon to redeposit the amount and complete the formalities as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not in issue inasmuch as the document at Annexure-B produced by the petitioners themselves would disclose this position. In such circumstance, whether the petitioners can still claim right in respect of the property is the question. 12. In that regard, the petitioners contend that though the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had been complied, the same was with an understanding with the landowners to continue with the private transactions which had been entered. The society and the landowners are stated to have entered into a declaration-cum-ratification deed in that regard. A copy of such document dated is at Annexure C. The date of the document itself would indicate that the same is entered into subsequent to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said document no doubt is disputed by the respondents by contending that the

42 42 same has not been registered and a proper stamp duty has not been paid and would therefore not convey title. The said document in fact has been relied upon by the petitioners in the suits which were filed by them seeking declaration with regard to the ownership of the property. One such judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.15571/2004 is produced at Annexure-D1. In that proceedings, the said ratification deed and the circumstances in which the petitioners claim right to the property has been adverted to without suppression of any fact and in that circumstance, the suit has been decreed. It is contended on behalf of the private respondents that the very manner in which the judgment and decree has been obtained is fraudulent and therefore the said decree cannot be relied upon. The judgments in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs vs- Jagannath (Dead) by LRs (1994) 1 SCC Pg.1; Grama Panchayath, Naulakha vs- Ujagar Singh & Ors (AIR 2000 SC 3272); A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors vs- Govt. of A.P. & Ors; T. Vijendradas vs- Subramanian (2007 (8) SCC 751)

43 43 and Smt. Badami (Dead) by her LR vs- Bhali (2012 AIR SCW 3560) has been relied on by the learned counsel for private respondents to contend that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the judgment and decrees obtained by fraud cannot be relied upon by the Courts or such other authorities and the same could be challenged even in collateral proceedings and therefore, the instant decree cannot be taken into consideration. 13. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners on the other hand has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankar Sitaram Sontakke & anr. vs- Balakrishna Sitaram Sontakke & Ors (AIR 1954 SC 352) and in the case of Prakash Narain Sharma vs- Burmah Shell Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (2002 (7) SCC 46) to point out that such contention if raised, it would have to be with material particulars and a decree can only be challenged in an appropriate and properly constituted suit and the decree cannot be ignored by any other authority or in such other proceedings.

44 A cumulative perusal of the decisions will indicate that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred decisions has held that a fraudulent decree would not be sustainable as the well established position of law, but the circumstance under which it has been said is also relevant since in such cases, it was considered on the facts which made it evident and the facts therein leads to that situation. Since the position is also that there should be material particulars to do so, it cannot be ignored. The question that arises for consideration in the instant case is as to whether merely because the private respondents have contended that the judgment and decree has been obtained by fraud, that in itself would be sufficient for this Court to ignore the decree and also to discard the ratification deed. In that regard, the contentions as noticed would indicate that the petitioner-society initially after entering into agreements with the land owners in the year 1984 had taken possession of the properties. Pursuant thereto, a layout had been formed. The roads

45 45 and the common areas earmarked therein had in fact been relinquished in favour of the notified area committee i.e., the local authority which had approved the plan under the document dated (Annexure-A). The said fact would prima facie indicate that the layout had been formed round about the time when the Hon'ble Supreme Court had set aside the acquisition as the said document refers to the society having executed the civil work. No doubt, all actions would be subject to the order which had been passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and would yield to it if there was no further inter-se arrangement between the parties. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in fact while setting aside the acquisition has left it open to the parties to enter into any further understanding in the matter, dehors the acquisition so as to protect the interest of the site purchasers who were likely to have put up construction. 15. It is in that circumstance, the society claims to have continued in possession of the property and

46 46 allotted sites in the layout and in the absence of the property being acquired for the benefit of the petitionersociety, the agreements that had been entered into with the owners earlier were ratified by the land owners by receiving further amount and sites in certain cases. As such, the declaration-cum-ratification deed has been entered into so as to ratify the earlier agreements and such other transactions which the petitioner society had directly entered into with the land owners. Hence, the manner in which the document has come into effect would indicate that it is not as if the title is being claimed directly under the declaration-cum-ratification deed as a document of conveyance. Therefore, the registration and the stamp duty as contended by the learned senior counsel for the respondents by relying upon the decision in the case of K.B. Saha & Sons Pvt., Ltd vs- Development Consultant Ltd. (2008 (8) SCC 564) and in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs- State of Haryana and Another (2011 (6) Karn L J 69 (SC)) need not be an issue for consideration in a writ proceedings and the

47 47 said document when relied upon to be marked in an appropriate proceedings, if the need arises, such questions would remain open in the background of the other evidence that would be available. 16. In such factual situation, when the Civil Court in the said suit in O.S.No.15571/2004 has accepted the said document when all facts were brought before it and had decreed the suit in favour of the society, it cannot be said that the said judgment and decree is without any force though it could be assailed in appropriate proceedings. Further, neither the right or possession is being claimed based only on the ratification deed but the same is relied upon in furtherance of an earlier transaction and in that context, the right under Section 53-A of T.P. Act should also be another aspect to be considered which in fact has been observed in the latter of the above judgments referred. In that circumstance, merely because the sale deeds executed by the society to the members refers to the acquisition proceedings, the title would not be

