Writ Petition No. 36150 of 2017 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2573 WP No. 36150 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 36150 OF 2017 (BDA) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. D. VENKATESHA MURTHY, S/O LATE A.V. DEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 18/1, 14TH CROSS, 18TH MAIN, PADMANABHA NAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 070. 2. SMT. K. PRABHA, D/O KENCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.20/8 KADIRENAHALLI, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka 3. SRI. D. RAMESH BABU, S/O LATE A.V. DEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.9/9, G.R.COMPOUND, GOWDANAPALYA, BANGALORE - 560 061. 4. SRI. D. NAGESH, S/O LATE A.V. DEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.45, 4TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, SARVABHOWMA NAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 061. (BY SRI. SARAVANA S, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2573 WP No. 36150 of 2017 AND: 1. THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BY ITS COMMISSIONER, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 01, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 4. JAYANAGARA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., NO. 398, II BLOCK, JAYANAGARA, BANGALORE. …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. RAKSHITHA D.J, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R3; R4 - SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEX-F THE NOTIFICATION DATED 18.7.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-1 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO ITEM/SL.NO.32 IS CONCERNED AS DESCRIBED AS CA SITE NO.1 OF JAYANAGAR HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, PADMANABHANAGAR LAYOUT AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2573 WP No. 36150 of 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER The petitioners claiming to be the owners of residential sites forming part of land in Sy.No.61/2 of Kadirenahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, having purchased the same in terms of deeds of sale executed in their favour in the year 2005, are before this Court seeking following reliefs: a) b) 1st "Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the Notification dated 18.07.2017 Annexure-F Vide respondent issued the by No.BDA/COMMISSIONER/DS-1/CA- SITES/192/2017-18, in so far as it relates to item/Sl.No.32 is concerned as described as CA Site No.1 of Jayanagar House Building Co-operative Society, Padmanabhanagar Layout; in Pass such other orders as may be deemed appropriate under the circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice." 2. The case of the petitioners is that, a Co-operative Society by name Jayanagar Housing Building Co-operative Society had applied for plan sanction for the purpose of formation of a private layout, which had been granted by the respondent-BDA. The deed of relinquishment was executed by the society in favour of Respondent -BDA on 04.10.1979, which - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2573 WP No. 36150 of 2017 do not refer to the land in Sy.No.61/2. It is further contended that subsequent to the execution of deed of relinquishment, the society had applied for modification of sanction plan by incorporating the additional areas. While doing so, it has clandestinely included an extent of 1 acre 17 guntas of land in Sy.No.61/2 of Kadirenahalli Village and pursuant thereof a second relinquishment deed dated 19.02.1983 was executed, purporting to release certain sites, more particularly Civic amenity site in C.A. Site No.1 in favour of respondent-BDA. Based on this second relinquishment deed, the respondent- BDA and its Task Force appears to have taken action. It is further contended that the C.A.Site No.1, forming part of second relinquishment deed is indeed the area covering the sites which have been purchased by the petitioners. It is in this backdrop, the present petition is filed by the petitioners. 3. It is the contention of the petitioners that they had been in peaceful possession of the sites purchased by them. However, the Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force had dispossessed the petitioners on 10.07.2015, without due process of law. The said action was apparently on the basis of a - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2573 WP No. 36150 of 2017 complaint which was registered by the Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force in Crime No.33/2015 on 04.07.2015. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition submits that there has been no transfer of C.A Site No.1, either in favour of the Society or in favour of the respondent-BDA in the manner known to law, by the erstwhile owners of the said property. The conveyance that has been made in favour of the petitioners in the form of sites, in terms of the deeds of sale dated 17.12.2005 and 12.12.2005 are valid and subsisting. Without said deeds of conveyance having been cancelled, neither the Society nor the Respondent-BDA can claim any right, title and interest over the said property. He further submits that the respondent-BDA being plan Sanctioning Authority ought to have examined the right, title and interest of the society, who had sought for grant of sanction plan and has subsequently sought for modification of the same. Without ascertaining the right, title and interest of the said society, the respondent-BDA has committed irregularity and illegality which has caused prejudice and hardship to the petitioners, in that the petitioners - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2573 WP No. 36150 of 2017 despite having valid title and interest have been forcibly dispossessed by the Task Force. Hence, this petition. 