Chief Justice of India:  "Difficult to Detect Corruption in Indian Judcicary"
Indian Judiciary Un-Masked
Digvijay Mote: Investigator 867 Judges Scam

JUDICIARY   Un-MASKED


Supreme Court of India

Trial of Four times Hushed-up 867 Judges'   POSH SLUM  

PIL of 2002 + Contempt of Court Case No. 87 of 2004:      "Chief   Justice   S.R. Naik   +  H.L. Dattu  [  High  Court  Sitting Judge]      got  Prized  with  One  Site  Each-of-Big-size,  in  Criminal   Contempt    of  present   Contempt   Proceedings"       "High Court attempting to Hush-up ?"                   " To Maintain Dignity of High  Court  + JUSTICE  + Peoples' FAITH-in-High  Court ,        Case should  have   been Transferred to Supreme   Court".                  " Corrupt JUDGES for DIGNITY-of-Seat-of-Justice sake should have Resigned"                                             "Should learn Morality from 'Politicians + Bureaucrats + Advocates + Press' who respect Court Orders"       "If not You Mr. Chief Justice of India     or    Chief    Minister               Who else Should Punish These  errant 867  Corrupt  Judges  +  Lok  ayuktas, who are Criminal Contemnors, are not ready to Resign "     "Neither   Govt  is  Not  Ready  to Prosecute   them   with  Penal   Charges of   IPC  u/s  120  +  420  +   100s of Sections"      "Un-Holy    Alliance    [Judiciary  +  Govt]             on  Records  of       High   Court?"
On Trial:
Karnataka High Court

5TH Time Hushing-Up

 Himalayan Blunder JUDICIARY UnMASKED/www.JudgesPLot4Plot.com; Kar HC, Justice Ram MOhan Reddy & Billapa = Witness to FRAUD on HC Records to Save Corrupt & Criminal 867 Judges & LokAyukta's !?=Relienquishement Deed Bet BBMP & Society,9 Acres CA Sites out of 193 Acres=13/11/09, WP[PIL]40994/02,Illegal Judicial Layout
= 17 Pages

BBMP Spot Inspection Report
 

High Court coercing B.D.A & Govt for Compromise = Bangalore into SLUM !
 
2005 Bangalore SLUM = Government files Affidavit: 867 Judges' Lay-out not Approved by  BDA & is Illegal. 156 Acres Acquired by Society. 40 Acres by Land-Grabbing.
2004: Affidavit of 867 Judges Society in present Case:  B.D.A. Never Approved Lay-out.
1999: 193 Acres Lay-out NOT Approved B.D.A reply to Lok Ayukta
1995  Judgment: 28 Sitting Judges 193 Acres Lay-out Approved :  FRAUD Judgment
1994 FRAUD Judgment:   867  JUDGES' Judgment: 
 Lay-out Approved by B.D.A+ Relinquished CA sites of 96 Acres !
All Fraud!
Conspiracies Government not pleading to re-open all cases & Judgments secured by 867 JUDGES by FRAUD. Since 15 years = 867 Judges' Conspiracy with CMs.
Bangalore Infrastructure Collapsed Judges Role Models = 3,20,000 Acres = SLUM

 PROSECUTION: If JUSTICE  in India has to prevail as per Constitution; this Case should be Prosecuted in the manner we have Out-lined under    PROSECUTION.

 Supreme Court Orders: Demolish   Illegal Constructions

Moral Message of the 867 Judges'  Justice to Persons on whom Judiciary Passes Judgments:

  • At Risk of Judiciary: Indians’ & Foreigners’ Life, Liberty & Investments

  • Be Aware of Bangalore Property Developers! = Hassles in Properties under Litigations & Judges’ Alike Properties

  • NO LAW neither CONTEMPT. Be Aware! For Us, what Really Matters is OUR Lust.

  • 867 Judges + Lok Ayukta = 193 Acres=Masters in Law Violations + Contemnors.. Chief Ministers & High Court Conspiracies

  • U too can follow our Modus-Operandi, as other Developers have.

Fruits of Contempt :  Share Holders      "King-Pins or Dare-Devils out-of 867 Judges"   
Supreme Court of India:
 
Chief Justice in Shame SHUT-Its-DOORs   for 867 Contemner Judges & forced Them to Pay-Price-For-Fruits-of- Contempt:   Dismissed  out rightly S.L.P Nos. 12361/2006 & 12363 of 2006 of 867  
Dismissed SLP
    O R D E R      DATE: 07/08/2006     :          HON'BLE  THE CHIEF JUSTICE   Mr. Y.K. Sabharwal    +         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.K. THAKKER      Learned   counsel   seek   leave   to   withdraw   the   petitions and   submit   that   all   the points raised herein would be raised before the High Court.    As prayed, the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.  ITEM NO.27                    COURT NO.1    Date: 07/08/2006                 SECTION IVA    S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A   RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS  Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 12361/2006  (From the judgement and order dated 07/07/2006 in  CCC No. 87/2004 & WP No. 40994/2002   of   The   HIGH   COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE)  KARNATKA ST.JUDL.DEPT.EMP.HB.COOP.S. & ANR   Petitioner(s)   VERSUS  JUDL.LAYOUT RES. & SITE HOLDERS ASSN.&ORS. Respondent(s)     (With prayer for interim relief )   WITH S.L.P.(C) NO. 12363 of 2006     (With appln. for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and with prayer for interim relief and office report)       DATE: 07/08/2006  THESE PETITIONS WERE CALLED ON FOR HEARING TODAY.         CORAM :          HON'BLE  THE CHIEF JUSTICE        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.K. THAKKER For Petitioner(s)     Mr. P.P. Rao, Sr.Adv.         Mr. Vishwanath Setty,  Sr.Adv.          Mr. M. Shivappa, Adv.       Mr. S.K. Venkat Reddy, Adv.                    Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv.          Mr. P.R. Ramasesh,Adv.      For Respondent(s)   UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following      O R D E R               Learned   counsel   seek   leave   to   withdraw   the   petitions and   submit   that   all   the points raised herein would be raised before the High Court. 

Karnataka  High Court:  Listing of Case   10-11-2006  1-12-2006   22-12-2006   Next Date:  16-03-2007

Orders Passed in 
Writ Petition [Public Interest Litigation] 40994/ 2002
 O r d e r s    D a t e d:

22-01-2003 | 12-03-2003  | 18-06-2003 | 27-02-2004 | 09-07-2004 | 19-11-2004 | 11-03-2005

Orders passed in   Contempt of Court Case No. 87/ 2004 
 O r d e r s    D a t e d:

  |  29-01-2004 | 19-08-2004 | 14-10-2004 | 17-12-2004 | 28-01-2005 | 04-02-2005 |  08-04-2005 | 08-07-2005 | 22-07-2005 | 06-01-2006 |17-02-2006 | 07-07-2006 |   02-03-2007

High-Lights:   "  In 1995 then Advocate General representing then Govt. submitted that BDA has Approved     Judicial Layout: 193 Acres".                   "YEAR  2005:      Now, after Decade & High Court having approved loans & Judges having built Bungalows, BDA has submitted Report on 15 Sept 2005: Layout is  Neither   Approved either by BDA    nor    by  Yelahanka   CMC".            "Fraud  Judges + Lok Ayukta  + Law Secretaries'  Housing   Society has Illegally formed sites in 40 Acres, by Land-Grabbing  .    All High Court Judgments  +  Lok Ayukta  Orders  &  Directions  Approving  THIS SLUM;  has become Handy  for  All developers.    Peoples'  Govt. Lost  more than  Rupees 17   Lakh  Billion.  "Successive   Govts .  having failed  to Prosecute   the Corrupt  Judges + Lok Ayuktas   are  Losing   Confidence  of its PEOPLE  apart   from  its   Employees  +    ........"    

Failure of Constitutional Pillars: Indian President Parliament Supreme Court Karnataka High Court  Government

I . L . R .1995 KAR 3139

General Comments

Critical and Factual Comments at appropriate places of Issues of Judgement

Full Judgment along with "Critical and Factual Comments at appropriate places of Issues of Judgement"

 This Judgment is Mother of all Fraud Judgments / Decrees. Epithet on Epitaph of Indian Judiciary : "Court of Records" made to be "Court of Frauds". Judicial Layout is result of these Judgments. We thank Judges who delivered this Judgment in 1995; dismissing True Facts but up-holding Frauds. Or else we would not have this chance to Investigate & Prosecute the Corrupt Judges.