48 48 defective. Even the non-mentioning of the ratification deed in the sale deeds executed subsequent to the date of ratification, cannot lead to the assumption that it was not in existence, but would have to be established in accordance with law and they are all matters of evidence. 17. It is another matter as to whether the said judgment and decree at this stage can be discarded as having been obtained by fraud in view of the contention put forth by the respondent s counsel. Insofar as that aspect of the matter, the same would have to be considered keeping in view the judgments which have been cited and the fact situation in the instant case. However, before adverting to the same, one other aspect which also requires to be noticed is that some of the land owners had at an earlier point filed Contempt Petitions in Nos /2005 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court complaining that its decision had not been implemented and as such contempt was committed. In the said proceedings, a counter affidavit

49 49 had been filed on behalf of the society which was a respondent in the said contempt petition. A copy of the affidavit and the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been produced by the petitioners along with their rejoinder statement as Annexures-R and S respectively. A perusal of the affidavit filed in the said contempt proceedings would indicate that as of August 2006 itself, in the said proceedings, the society had contended with regard to the subsequent understanding which had been entered into with the land owners after initially complying with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 18. It is in that circumstance, the petitioners had also pointed out with regard to the ratification deed which had been executed and the manner of having paid further amounts and sites to the land owners by way of settlement subsequent to the order of setting aside the acquisition so as to ratify the earlier transaction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court on having accepted the contentions was of the view that the

50 50 petitioners had not made out any case for contempt and the petitions had been dismissed though detailed order was not passed. This aspect of the matter would indicate that there were certain adjustments made between the parties for the purpose of complying with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thereafter to regularise the transaction which had been entered into between them for which liberty had been provided in the main order of the Hon ble Supreme Court while setting aside the acquisition. Therefore, to the said extent, the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court nullifying the acquisition was accepted by the parties and thereafter on regulating the transaction by adjusting the same by way of ratification, the further progress was made. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Singh vs-s.n. Kanungo and Ors (2010 (4) SCC 504) relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners would indicate that such compliance would be sufficient. Even otherwise, by implication the Hon'ble Supreme Court

51 51 has accepted that position in the case of the parties herein also. 19. Therefore, in such circumstance, when the land owners have received further amounts from the society and also certain of the land owners have obtained sites from the society, the said aspect of the matter cannot be ignored in a writ proceedings while considering limited right for khatha entries unless certain other evidences are brought on record in a properly constituted suit. When several site purchasers, who are in possession have put up construction, if the land owners still had grievance that the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not been complied and further action was required, in that case, other course was open and mere change of khatha in the manner it is being attempted would not serve any purpose. Hence, the contention of the respondent that ratification deed is without sanction of law or not sustainable in law cannot be accepted in a writ proceedings when it was relied upon even before the

52 52 Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the civil suit. Though Sri R.S. Ravi, learned counsel specifically contended that his client has not signed any documents including the alleged ratification deed, it cannot be in dispute that all his other family members have signed. Further, the extent to which his client claims right is also a part of the layout and as such his contention at this stage in the instant proceedings cannot be accepted. In fact in the decision in the case of B.L. Sreedhar & Ors Vs- K.M. Munireddy (Dead) by LRs. & Ors (2003 AIR Kant HCR 257 (SC)) relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners it has been held that when the transaction is for the benefit of all, one person is estopped from questioning the transaction. 20. Further, the said document has been accepted in a civil proceedings and a decree has been granted in favour of certain site owners and the society who were before the Court below in the civil suit. At the same time, the respondents have also relied upon the judgment passed in civil suit where the trial Court is

53 53 said to have dismissed the suit filed by the site owners who had sought injunction against interference. In the said suit also, the ratification deed relied upon was the subject matter for consideration and the civil Court in the said suit had not accepted the same. However, so far as the said judgments which have been passed in favour of the land owners and against the site holders, the site holders have filed Regular First Appeal in RFA No.770/2010 before this Court and the same is said to be pending and an order of status quo has been granted. Therefore, insofar as the validity of the said documents having been accepted in one set of civil proceedings and not being accepted in another set of civil proceedings, it would in any event be considered in appropriate proceedings which are still pending before this Court and in such circumstance, it was not open for the Statutory Authority to decide upon the right of the parties by commenting upon the document by observing that it is an attempt to cover up the earlier mistake.