5. He further submits that petitioners though had earlier approached this Court, they were constrained to approach yet again in view of the Notification published in the 'Udaya Vani' daily news paper on 18.07.2017, whereby the respondent-BDA had called for application for allotment of C.A. Site No.1 at Sl.No.32 of the said notification. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-BDA on the other hand submits that the petitioners are claiming to be the purchasers of revenue sites from the erstwhile owners. The respondent-BDA has accorded the sanction plan in favour of the Co-operative Society based on the documents furnished by them. The release of sites were made by the respondent-BDA upon execution of three relinquishment deeds on 04.10.1979, 19.02.1983, 18.12.1986 respectively, which was the requirement under the provisions of Section 17 of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1990. He further submits that, there has been no irregularity and illegality on the part of the respondent-BDA, in either according the plan sanction or - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2573 WP No. 36150 of 2017 releasing the sites, which were formed by the aforesaid Co-operative Society. He further submits that, if at all the petitioners have any grievance it is for them to establish their right, title and interest in a properly constituted suit before the Court of Competent jurisdiction and the matter of this nature cannot be gone into under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
Decision
Hence, seeks for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Smt. B.Sukanya Baliga, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.3 supplementing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent- BDA seeks for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Heard. Perused the records. 9. By order dated 15.09.2023, after hearing the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, this Court had directed the petitioners to furnish the encumbrance certificate with regard to the transactions which had taken place in respect of the land in Sy.No.61/2 being claimed by them. In furtherance thereof, petitioners have filed a memo dated 19.10.2023 enclosing the encumbrance certificate from the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2573 WP No. 36150 of 2017 year 1966 up to the year 1989, which reflects the transactions that have taken place from the year 1967 up to the year 1983. 10. Referring to the aforesaid encumbrance certificate, learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the said land has been acquired by the said Society through a private transaction and same is reflected in the encumbrance certificate. 11. An affidavit dated 20.01.2025 has been filed by the respondent-State duly sworn to by one Sri.Rajesh S.Sulikeri, Under Secretary to Government, Urban Development Department, Vikas Soudha, Bengaluru, wherein it is submitted that the land in Sy.No.61/2 has neither been acquired by the respondent-State nor by the respondent-BDA for the purpose of formation of Jayanagar House Building Co-operative Society in Padmanabanagar. 12. In view of the encumbrance certificate produced by the petitioner reflecting the private transactions that have been taken place from the year 1967 till the year 1983 in respect of the aforesaid land and in view of the affidavit filed by the respondent-State clarifying that the subject land has not been - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2573 WP No. 36150 of 2017 acquired, it is clear that the respondent-BDA does not owe any public duty towards the petitioners. Dispute if any, appears to be a private dispute which requires to be tried, determined and adjudicated before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and same cannot be gone into in this writ petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners at this juncture submits that there is an interim order granted by this Court dated 19.08.2017, staying the operation of notification at Annexure-F, dated 18.07.2017 insofar as it relates to item/Sl.No.32 described as C.A.Site No.1 of Jayanagar House Building Co-operative Society, Padmanabhanagar. He further submits that the said protection be extended until the petitioners file a properly constituted suit and seeks for interim relief from the Competent Court of law. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent-BDA on the other hand submits that the protection may be given for a limited period. 15. Submissions taken on record. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:2573 WP No. 36150 of 2017 16. Accordingly, petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioners to seek such remedy as may be available under law, if so advised. 17. The interim protection granted by this Court is extended for a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 18. It is made clear that, no opinion is expressed with regard to the merits or otherwise of the claim made by the petitioners. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 CT: BHK