1995 Message: We all are Brother Judges. WE shall not allow anyone to split us or spit upon us.
Note : {In the Judgment below there are typographic errors ; We recommend readers to refer scan copy of this reported Judgment [027.05s]
Our comments are given at some places {in colors other than Black} to Convey to the Authorities-That-Be that said Judgment is an result of Frauds , Conspiracies , suppression of true Facts , Corrupt motives, Criminal intention etc., as Means to End . High Court became Means & Ends are to some- how save Judges from grave dangers & equally to see that sites allotted to them ( piece of land ) are also made secure.
Presiding Judges to protect all other sitting Judges of High Court of Karnataka 
( who were members of Fraud Society, a Private Company ) chose an Marriage of Convenience or you call it Unholy Alliance with Govt. of Karnataka. Advocate General had no any objections to file , though lot was there; but chose to hand-over the Brief to Judges themselves so that he can flow as per swing of Court's mood. He acted as an Agent for Unholy Marriage of Govt. & Judiciary. The Govt. & Judiciary thought it fit so to do, as it had done since 1985. Each other thought not to expose each other's crimes. Union of India which was a Party to proceedings was kept in Dark.

S.L.P. of Petitioners' : Supreme Court dismissed out-rightly at the threshold! Courtesy C.J.I A.M. Ahmedi

Fate of Presiding Judges :
 K.S. BAKTHAVATSALAM & M. F. SALDANHA
Both Judges are 
  retired. They should not be appointed as Judge or any other posts / employment ; but CBI should proceed with Prosecution of them  under Prevention of Corruption Act [041.05]& I.P.C. [007]


Click Me...

Most Corrupt Judge.
Justice N. Venkatachala

Lok Ayukta 
Karnataka

 

I . L . R . 1994 KAR 2115

SHIVAPRAKASH . J

Karnataka State Judicial Employees' House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. vs State of Karnataka *

[ W.P. No. 18447 of 1994 dated 15th July 1994 ]

CIRCULAR BY COMMISSIONER FOR REGISTRATION & STAMPS DATED 17-05-1994. Release of site allotted in private layout sanctioned by BDA, each & every time & 'No objection certificate' from Registrar of Co-operative Societies, do not arise - Circular of no legal effect & liable to be struck down.

CRUX of this Judgement : " and after the Society has executed the Relinquishment Deed relinquishing its right, title and interest over the roads, parks, playgrounds, open spaces etc; in the layout formed, in favour of the B.D.A., there was no question of "releasing the sites" by the B.D.A. for the purpose of allotment by the Society since the layout in question is a private layout formed by the Co-operative Society concerned." ]

FACTS
 Till date neither BDA has approved Lay-out nor Society Relinquished 100 Acres of Lands to BDA ; contrarily Society is selling away all C.A.Sites & alloting as sites to appease New HC Judges ; making BDA of which Portfolio is held by Chief Minister as Mute Spectator.

These facts are admitted & contested by in-on-going Contempt Proceedings.

Justice SHIVAPRAKASH & Justice A.S.Hakeem ; including 1\ 2 dozen higher-ups in Lokayukta ; are allottees of sites as members of this Society & as Lokayukta strenuously trying to wriggle out-of this case ; the Society has moved against their Power-to-investigate to High Court . CASE for CBI Alone

 

Lands  are Still Agricultural
In criminal Contempt of High Court Order Given & Taken by Judges & Fraud Society formed Slum.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

Dated: This the 25th day of June, 1997
PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. R. P. SETHI, CHIEF JUSTICE & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. R. BANNURMATH
[Note: Both are Beneficiaries of Plots]

WRIT APPEAL Nos. 1606 - 1607 C/W 138 - 141 / 1997.

I. W. A . Nos . 1606 - 07 / 97.

BETWEEN:

The State Government Employee's Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.,
Vidyanagar, Hubli, Dharwad District,

By its Secretary. ……………….. APPELLANT.
[ By Sri. T. S. Ramachandra, Advocate ]

II. W.A.Nos. 138 - 141 / 97.

1] The Karnataka State Judicial

Employees House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., High Court Building, Bangalore - 1,
By its Secretary, N. Lingaiah,
S/o Lingaiah, Bangalore - 1.

2] The Bank Officers and Officials House Building Co-op Society Ltd.,
by its secretary, 
Seshadripuram, Bangalore -20.

3] Poornapragna House Building Co-op Society Ltd.,  Bangalore - 4,

4] M.E.I. Employees House Building Co-op Society Ltd.,
Bangalore -2. ………………….. APPELLANTS.

[ By Sri. T. S. Ramachandra, Advocate ]

AND:

1] The State of Karnataka, by the Revenue Commissioner and
secretary to Government, Revenue Department,
M. S. Building , Bangalore - 1.

2] The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore
District, Krishi Bhavan, Hudson Circle, Bangalore - 560 001.

3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Podium Block,
Second Floor, Visveswaraiah Center, Bangalore - 560 001.

4] The Special Land Acquisition Officer, III Floor, T. V. Tower,
Dr. Ambedkar Road, Bangalore - 560 001. ………… RESPONDENTS.

These writ appeals are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order dated 15-01-1997 in W. P. Nos. 926 & 929/92 and 11-11-1996 in W. P. Nos. 2382 / 90 , 7987/ 90, 7787/90 and 13308/90 in W. A. Nos. 1606 to 1607/97 and 138 -141/97 respectively.

These writ appeals coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1] We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the record.

2] No ground is made out to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge, who has dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants challenging the action of the respondent by which they had demanded conversion fine payable under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The order of the learned singly Judge is based upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in DOULATRAJ - vs- THE STATE OFKARNATAKA & OTHERS [ W. P NO. 35179 OF 1992 decided on 21-08-1996 ]

3] The learned Counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that as the land owned by the appellants - societies was an urban land within the meaning of the Urban land [ Ceiling and Regulation ] Act, 1976; the respondents were not entitled to demand the conversion fine payable under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

4] We do not agree with the submission is as much as the definition of the Urban Land as given in the Urban Land [ Ceiling and Regulation ] Act 1976 cannot be deemed to be the definition of the "land" under the karnataka Land Revenue Ace particularly when the action is initiated in terms of Section 95 read with Rule 107 of the Rules framed under the karnataka land Revenue Act. It may not be out of place to mention that in-fact, the appellants societies, had entered into an agreement with the respondents in pursuance of section 41 of the karnataka Land Acquisition Act agreeing to pay the costs of acquisition like the and value, additional market value, solatium, malki value and conversion fine at the rates specified therein .

5] The learned Counsel for the appellants has further submitted that as the land was acquired for residential purposes, it could not be made subject to the provisions of the karnataka Land Revenue Act requiring the appellants-societies to pay the conversion fine. It is not disputed that the land in question is described as agriculture land in the revenue record and the mere acquisition of the land for the residential purposes would not change its nature unless it is actually put to such use.

6] There is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge requiring our interference. No merit. Dismissed.

Sd/-CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/- Judge

Land Grabbing 40 Acres
 
They admit in present case of Contempt "Judges Vs Judges"
In Legal notice to Govt. used as Ann. J of W.P.40994 of 2002
[040.02]
040.16 Annexure ‘J’ is the legal notice