54 However, so far as the contentions which arise for consideration in the instant petitions wherein the society having the benefit of the judgment passed by the Civil Court is claiming right to the property would have to be looked at from a different angle keeping in view the circumstances under which they have entered into such agreement with the land owners and have relied upon the same. In that regard, it is contended by the respondents that the decrees obtained by filing compromise petitions are fraudulent inasmuch as the society had filed the suit and the person, who is the expresident of the society as a Power of Attorney Holder had represented the land owners and had entered into compromise. In another suit in O.S.No.5471/2002 filed against Sri Sadashivayya, the landowner was represented by Sri Bharath Kumar who is the paid Secretary of the Society as the power of attorney holder of the landowner and subsequently the sale deed dated executed by the society to the allottee is also by the said Sri Bharath Kumar. It is therefore contended this in itself on the face of it would indicate

55 55 that the judgment had been obtained by fraud, that too by entering caveat in the said proceedings and avoiding notice being issued to the land owners. 22. In that regard, what is to be noticed is that even though the rival judgments have been cited with regard to the fraudulent decrees required to be ignored as has been noticed above, the question is as to whether merely because the respondents have contended so, the judgment and decree can be considered to have been obtained by fraud while taking note of the decree in these proceedings when there is no evidence with regard to the validity or otherwise of the power of attorney based on which such actions have taken place. On the said aspect of the matter, what is relevant to be noticed is that though the land owners contend so, there is nothing brought on record or contended to the effect that the irrevocable Power of Attorneys which have been executed earlier in favour of the office bearers of the society had been revoked by the land owners. Hence, the reference to the Contract Act to say that the agency

56 56 did not subsist etc., is without assailing it in an appropriate proceedings. Hence when, the power of attorney was available, the holder of the same has acted pursuant to it. But, if there was any other fraudulent act by the POA holder, it was required to be pleaded and proved in appropriate proceedings. In fact the decision in the case of Shanti Budhiya Vesta Patel & Ors vs- Nirmala Jayprakash Tiwari & Ors (2010 AIR SCW 2851) relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners would indicate that even in a situation where heirs of the plaintiff sought recall on the ground of fraud and coercion, when POA holder had entered into compromise, it was held that facts are necessary to be pleaded and proved as the registered POA has sanctity. When that is the position, in a collateral proceedings, it cannot be accepted merely because it is contended so and that too in a situation when the proceedings itself is being held by the Statutory Authority being guided by external source and Government order though it was a quasi judicial proceeding.

57 However, as noticed, the private respondents contend that in view of setting aside of the acquisition, all actions prior to are also deemed to have been set aside and wiped out. In my view, the said contention cannot be accepted in the instant writ proceedings unless the same is decided in a properly constituted suit. That is so for the reason that when the Hon'ble Supreme Court had set aside the acquisition, liberty had also been granted to negotiate with the land owners in that regard for private transactions. Such transactions are claimed to have been entered. If they are by valid documents, it will certainly bind the landowners. As such if the validity of such transaction is to be assailed, it cannot be done in the present proceedings as either the Statutory Authority or this Court in a proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution will not venture to decide the same. In fact in the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by the learned senior counsel for respondents, in the case of Bangalore City Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., -vs- State of

58 58 Karnataka & Ors (C.A.No /2002 DD ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the said case also allowed the society to enter into negotiations with the land owners notwithstanding the acquisition being set aside. That was to protect the interest of the site purchasers though the ultimate direction was to handover vacant land. In the instant case, as noticed, there was implementation of the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court and thereafter the understanding is claimed to have been reached with the land owners and presently all the petitioners who are seeking for retention of the khatha are the site purchasers. 24. Therefore, in such circumstance, if the land owners were of the view that the entire earlier understanding between them had also been wiped out in view of the setting aside of the acquisition proceedings, the land owners ought to have refrained from entering into the further understanding with the society by receiving further amounts and in certain

59 59 cases by receiving sites in the layout formed by the society on their land. In fact, along with their rejoinder statement, the petitioners have filed the tabulation of the lands and the owners with whom understanding had been entered into. The said statement is marked as Annexure- W and the details with regard to the owners of the property and the suit filed against them is also indicated. The statement also shows that the additional payments were made after the year 1995 i.e., subsequent to setting aside the acquisition proceedings which only indicates that the landowners had negotiated further. In such circumstance, if the said land owners have executed the ratification deed on receiving the amount, certainly it would not be open for them to contend in a proceedings relating to khatha that the earlier documents have not been acted upon. Therefore, in such circumstance, when the power of attorney had not been specifically revoked, keeping in view the agreement and the earlier documents which had been executed, in furtherance of earlier transaction, when they have received additional amounts and acted

60 60 upon the earlier documents, the mere contention in a writ proceedings that the said decrees have been obtained by fraud cannot be accepted. If at all there are deeper questions of title to be decided based on the validity or otherwise of the existing documents or the non-existence of earlier documents as claimed, the same can only be agitated before a Civil Court. In fact, any proceedings for revocation of khatha can arise only after the rival claims relating to ownership of the property is adjudicated in the proper forum. 25. The decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs- Patil Raghav Natha & Ors (1969 (2) SCC 187) relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners fortifies the above opinion that the Civil Court is the appropriate forum for such determination. In fact in respect of the very same first petitioner-society herein, certain other landowners had approached this Court in W.P.Nos and 11183/1998 (Smt. Gowramma & Ors vs- State of Karnataka and ors decided on ), seeking