Photos of few King Pin Judges  


M.N. Venkatachaliah 
Former Chief Justice of India
Padma Bhooshan


S. Rajendra Babu
Former Chief Justice of India


M.R. Hegde
Election Commissioner
Formerly Law Secretary

Year 1994:       H.N.Narayan [HC Judge],          G.Dakshinamurthy [Law secretary],             V.G.Mahajan [HC judge],                Justice N.D.Venkatesh [HC judge],               Justice L.Venkataraman [HC judge],              Smt. Yeshodhara Doddakale Gowds [HC judge],                Justice D.P. Hiremath [HC judge],                D.M.Chandra Shaker [HC Judge],                  H.G.Balakrishna [HC Judge],                    B.A. Muchandi [Lokayukta Judge],          B.Padmaraj [HC Judge],         Manjula Chellur [HC judge],          G.Patri Basavana Goad [HC Judge],            M.P. Chinnappa [HC Judge],         Justice S.Rajendra Babu [SC Judge],                 Justice Abdul Majid [HC Chief Justice],           Justice Shivaraj Patil [SC Judge],           Justice G.P.Shivaprakash [HC Judge Upa Lokayukta],        Basavaraj K.N. Patil [HC Judge In 1994 BDA Advocate],         R.Venkatesh [HC Judge],           M.S.Rajendra Prasad [HC Judge],         Mohamed Anwar [HC Judge],         Shashidhar Bhimarao Majoge [HC Judge],        B.alice D.Souza [HC Officer],        K.Bhakthavatsala [HC Judge],      H.C. Puttaswamy [HC Judge],      N.Lingaiah [Society Secretary in peak periods of litigations ],       V.G Sabahit [HC Judge],           B.V.BairaReddy[J.L.R.S.O.A. President],        V.M.Hebbar [BDA. Law Officer+Judge],          D.Souza Robinson [Present Law Secretary],          C.M.Basavarya [society president (king pins)],         C.Shivalingaiah [society president (king pins)],        M.S. Patil [HC Judge],        Justice C.Shivappa [HC Judge],         Justice B.Jagannath,        Idegde [HC Judge],        Justice S.A. Hekeem [HC Chief Justice],       Justice B.M. Chandrashekariah [HC Judge],       H.M.Bharatesh [Law Secretary],            Year 1995:    Gundappa Dasai [HC Judge],      Justice Kedambadi Jagan [SC Judge],     P.C. Puttaswamy [Society Director],        K.Krishnappa [Police / Judge ? ],       K.S. Putta Swamy [HC Judge],        M.B. Viswanath [HC Judge],         Justice R.J. Desai [HC Judge],        Justice R.G. Vidyanath [HC judge],         Justice K.Shivashankar Bhat[HC judge],          Ramesh Somashekar Fatane [HC Judge],          Justice P.K. Shyamasunder  [HC judge],         S.Shankaranarayana,   [Lokayukta Judge],          R.Venkabo Rao [HC officer],            K. Sreedhar Rao [HC judge],         P.S. Rama Murthy [HC Judge],         A.B.Margod [HC Judge],         M.B. Viswanath [HC Judge],         Robert D. Souza [Law Secretary ?],         Smt. Janaki G. Sabahit [HC Judge],          Justice K.Jaganath Shetty [SC Judge],           Gonsalves [ Law Dept],          M.Gongammauthappa [Police Judge],          Justice K.A. Swami [Chief Justice],              Sivanna [Society Director]                             Year 1996:     K.Sippe Gowda [ Govt Emplovee's Associations President],         G.S. Shivakumar [ Society Director],         R.Ramakrishna [HC Judge],          Justice Gopi Chand Bharuka [ HC Judge],        Justice J.Eswara Prasad [HC Judge],           Justice Tirath Singh Thakur [HC Judge ],         Justice Bhimarayappa.K Sangalad [HC Judge](Land Grabber),          Justice M.RamaJois [Chief Justice Bihar Governor],           Justice N.Venkatachala [   Lokayukta + SC Judge  ],          Justice P.A.Kulakarni [HC Judge],             P.DattatreyaBhat [HC Librarian],           L.Sreenivasa Reddy [HC Judge],             N.Srivatsa Kedil [ Law Secretary],              Lingaiah [Society Director],         Justice V.P.Mohan Kumar [HC Judge],           Justice A.J. Sadashiva [HC Judge],              Justice P.Krishna Murthy[HC Judge],          Justice Kumar Rajaratnam [HC Judge],           Justice D.R.Vithal Rao[HC Judge],             T.Abdual Mujeeb [HC Registrar + Judge],       Justice Vijay Kumar [HC Judge]                  Year 1997:       Justice Chandrashekraiah [HC Judge],           B.S.SrinivasaRao [HC Judge],          S.Rajendra Prasad [HC Judge],           R.Aswini [MLA / Judge / Minister ],          S.Vani [MLA /Minister],          Shankar Kumar [Judge / MLA / Minister ],           H.G.Ramesh [HC Judge + Registrar],          Venkoba Rao [HC Judge + Registrar ],         V.Shylaja [MLA / Minister ],           D.B.Devgirikar [Society Founder + Advocate],           B.N. Mallikarjuna [HC Judge,Law Secretary K.A.T. Chairman],           H.L.Dattu. [HC Judge],             Y.R.Rathna [Judge / MLA / Minister],        T.Abdul Jaber [Law Dept / Judge],             Justice M.N.Venkatachalaiah [SC Chief Justice],           R.V. Vasanth Kumar [HC Judge],            N.GeethKumari [Judge, MLA, Minister ],             G. Veswishwary [Judge, Senior Advocate],             Puttaswamy [HC Judge],              R.H. Raddi [Lokayukta Judge],             M.Ravi Kumar [Judge / Advocate],           A.Krishnappa [judge / Police],        Kali Mahamed Mujeebullah [Judge / HC Registrar]                  Year 1998:        Ravi B. Naik [Advocate of Karnataka High Court],          R.G.Desai [HC Judge],          Justice N.Y. Hanumanthappa  [Chief Justice Orissa High Court],         Justice S.R.Rajashekar Murthy [High Court Judge],             B.Srinivas Rao [HC Judge],          K.Ramanna [HC Judge],           B.N.Krishnan [High Court Judge]                Year 1999:       S. Mohan [Supreme Court Judge],          L. Rajappa [V.I.P. PWD Class-I Contractor],          Justice V.K. Singhal [HC Judge],           Justice S.R. Venkatesh Murthy [HC Judge],         Justice G.T.Nanavathi [SC Judge],             Justice Y.Bhaskar Rao [Karnataka Chief Justice]                  Year 2000:          K.H.N.Kuranga [High Court Chief Justice],          Roopa R. Sabhahit [Judges' Daughter],             B.Kempaiah [Law Secretary],          Justice Y.Bhaskar Rao [Karnataka Chief Justice],         D.G. Chinnappa [HC Judge],           Justice V.Gopala Gowda [HC Judge + Mysore Sex Scam],          B.N.Dwarakanath [Judge +BDA Law Officer],          S. Prabhakara Jois [Bihar Governor, RamaJois Relative],            H.V.Ramachandra Rao [District Judge]                   Year 2001:          Justice Kumar Rajaratnam [Chief Justice of Jharkhand],         Justice P.Venkatrama Reddi [Supreme Court Judge],     Justice H.G.Bala Krishna [Partition of Big site],      K.S.Raghavendra Rao [High Court Registrar],         Justice Samindar Rudrayya Banurmath [HC Judge],             Justice G.Patri Basavana Govd [ HC Judge],           Justice R. Gururajan [HC Judge],               Aravind S. Pachhapure [(Vigilance)+ Spl Judge to hear TN CM Jayalalitha Corruption Case]

"King-Pins or Dare-Devil-Contemnors out-of 867 Judges"

Savior of 867 Scamster Judges:
In 1995 he Delivered Constitutional Fraud Judgment
.

Un-fortunately TI has appointed him as Chairman of Karnataka Chapter. Can you Imagine of this person's Bonafide Contributions towards "Impartial Reporting of Corruption in TI" ?

C O M P A R E       I N V E S T I G A T I O N S   of  C O R R U P T I O N : O U R s Vs  TI
Justice Saldanha's Contribution in TI Web Site
V/s
Effects of our Investigations + Reporting in Our Web Site

M.F.Saldanha  
N. Venkatachala Venkatachalaiaha S.R. Nayak M.F.Saldanha

Rajendra Babu

Bhaktavatsala P.V.Reddi H.G.Ramesh H.L.Dattu M.R. Hegde

S.V. Patil B. Padmaraj A.M.Farooq Chandrashekaraiah A.V.Srinivasa Reddy
Year 1994:       H.N.Narayan [HC Judge],          G.Dakshinamurthy [Law secretary],             V.G.Mahajan [HC judge],                Justice N.D.Venkatesh [HC judge],               Justice L.Venkataraman [HC judge],              Smt. Yeshodhara Doddakale Gowds [HC judge],                Justice D.P. Hiremath [HC judge],                D.M.Chandra Shaker [HC Judge],                  H.G.Balakrishna [HC Judge],                    B.A. Muchandi [Lokayukta Judge],          B.Padmaraj [HC Judge],         Manjula Chellur [HC judge],          G.Patri Basavana Goad [HC Judge],            M.P. Chinnappa [HC Judge],         Justice S.Rajendra Babu [SC Judge],                 Justice Abdul Majid [HC Chief Justice],           Justice Shivaraj Patil [SC Judge],           Justice G.P.Shivaprakash [HC Judge Upa Lokayukta],        Basavaraj K.N. Patil [HC Judge In 1994 BDA Advocate],         R.Venkatesh [HC Judge],           M.S.Rajendra Prasad [HC Judge],         Mohamed Anwar [HC Judge],         Shashidhar Bhimarao Majoge [HC Judge],        B.alice D.Souza [HC Officer],        K.Bhakthavatsala [HC Judge],      H.C. Puttaswamy [HC Judge],      N.Lingaiah [Society Secretary in peak periods of litigations ],       V.G Sabahit [HC Judge],           B.V.BairaReddy[J.L.R.S.O.A. President],        V.M.Hebbar [BDA. Law Officer+Judge],          D.Souza Robinson [Present Law Secretary],          C.M.Basavarya [society president (king pins)],         C.Shivalingaiah [society president (king pins)],        M.S. Patil [HC Judge],        Justice C.Shivappa [HC Judge],         Justice B.Jagannath,        Idegde [HC Judge],        Justice S.A. Hekeem [HC Chief Justice],       Justice B.M. Chandrashekariah [HC Judge],       H.M.Bharatesh [Law Secretary],            Year 1995:    Gundappa Dasai [HC Judge],      Justice Kedambadi Jagan [SC Judge],     P.C. Puttaswamy [Society Director],        K.Krishnappa [Police / Judge ? ],       K.S. Putta Swamy [HC Judge],        M.B. Viswanath [HC Judge],         Justice R.J. Desai [HC Judge],        Justice R.G. Vidyanath [HC judge],         Justice K.Shivashankar Bhat[HC judge],          Ramesh Somashekar Fatane [HC Judge],          Justice P.K. Shyamasunder  [HC judge],         S.Shankaranarayana,   [Lokayukta Judge],          R.Venkabo Rao [HC officer],            K. Sreedhar Rao [HC judge],         P.S. Rama Murthy [HC Judge],         A.B.Margod [HC Judge],         M.B. Viswanath [HC Judge],         Robert D. Souza [Law Secretary ?],         Smt. Janaki G. Sabahit [HC Judge],          Justice K.Jaganath Shetty [SC Judge],           Gonsalves [ Law Dept],          M.Gongammauthappa [Police Judge],          Justice K.A. Swami [Chief Justice],              Sivanna [Society Director]                             Year 1996:     K.Sippe Gowda [ Govt Emplovee's Associations President],         G.S. Shivakumar [ Society Director],         R.Ramakrishna [HC Judge],          Justice Gopi Chand Bharuka [ HC Judge],        Justice J.Eswara Prasad [HC Judge],           Justice Tirath Singh Thakur [HC Judge ],         Justice Bhimarayappa.K Sangalad [HC Judge](Land Grabber),          Justice M.RamaJois [Chief Justice Bihar Governor],           Justice N.Venkatachala [   Lokayukta + SC Judge  ],          Justice P.A.Kulakarni [HC Judge],             P.DattatreyaBhat [HC Librarian],           L.Sreenivasa Reddy [HC Judge],             N.Srivatsa Kedil [ Law Secretary],              Lingaiah [Society Director],         Justice V.P.Mohan Kumar [HC Judge],           Justice A.J. Sadashiva [HC Judge],              Justice P.Krishna Murthy[HC Judge],          Justice Kumar Rajaratnam [HC Judge],           Justice D.R.Vithal Rao[HC Judge],             T.Abdual Mujeeb [HC Registrar + Judge],       Justice Vijay Kumar [HC Judge]                  Year 1997:       Justice Chandrashekraiah [HC Judge],           B.S.SrinivasaRao [HC Judge],          S.Rajendra Prasad [HC Judge],           R.Aswini [MLA / Judge / Minister ],          S.Vani [MLA /Minister],          Shankar Kumar [Judge / MLA / Minister ],           H.G.Ramesh [HC Judge + Registrar],          Venkoba Rao [HC Judge + Registrar ],         V.Shylaja [MLA / Minister ],           D.B.Devgirikar [Society Founder + Advocate],           B.N. Mallikarjuna [HC Judge,Law Secretary K.A.T. Chairman],           H.L.Dattu. [HC Judge],             Y.R.Rathna [Judge / MLA / Minister],        T.Abdul Jaber [Law Dept / Judge],             Justice M.N.Venkatachalaiah [SC Chief Justice],           R.V. Vasanth Kumar [HC Judge],            N.GeethKumari [Judge, MLA, Minister ],             G. Veswishwary [Judge, Senior Advocate],             Puttaswamy [HC Judge],              R.H. Raddi [Lokayukta Judge],             M.Ravi Kumar [Judge / Advocate],           A.Krishnappa [judge / Police],        Kali Mahamed Mujeebullah [Judge / HC Registrar]                  Year 1998:        Ravi B. Naik [Advocate of Karnataka High Court],          R.G.Desai [HC Judge],          Justice N.Y. Hanumanthappa  [Chief Justice Orissa High Court],         Justice S.R.Rajashekar Murthy [High Court Judge],             B.Srinivas Rao [HC Judge],          K.Ramanna [HC Judge],           B.N.Krishnan [High Court Judge]                Year 1999:       S. Mohan [Supreme Court Judge],          L. Rajappa [V.I.P. PWD Class-I Contractor],          Justice V.K. Singhal [HC Judge],           Justice S.R. Venkatesh Murthy [HC Judge],         Justice G.T.Nanavathi [SC Judge],             Justice Y.Bhaskar Rao [Karnataka Chief Justice]                  Year 2000:          K.H.N.Kuranga [High Court Chief Justice],          Roopa R. Sabhahit [Judges' Daughter],             B.Kempaiah [Law Secretary],          Justice Y.Bhaskar Rao [Karnataka Chief Justice],         D.G. Chinnappa [HC Judge],           Justice V.Gopala Gowda [HC Judge + Mysore Sex Scam],          B.N.Dwarakanath [Judge +BDA Law Officer],          S. Prabhakara Jois [Bihar Governor, RamaJois Relative],            H.V.Ramachandra Rao [District Judge]                   Year 2001:          Justice Kumar Rajaratnam [Chief Justice of Jharkhand],         Justice P.Venkatrama Reddi [Supreme Court Judge],     Justice H.G.Bala Krishna [Partition of Big site],      K.S.Raghavendra Rao [High Court Registrar],         Justice Samindar Rudrayya Banurmath [HC Judge],             Justice G.Patri Basavana Govd [ HC Judge],           Justice R. Gururajan [HC Judge],               Aravind S. Pachhapure [(Vigilance)+ Spl Judge to hear TN CM Jayalalitha Corruption Case]
A.C.Kabbin D. Ramanna K. Sreedhar Rao Mohan M. Shanthanagoudar Mrs. Manjula Chellur
N.S.Veerabhadraiah R.V.Raveendran T.S.Thakur V. Gopalagowda

S.R. Bannurmath


Chief Justice N.K. Jain
Admits Contemnors tried to Bribe Him with a Plot.

Justice K. Bhaktavatsala
Allottee of a Plot

CJ & KBJ:  Date: 22-1-2003                                                   WP01

W.P.No. 40994/2002

ORDER

    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.

For Photo Copy Click Here:   000.02.01s.02s.01s

Top


CJ & KBJ:  Date: 22-1-2003                                                    WP 02.1

W.P.No. 40994/2002

 

Top


 

CJ & KBJ: Date: 18-6-2003.                                      WP02

 W.P.  40994/2002

Order

     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. Learned 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 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.

For Photo Copy Click Here:  000.02.01s.02s.02s = 000.02.01s

Top


CJ & KBJ:  Date: 27-2-2004                                       WP03
W.P.No. 40994/2002

Order

    Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 3 wish to file their reply within five weeks

    Post after six weeks.

For Photo Copy Click Here:   000.02.01s.02s.03s

Top


CJ & KBJ:     Date: 9-7-2004                                     WP04

W.P.No. 40994/2002

ORDER

     1.  By the order dated 22-1-2003 this court directed Respondent No.4 society not to change the character of the land described in I.A.No.1/2003. Thereafter by the order dated 18-6-2003 it was made clear that the society shall not transfer any civic amenity sites as shown in the plan submitted to the B.D.A. until further orders. However, on 27-2-2004, the case was adjourned for filing reply. 

    2.  Now the Bench is formed for this case and to-day this case has come up for orders. Respondent No. 4-society has filed its statement of objections. Sri.B.V.Acharya, learned counsel for the 4th respondent-society submits that initially the society filed a plan along with an application to the B.D.A. for its approval. Thereafter, as the jurisdiction was with the CMC, Yelahanka, the plan was filed in CMC by the 4th respondent-society and the same was approved and the sites have been sold accordingly. He further submits that no civic amenity site was sold.

    3.  The first respondent B.D.A has also filed the counter. It is stated that in  the B.D.A meeting held on 16-11-1992 vide subject No.503/92 it was resolved to approve the private layout subject to certain conditions. it is stated that despite the letters dated 8-12-1993 and 24-2-1994 the 4th respondent-society did not comply with the letters. NOC was not given as no layout plan was filed. Sri.C.B.Srinivasan, learned counsel for the B.D.A. submits that despite the order dated 18-6-2003 no copy of the layout plan said to have been filed to the B.D.A. or the list of transfer of civic amenity sites have been furnished by the 4th respondent-society. 

    4. Respondent No.3-CMC, Yelahanka, has filed its counter. It is stated that on formation of City Municipal Council, Yelahanka, Judicial Layout was included in its limits and on receiving the form, the 3rd respondent approved the layout plan submitted by respondent No.4-society on 22-5-1996 and roads have been formed. It is also stated that civic amenity sites as they stood in May 1996 continued to remain the same till to-day. 

    5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is very strange that despite the submission of the learned counsel for the 4th respondent-society that originally the plan was submitted to the B.D.A., the BDA denies that it has received the layout plan. He further submits that it is strange that the BDA has taken a plea that only application has been filed whereas he can substantiate by filing number of documents wherein reference is made to the plan said to  have been submitted to the BDA. 

     6.  It is also seen that a contempt petition in CCC No. 87/2004 is also filed for violation of the interim order dated 18-6-2003 despite the service of order and as alleged about 30 civic amenity sites had been alienated in violation of the order as apparent from encumbrance certificate Annexure-C series and the list filed by the complainant and therefore it is necessary to see both the plans i.e., one said to had been submitted to the BDA at the first instance while forming the layout and the other one approved by the CMC Yelahanka. The plan said to  have been filed to the BDA is in the writ petition and the other plan said to have been approved by the CMC has not been produced either by the 4th respondent-society or by the 3rd respondent CMC. Therefore, it is necessary that respondent No.4-society and Respondent No.3-CMC shall file certified copy of the plan. They are also free to substantiate their respective claims on factual aspect by 9-8-2004 and exchange the counters.

   In the meanwhile, the direction issued in the writ petition not to transfer any civic amenity site will continue, and we further direct not to alienate any civic amenity site to any person, as per the alleged map approved by the CMC Yelahanka. It is also made clear that any construction made on any civic amenity site, as per the map, here onwards would be at the risk and responsibility of the person making such construction.

    Post this case on 19-8-2004. On that day, the B.D.A. Secretary and the President of the 4th Respondent-Society shall be personally present in court.

For Photo Copy Click Here:  000.02.01s.02s.04s

Top


Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

Justice H. Billappa

RMRJ & HBJ: Date: 19-11-2004                              WP05
W.P.No. 40994/2002
    

Order

     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 plan 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 original file in W.P.35837/1994 along with connected writ petitions disposed off on 12th October, 1995.

    Call on 10-12-2004.

For Photo Copy Click Here:   000.02.01s.02s.05s

Top


Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

Justice H. Billappa

RMRJ & HBJ: Date:11-03-05                                     WP06
W.P.No. 40994/2002

Order
   

    Sri S.G. Bhat, learned Councel for respondent No.3 filed additional statement of objections, dated 11-03-05.

    Petitioner is permitted to file rejoinder, if any.

For Photo Copy Click Here:   000.02.01s.02s.06s

Top


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Contempt of Court Case No. 87/ 2004

Karnataka  High Court  Orders passed on

29-01-2004 | 19-08-2004 | 14-10-2004 | 17-12-2004 | 28-01-2005 | 04-02-2005 | 08-04-2005 | 08-07-2005 | 22-07-2005 |
06-01-2006


Chief Justice of India:  "Difficult to Detect Corruption in Indian Judcicary"

Chief Justice N.K. Jain

Justice K. Bhaktavatsala

CJ & KBJ:  Date: 29/1/2004                                    CCC01

C.C.C.87/2004 

Order

     The learned Counsel for the complainants submits that despite the interim order dated 22-1-2003 and 18-6-2003, passed in W.P. 40994/2002 and service of copy of the interim order dated 18-6-2003 on 2-7-2003 on the Secretary/Manager, the Society has violated and alienated about 30 civic amenity sites, which is apparent from the copies of the encumbrance certificates at Annexure-C [series] and list-Annexure-D.

    Issue notice to respondent No.6 as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated, returnable in six weeks.

    The learned counsel for the complainants submits that he does not seek any relief against respondents 2 and 3. Accordingly, respondents 2 and 3 deleted at the risk of the learned counsel. Cause title  to be amended accordingly. 

For Photo Copy Click Here:   000.02.02s.01s.01s

Top


Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

Justice H. Billappa

CJ & KBJ:  Date: 19/8/2004                                      CCC02
 C.C.C.No. 87/04 A/W   W.P.No. 4099/02

Order

     In pursuance of the order dated 9/7/2004 Sri Vidyashankar, Commissioner-B.D.A who took charge one and a half month back, is present in court. 

     Sri C. Shivalingaiah, President of the Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society, is present submitted a plan to the B.D.A. before it was transferred to the jurisdiction of the City Municipal Council Yelahanka. The map contains a portion of land which was not acquired. 

     Sri Sharief, Commissioner The City Municipal Council, is also present in the court though voluntarily. He submits that after transfer of the jurisdiction they have granted permission as per law. 

    Learned counsel for the complainant submits that despite the order dated 22-1-2003 not to change the character of civic amenity sites, the same have been sold in violation of the rules.

    Under the circumstances, the parties are directed to complete their pleadings in the form of counter affidavits.

     The personal attendance of the Commissioner B.D.A, President-Employees House Building Co-operative society and the Commissioner C.M.C., Yelahanka, is dispensed with for the present. However, they may file their respective replies in the Contempt petition mentioning the factual position.

     The question for consideration is whether the jurisdiction of the B.D.A. ceases after the area is transferred to the C.M.C., Yelahanka, as per the new Act. The question and its effect can be considered with the factual position whether the civic amenity sites have been sold or not, after hearing the parties and after completion of pleadings. 

       Post after one month.

For Photo Copy Click Here:   000.02.02s.01s.02s

Top


Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

Justice H. Billappa

CJ & KBJ : Date: 14/10/2004                                     CCC03

C.C.C No. 87/2004 C/W  W.P.No.40994/2002

ORDER

   It is stated despite time granted pleadings are not complete and even who sites were given including temple site and civic amenity site. I may mention as Chief Justice, that I was eligible and offered a site at the initial stage as well as now. With thanks I have declined. However, the counsel for the society submits that they will consider the cases of the judges who are appointed first and have not been given the site, as it is reported that some of the judges who were appointed later were given and allotted sites even from the civic amenity.

    In reply to this Mr. Ravivarma Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they are not concerned with the allotment of sites to the judges. The main grievance is that the society has allotted sites from civic amenity sites to the persons in violation of the Rule and also the order of this court and no reply has been filed by R-4 till date. We cannot go into the question of fact or investigate them at this stage. Moreover, I am demitting my office on 19-10-2004. The pleadings are not complete. Therefore the case is adjourned by one month for filing the reply by the society.

For Photo Copy Click Here:   000.02.02s.01s.03s

Top


Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

Justice H. Billappa

RMRJ & HBJ    Date: 17-12-2004                             CCC04

CCC 87/ 2004 C/W WP 40994/02       

Order

         Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we think it appropriate that the 4th respondent - Society should be directed to place on record the following particulars: 

[1]   The number of public amenity sites, parks, stadium, playground, hospital, temple, schools, educational institutions  etc., as earmarked, both, in the plan furnished to the BDA for its approval at the earliest point of time and in the alleged modified plan said to be sanctioned by the CMC, Yelahanka; 

[2]  The percentage of the total areas set apart for the civic amenity sites, roads, drainage etc., other than the residential sites, both, in the plan submitted to the BDA and the plan said to be sanctioned by CMC Yelahanka;

[3]  The total number of residential sites formed out of the areas earmarked as above together with the particulars of the allotees of the said sites and the dates of execution of the deeds of conveyance etc.,

[4]   The 4th respondent shall, prepare and submit a plan demarcating the areas set apart for civic amenity and other public amenities, as mentioned supra, as it is in existence today.

     It is borne out from records that this court by order dated 18th January, 2003 had directed the 4th respondent-Society to submit a copy of the plan submitted to the BDA as also the list of transfer of civic amenity sites, if any, within a month. We find that there has been no compliance of the said order. The 4th respondent is directed to comply with this order as well.

    Sri M.Sivappa, learned counsel for the 4th respondent seeks four weeks time to furnish the above particulars and comply with the directions of this directions of this court.

    It is made clear that four weeks time granted is as a last opportunity to the 4th respondent to place on record the relevant material necessary for decision-making..       Call on 21-01-2005.

For Photo Copy Click Here:  000.02.02s.01s.04s  =  000.02s

Top


Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

Justice H. Billappa

RMRJ & HBJ:  Date: 28/1/2005                                CCC05
C.C.C.87/2004 C/w. WP 40994/2002

Order

    The directions of this Court in its order dated 17-12-2004, are not compiled with. The conduct of respondent No.4 assumes great importance in the light of the allegations set out in the contempt petition. In the absence of the material sought for in our order dated 17-12-2004 and earlier order dated 18-1-2003, we left with no other option but to proceed further in the matter. We direct the respondents-5 to 8 to be personally present before this Court on 4-2-2005.

For Photo Copy Click Here:   000.02.02s.01s.05s

Top


Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

Justice H. Billappa

RMRJ & HBJ:  Date: 04-02-2005                             CCC06
C.C.C.87/2004 C/w. WP 40994/2002

Order

    Sri V. Lakshminarayan, learned counsel for 4th respondent- Society has filed an application dated. 4.2.2005 stating the sites conveyed after 8.6.2003 would be immediately with- drawn, without prejudice to the contentions raised by respondent 
No. 4. The affidavit accompanying application is sworn to by one Sri Sureshkumar said to the Secretary of the Society. This application will however, be considered after the petitions, if any.

    We have observed from Annexure 'C' to the Contempt Petition which are certified extracts of encumbrance certificate issued by the Registering represented by on Sri C. Shivalingaiah, President who has executed the Sale Deeds. Having noticed this, Sri V.Lakshminarayana, learned Counsel for 4th respondent would seek leave of the court to file an affidavit of the executant of the Sale Deeds. In addition, the learned counsel would seek four weeks' time to make available all the relevant particulars that have been sought for in the previous orders of this Court. We do not see any reason not to grant time.

    Respondent No.4 is given a final opportunity to comply with the earl orders of this Court within four weeks' from today.

    Call on 04.03.2005.

    On that day, respondents 4 to 8 shall be present.

For Photo Copy Click Here:   000.02.02s.01s.06s

Top


Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

Justice H. Billappa

RMRJ & HBJ:  Date: 08/04/2005                              CCC07

C.C.C.No. 87/2004 C/W W.P. 40994/2002

Order

    Sri Keshava Reddy, learned HCGP submits that there is an on going enquiry into the alleged layout plans of the society and that the survey is presently undertaken to ascertain the extent of the areas earmarked for civic amenities and residential sites. The  learned counsel for the State submits that if two weeks time is granted, the Government would place a comprehensive report before this Court.

    Sri V.Lakshminarayana, learned counsel for the contemnors submits that contemnors would secure necessary material and file affidavits with regard to the information sought for this court as directed in the order dated 17-12-2004.

   Registry is directed to place before this Court the records of the following writ petitions: 

    W.P. Nos.35837/1994,  28797/95  a/w 11211/1995  disposed of on 12-10-1995 and W.P. 15101/2001.

    List these matters on 3rd of June 2005.

For Photo Copy Click Here:   000.02.02s.01s.07s

Top


Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

Justice H. Billappa

RMRJ & HBJ: Date: 08-07-2005                              CCC08

CCC NO. 87/2004 C/W  W.P. 40994/2002

Order

Sri Keshave Reddy, learned AGA files a report dated 3/6/2005 along with enclosures. The report is taken on record.

    The Secretary of the 4th respondent society has filed an affidavit dated 3/6/2005 stating that the enclosures are in due compliance of the direction of this court. The deponent admits that the sites have been formed in the area shown as reserved for civic amenity etc., in the plan submitted to the BDA, but in view of the modified plan annexed to the affidavit duly sanctioned by the CMC, the society allotted the said sites to several members and Associate Members. According to him 70% of the associate Members are land lords of private pockets of lands included in the layout with whom the society had to enter into a compromise.

    Sri Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel points out to the affidavit and the list Annexure A to Contend that the sites as detailed therein admittedly fall within the reserved area but does not disclose the dates on which the allotments were made or sale deeds executed and also is not in compliance with the directions contained in the order of this court dated 17-12-2004.

   Sri V.Lakshminarayana, learned counsel for 4th respondent society submits that the dates or execution of the sale deeds are set out in detail, in a booklet filed into the court and that he would make available that information by the next date of hearing. Learned counsel also submits that after the interim order was made, except for six sale deeds, which have since been cancelled, no other sale deeds are executed in respect of the sites falling within the reserved area mentioned in the plan submitted to the BDA.

    Having perused the affidavit, there is considerable force in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that there is non compliance of the order dated 17/12/2004.

    In order to ascertain the exact area of land reserved for Civic Amenities like Parks, Schools, Playground, Hospitals and Temples etc., as provided in the plan filed by the society with the BDA, for sanction, in which sites have been formed by the 4th respondent society, on the basis of a modified plan sanctioned by the CMC, we think it appropriate that the BDA be directed to make an enquiry in the manner it thinks fit and place before the court a report containing the details of the total area reserved for civic amenity comprised in the layout formed in the area of 156 acres 26 3/4th guntas; their location and the number of sites formed in the said reserved area, with reference to both the plans.

    Sri C.B.Srinivasan, learned counsel for BDA submits that a week's time is required to comply with the direction.

    Two weeks time is granted to the BDA, while the 4th respondent society is directed to furnish the required particulars and comply with the order dated 17.12.2004 of this court.

    List on 22.7.2005.

    Registry  is directed to issue a carbon copy of this order to Sri C.B. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the BDA.

For Photo Copy Click Here:  000.02.02s.01s.08s

Top


Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

Justice H. Billappa

RMRJ & HBJ:  Date: 22-07-2005                              CCC09

C.C.C.87/2004 C/w. WP 40994/2002

Order

    Sri C B Srinivasan, learned Counsel for BDA files report dated 22.7.2005 indicating that 404 sites of various dimensions are formed in the areas reserved for Civic Amenities and Parks, as detailed in the report.

    Sri V Lakshminarayana, learned counsel for 4th respondent seeks leave of this court to file statement of objections to the report of the BDA as well as report of State filed on 8.7.2005.

    Respondent No.4 is directed to comply with the order dated 8.7.2005 in addition to the furnishing the details of the following - [1] names and addresses of the allottees of the sites formed in CA and the park areas; [2] their site numbers; [3] the office bearers concerned who made the allotment; [4] the dates on which the allotments were made including the sale deeds if any; and [5] the names of Office bearers who registered the sale deeds.

    There is considerable force in the submission of the Senior Counsel representing respondent No.4 that personal presence of Sri C.M. Basavarya, Contemnor No.5 be dispensed with for the time being.

    Considering the fact that interim order dated 18.6.2003 which was made against Respondent No.4 represented by the Secretary, pursuant to which the contempt proceedings have been initiated, we consider it appropriate that the personal presence of Sri. C.M. Basavarya be dispensed with for the time being.

    List on 26.8.2005.

For Photo Copy Click Here:   000.02.02s.01s.09s

Top


Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

Justice H. Billappa

RMRJ & HBJ:  Date: 6-1-06                                      CCC10

C.C.C.87/2004 C/w. WP 40994/2002

Order

     Sri V. Lakshminarayan, learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that the Annexure R2 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 inspection after issuing notices to the 1st petitioner and 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 R2 to the statement of objections dated: 20-10-2005, it is necessary that the nature of the said sites should be preserved without 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, here onwards 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.

     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.

For Photo Copy Click Here:   000.02.02s.01s.10s

Top


Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

Justice H. Billappa

RMRJ & HBJ:                                                                                         CCC11

Date: 17-02-2006

 

Order

 

         Sri Subbanna learned Sr. Counsel for respondent No.6 files a reply to the contempt petition, which is taken on record. Sri Subbanna submits that the contemnor seeks to purge the contempt by canceling the deeds of conveyance of the sites executed on and after the interim order passed in the writ petition. In addition, the learned Sr. Counsel submits that efforts and on to restore the vacant areas constituting C.A. Sites, parks, etc., as set out in the plan furnished to the Bangalore Development authority, for sanction and to make a written request to the Bangalore Development Authority to consider sanction of the said plan, subject to the conditions set out in the correspondence between the Authority and the society. Sri C.B.Srinivasan learned counsel for the. Bangalore Development Authority having been directed to secure and file a report of the factual position in regard to the 404 sites said to be formed out of the areas demarcated for civic amenities and parks. Submits that the report is ready and would be filed into the registry, after service of copies on the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel further submits that in the joint spot inspection, in the presence of the petitioner as well as office bearers of the society, 404 sites were identified as formed out of the area de-alienated and demarcated for civic amenities and parks, out of which approximately 83 contain unauthorized constructions while 321 are vacant sites. Learned counsel could further add that the Bangalore Development Authority is prepared to consider the representation of the society for sanction of the plan that was earlier submitted to it, subject however to compliance by the society of the conditions already communicated to the society, provided further that the layout is restored to fall in conformity with the plan furnished and the vacant areas notified for parks, civic amenities, etc., are relinquished in favor of the Bangalore Development Authority.

 

         Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and the assurance of the learned Sr. Counsel Sri. T.R. Subbanna, we consider it appropriate to adjourn the hearing of this matter to 3rd of March, 2006, to enable the learned Sr. Counsel to file an affidavit of responsible office bearers of the society or the contemnors, undertaking to purge the contempt by executing cancellation deeds of the documents of conveyance or other forms of transfer executed on and after the date of the interim order passed in the writ petition and to relinquish in favor of the Bangalore Development Authority the areas demarcated in the plan furnished to the Bangalore Development Authority for civic amenities, parks, playgrounds, temple and other open spaces, further to comply with the conditions already communicated by the Bangalore Development authority, in addition to make a representation to the Bangalore Development Authority for sanction of the said layout plan. The contemnors shall ensure that the areas demarcated for the aforesaid purposes in the plan submitted to the Bangalore Development Authority shall be free from constructions which includes the 404 sites identified by the Bangalore Development Authority.

        
    As this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to secure instructions from the instructing counsel as to whether an affidavit could be filed in the manner noticed by this court as regards the 404 sites formed in the areas demarked for C.A. etc., since it is 4.15 P.M. list this matter on 24.02.2006 to hear regarding framing of charges, and it necessary to frame charges.

        
    All the contemnors are directed to be present in Court on 24-02-2006.

 

Sd/Judge

 

 

Top


Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

Justice H. Billappa

RMRJ & HBJ:  Date: 07-07-06                                                    CCC12

C.C.C.87/2004 C/w. WP 40994/2002

IN THE MATTER OF

Judicial Layout Residents and Site Holders Association (Regd.)

Rep. By its Board of Direction & Ors.                       …………….. Complainant

  Versus

  Bangalore Development Authority

Rep. By its Commissioner & Ors.                              ……………   Respondents

 

Order

  (1)   Heard the learned counsel for the complainants and the learned counsel for the respondents/accused regarding framing of the charges.

(2)   The complaint avers that there is willful disobedience of the order dated 18-06-2003. It is averred in the complaint that the complainants are the president, secretary and Directors of the Judicial Lay-out, Residents and Site-Holders Association (Regd.), and that the Association had filed writ petition W.P.No. 40994/2002 seeking a direction to the respondents to take necessary steps to protect, preserve and maintain the open spaces like C.A.’s  parks, play-ground and bus terminus in the judicial Lay-out and that when the matter came up for preliminary hearing on 22-01-2003, this court directed emergent notice to the respondents and passed an interim order restraining the respondents from changing the nature of the land with regard to the temple site measuring 195’X200’ and that on 18-06-2003, this Court directed the fourth respondent to produce the map that was submitted to the BDA along with, list of civic amenity sites which have been transferred within one month and that BDA was also directed to submit its report within two months and that this court while continuing the interim order dated 22-01-2003, an order stating that the society shall not transfer any civic amenity sites shown in the map and that on 02-07-2003, made an order stating that the society shall not transfer any civic amenity sites shown in the map and that on 02-07-2003, the complainants have served copy of the interim order on the secretary/Manager of the said society and that in spite of the interim order dated 18-02-2003, the society has deliberately sold residential sites in the open area in direct and willful disobedience of the interim order dated 18-06-2003, it is also averred that the society has changed the nature of civic amenity sites by converting them as residential sites and it is selling and registering the same to different person even after the order passed by this court on 18-06-2003, in support of the same, the complainants have produced series of encumbrance certificates. They have also produced the list of civic amenity sites and layout plan submitted by the society to the BDA and modified plan said to have been approved by the CMC, Yelahanka. It is, therefore, they have prayed for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents herein for willful disobedience of the order dated 18-06-2003.

(3)   This court by its order dated 29-01-2004 has directed notice to the respondent No.6 and thereafter by its order dated 09-07-2004 it had directed notice to the respondents1,4,5,7 and 8 and R.2 and 3 have been deleted by order dated 29-01-2004 and no notice is directed to respondents 9 to 19.

(4)    The respondent No.1 has filed its response contending that there is no violation of the order passed by  this court. It has also stated that this court had directed the fourth respondent to submit a copy of the map filed by it to the BDA and also directed the BDA to submit its report within two months and that the fourth respondent did not furnish the copy of the map said to have been filed by it to the BDA and that as it did not act according to the direction, the Town planning Member of the BDA addressed a letter to the fourth respondent of 17-07-2003 and there was no response to said letter and therefore one more letter was written on 23-07-2003 and there was no response to the said letter also and therefore it was not possible for the BDA to submit its report in terms of the order dated 18-06-2003. it is, therefore, it has prayed for dismissal of the petition.

(5)   In the affidavit dated 03-03-3005 filed on behalf of the respondent No.4-society, Sri Suresh Kumar, secretary, has stated that as on 22-05-1996 the society was in possession of 193 acres and 2 Ό guntas of land and out of that plan has been sanctioned in respect of 466197.48sq. yards by the City Municipal Council. Yelahanka, vide resolution dated  22-05-1996 and that in the said plan, sites have been allotted for school, park and play-ground. He has also stated that in the land measuring 934392.96 square yards totally 2268 sites have been formed and 90% of them have been sold to the members of the society. He has also stated that respondent No.4-society has not disposed of any civic amenity sites reserved in terms of the sanctioned plan dated 22-05-1996. It is also stated that BDA in its meeting held on 16-11-1992 had resolved to approve that private layout plan subject to certain conditions and that plan was not released by the BDA as huge amount was demanded towards conveyance, water supply and ring road and that it was challenged before this court in W.P.No.39338-34/1992 and it came to be dismissed in view of the letter dated 16-05-1994 issued by Sri.T.S.Ramachandra, Advocate. It is also stated that the area was brought within the limits of Municipal Council and municipal Council has approved the plan on 22-05-1996 and there is no violation of the interim orders passed by this court. It is also stated that the sale deeds mentioned by the complaints are all residential sites in the approved plan dated 22-05-1996.

(6)   The respondent No.6 has filed his response dated 04-08-2004 contending that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and it is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is filed with malafide intention of harassing the respondents. It is also stated that some of the complaints had contested the election for the post of Director of the Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society and that they had lost the election and therefore, they have a grudge against him. It is also averred by him that the complainants had sought for a site in the Judicial Lay-out for construction of the temple and that the Board of Directors of the society decided that the society itself can construct the temple in a site measuring 80’X100’ and that this angered the petitioners. Further it is averred that Sri.B.L.Acharya, Advocate, had filed vakalath for the fourth respondent and his name was not shown in the cause-list, and therefore he was not present before the court on 18-06-2003 when the order was passed. It is also averred by him that he has not violated the interim order passed by this court. Further it is averred that this court had passed interim order dated 22-01-2003 directing the respondents not to change the nature of the land in regard to the site measuring 195’X200’ which has been termed as a temple site in the writ petition and that in fact as per the lay-out plan sanctioned by the Yelahanka Municipal Council, the said land area comprises of several residential sites and some of them had been transferred before the interim order was passed by this court and that whatever sites had not been transferred have remained as they are. It is also averred by him that no plan submitted to the BDA is available in the records of the fourth respondent-society and that he is not aware of any plan having been prepared and submitted to the BDA. According to him as per the records of the society and as per his knowledge, only one layout plan has prepared and it has been submitted to the third respondent-City Municipal Council. It is also averred by him that BDA has issued an endorsement stating that no layout plan is available in the records of the BDA. It is also averred by him that this court had directed the fourth respondent-society not to transfer any civic amenity sites as shown in the map submitted to the BDA and that since there was no plan submitted to the BDA and plan was submitted by the fourth respondent to the third respondent-City Municipal Council, the interim order was considered by this respondent and the Board of Directors of the fourth  respondent – society as preventing and precluding them from transferring the civic amenity sites shown in the layout plan submitted to the third respondent-City Municipal Council. He has denied the allegations that the society has deliberately sold the sites for residential purposes in violation of the order passed by this Court on 18-06-2003. He has stated that sites which have been sold are not civic amenity sites. He has also stated that civic amenity sites specified in the layout plan approved by the City Municipal Council have not been converted or transferred or alienated and that all the civic amenity sites have been transferred to the City Municipal Council, Yelahanka. He has also stated that the sale-deeds shown in the encumbrance certificates produced by the complainants relate to the sale or residential sites which have taken place in the routine course of business of the fourth respondent-society and that the allegation that Annexure-‘D’ depicts the list of civic amenity sites is not true. It is also stated that in fact all these sites had been sold years back when the respondent was not the president of the society. He has also stated that as per the records and as per his knowledge no layout plan has been submitted to the BDA for approval. He has also stated that he has the highest regard for all the courts and he has served as Registrar of this court for nearly 20 years and therefore, has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

(7)   Thereafter, the respondents 4 to 8 have filed their detailed reply to the contempt petition on 17-02-2006 contending as follows:    That the order dated 18-06-2003 has two directions, namely, that the fourth respondent – society shall not change the character of the land described in I.A.1/03 and that I.A.1/03 is for an ad-interim order of temporary injunction restraining the fourth respondent or anyone acting under it from forming sites or otherwise altering the nature of the site measuring 195’X200’ and that the fourth respondent has sold three sites namely 859/A, 589/E and 859/F prior to the order dated 18-06-2003 but pursuant to the order dated 22-01-2003 and that the said action of the respondents is due to lack of knowledge or info motion as to the order passed by this court on 22-01-2003 and 18-06-2003. They have also stated that the said order was not communicated to the fourth respondent society or its office bearers. It is also stated that the office bearers of the fourth respondent – society are employees of this court and the courts below and they have served this institution for more than 20 years and they have the highest regard for all the courts. They have also stated that thee is no willful or intentional violation of the orders passed by this court, but it is only due to non-communication of the orders passed by this court. It is also stated that keeping in mind the grievance of the complainants, the respondents are taking steps to see that the site measuring 195’X200’ is kept vacant for the purpose of building the temple and that the respondent No.4-society has requested the Members in whose favour sale-deeds have been executed to surrender the same and to which some of them have accepted and the respondent No.4-society is in the process of getting the remaining sale-deeds cancelled. It is also stated that  in so far as site No.859/C and 859/D are concerned, the sale-deeds have been executed on 18-11-2002 and 26-10-2002 and site No.859/B1 measuring 10,000sq.ft., has been kept vacant for the purpose of temple and that efforts are being made to see that the land measuring 195’X200’ is earmarked for the purpose of temple. It is also stated that the second portion of the order dated 18-06-2003 states that the society shall not transfer any civic amenity sites as shown in the plan submitted to the BDA until further orders and that pursuant to the order dated 18-06-2003, totally 24 sites have been sold and out of the same, the respondent has cancelled 7 sale-deeds and only 17 sale-deeds are to be cancelled to which the respondents herein have already issued notice to the allottees to get the sale-deeds cancelled. It is also stated that the sixth respondent was not a party in the said writ petition and the order passed by this court in the writ petition. It is also averred that respondents 5,7 and 8have not executed any sale-deeds in violation of the orders passed by this court and they were not parties to the writ petition and they were not aware of the orders passed by this court, it is also stated that the respondent No.4 –society had engaged the services of B.L.Acharya, Advocate and his name was not shown in the cause-list and therefore he was not present before the court on 18-06-2003 when the order was passed. It is also stated that the sale-deeds have been executed without being aware of the orders passed by this court and if the respondents were aware of the orders passed by this court, they would not have executed the sale-deeds. It is also stated that the action of the respondent No.4 –society in executing sale-deeds is not willful and intentional to violate the orders of this court and the respondents are taking all steps to get the sale-deeds cancelled which have been made pursuant to the orders of this court and therefore, contempt proceedings may be dropped. They have also stated that the court can accept the unconditional apology tendered by them and drop the contempt proceedings.

(8)   In the affidavit filed by Sri.Kempathimmaiah i.e., the respondent No.8 herein on 24-03-2006, it is stated that sale deeds have been executed bonafide and without the knowledge of the interim orders and that he society would purge itself of the contempt alleged by cancellation of the deeds in respect of which sites have been sold in violation of the interim orders and that the sale deeds have been cancelled and that they have the highest regard for this court and they will scrupulously obey the orders of this court and therefore they have prayed for dropping of the proceedings. They have also produced copies of the cancellation deeds.

(9)   The learned counsel for the complainants contended that the respondents have committed willful disobedience of the orders passed by this court and therefore, they are liable to be prosecuted. He also submitted that the encumbrance. Certificates produced by the complainants clearly show that the respondents have violated the orders passed by this court and therefore they are liable to be prosecuted. He therefore, prayed to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents.

(10)  The Learned Senior Counsel Sri. T.R.Subbanna, appearing for the respondent No.6placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court submitted that there is no willful disobedience of the order passed by this court and unless there is willful disobedience and it is intentional, contempt proceedings cannot be inflated and therefore contempt proceeding may be dropped. He also submitted that rights  of the parties will be seriously prejudiced if contempt petition and writ petition are not heard together. He also submitted that respondents have retraced their steps and they have already taken steps to cancel the sale-deeds and therefore contempt proceedings may be dropped. He also submitted that the respondents have tendered unconditional apology and the same may be accepted and contempt proceedings may be dropped. He also submitted that the respondents have served this court and they have the highest regard for this court and therefore, they have no intention to commit  willful disobedience of the orders passed by this court and therefore, contempt proceedings may be dropped.

(11)   Sri Venkata Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7 submitted that writ petition was filed on 11-11-2002 and thereafter interim orders were passed on 22-01-2003 and 18-06-2003 and there is no willful disobedience of the interim orders and therefore there is no contempt. He also submitted that 24 sites have been sold and they have retraced their steps and therefore, there is no contempt. He also submitted that 24 sites have been sold and they have retraced their steps and therefore, there is not contempt and the proceedings may be dropped. He also submitted that the respondents have tendered unconditional apology and the same may be accepted and contempt proceedings may be dropped. He, therefore prayed to drop contempt proceedings.

(12)    The learned Senior Counsel Sri.Subramanya Jois appearing for the respondent No.8 submitted that the writ petition may also be heard laong with the contempt petition. He also submitted that the complainants have not approached this court with clean hands and they have suppressed the material facts. Further he submitted that complainants a,b,c,d and e are all beneficiaries and the respondent No.8 and others were not parties to the writ petition and they were not informed to the order. He also submitted that there is no plea of disobedience and there is no willful disobedience of the order passed by this court and therefore contempt proceedings may be dropped.

(13)   We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

(14)    In our considered view, a prima facie case has been made out against the respondents 4 to 8.

(15)   It is not in dispute that the respondents 5 to 8 are the office bearers of respondent No.4-society. This court by its order dated 22-01-2003 has directed the respondent No.4-society not to change the nature of the land with regard to the temple site measuring 195’X200’and thereafter by its order dated 18-06-2003 it has directed the respondent No.4 not to transfer the civic amenity sites shown in the map submitted to the BDA. It has also directed the respondent No.4 to produce the map that was submitted to the BDA along with list of civic amenity sites transferred within one month. It has also directed the BDA to submit its report within two months. In spite of this, the respondent No.4-society has transferred the sites.

(16)   It is clear from the response filed by the respondents 4 to 8 on 17-02-2006 that the respondents 4 to 8 have alienated civic amenity sites. They have sold 24 sites. In the land measuring 195’X200’ they have sold three sites bearing Nos.859/A, 859/E and 859/F subsequent to the order dated 22-01-2003 and prior to the order dated 18-06-2003. They have stated that due lack of knowledge of the orders dated 22-01-2003 and 18-06-2003 they have alienated the sites. They have also stated that the said orders were not communicated to them and that the respondents 5 to 8 were not parties to the writ petition. At this stage it is difficult to believe this. It is averred in the complaint that the order was communicated to the secretary on 02-07-2003. Apart from this, the respondent No.4 was represented by the learned counsel. While it is true that he was not present before the court on 18-06-2003, when the order was passed, but the fact remains that the society was aware of the proceedings. The respondent No.6 in his statement dated 04-08-2004 has stated that the directed the fourth respondent has to amenity sites as shown in the map submitted to the BDA and since no plan was submitted to the BDA and plan was submitted to the City Municipal Council, the Board of Directors and himself considered that interim order passed by this court was precluding and preventing them from transferring civic amenity sites shown in the layout plan submitted to the third respondent –City Municipal Council which clearly shows that the respondents 4 to 8 had the knowledge of the interim orders passed by this court. In our considered view, there is no merit in the contention that the respondents 4 to 8 had no knowledge of the orders passed by this court.

(17)                     The respondent No.6 surprisingly in his response dated 04-08-2004 has stated that no plan was submitted to the BDA and it is not available in the records of the respondent No.4 society which is totally incorrect. The material on record clearly discloses that plan was submitted to the BDA and it was not sanctioned since conditions were not fulfilled. The covenants in the sale deed executed by the society stipulate that the layout plan was duty approved by the BDA in its resolution bearing No.503/1992 dated 16-11-1992. in our considered view, there is no merit in the said contention.

(18)                     This court by its order dated 18-06-2003 had directed the respondent No.4 not to alienate the civic amenity sites shown in the map submitted to the BDA. Admittedly the respondents 4 to 8 have sold 24 sites in violation of the order passed by this court. They have also sold three sites in the land measuring 195’X200’ in violation of the order passed by this court. In view of this. In our considered view, there is no merit in the contention that there is no willful disobedience of the orders passed by this court. No doubt in their response dated 17-02-2006 they have stated that they have retraced their steps and they are taking steps to cancel the sale-deeds and some of the sale-deeds have been cancelled, but the fact remains that they have violated the orders passed by this court and failed to comply with the direction of this court. In view of this, in our considered view there is prima facie case against the respondents 4 to8. The respondents 4 to 8 after taking all kinds of stands in the course of proceedings have now tendered their unconditional apology which is unacceptable. A prima facie case of willful disobedience of lawful orders of this court has been made out against the respondents 4 to 8 calling forth framing of charges.

(19)                     In so far as respondent No.1 is concerned the direction was to submit a report within two months and in response to which it has stated that it had addressed letters to the respondent No.4 – society to furnish the details and since details were no furnished, it has not filed its report we accept the same and drop the proceedings against the respondent No.1.       

(20)                     In so far as respondents 9 to 19 are concerned, as no notice is directed to them, we drop the proceedings against them.

(21)                     List this matter for framing of charges against the respondents 4 to 8, on 28-07-2006.  

 Sd/-

Judge  

 

Top


Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

Justice H. Billappa

RMRJ & HBJ:  Date: 02-03-07                                                    CCC13

C.C.C.87/2004 C/w. WP 40994/2002

IN THE MATTER OF

Judicial Layout Residents and Site Holders Association (Regd.)

Rep. By its Board of Direction & Ors.                       …………….. Complainant

  Versus

  Bangalore Development Authority

Rep. By its Commissioner & Ors.                              ……………   Respondents

 

Order

                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 petitions will be heard along with the merit of the petitions 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.

                One a perusal of the order-sheet maintained in the writ petition and the contempt petition, what is 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 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 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 a part 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 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 recording 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.

 Sd/-

Judge  

 

Top