of our 10 years Investigation &
worth of CD you are Donating-for.
1,000 Judges are Members of a Housing Society meant for Karnataka
present Chief Justice of India who expressed as above, hope He never
realized that certain Corrupt Judges like N. Venkatachala & His
predecessors are there in Judiciary; who are bent upon to Hush-up
"1,000 Judges Scam" misusing Lok Ayukta. Booting
the "Canons of Judicial Ethics".
Anti-corruption Bureau legalizing Billion Rupees worth + Himself + 1,000
Judges' Corruption, Contempt of Laws, Contempt of Judgments, etc., which
are now being heard by High Court .
MOON BETWEEN LOKAYUKTA
|Who are Great Justices Involved ? : " N. venkatachala [site 1381] + Hakeem [former Lokayukta site 1388] + G.P. Shivaprakash [former Upa-Lokayukta site 1420] + Ex-CJI Rajendra Babu [site 1389] + SC Judge Shivaraj Patil [site 1399]+ Justice Rama Jois Bihar Governor [site 1422] + Law Secretaries + Election Commissioner M.R. Hegde + 30 sitting Judges of Karnataka High Court + Telgi case Special Judge A.T. Munolli + Jayalalitha Corruption Case Spl. Judge A.S. Pacchapure + 1,000 Judges + Tom, Dicks & Harrys who matter in Governance of India "|
Venkatachala, Lokayukta & His predecessors Justice Hakeem & G.P.
Shivaprakash have [since 1999] & are still trying to misuse
Lokayukta Institution to Legalize "Their own Crimes + 1,000
Judges" in Acquiring 200 Acres of Lands, forming JUDICIAL LAYOUT,
off Bellary Road, Bangalore.
The crimes being committed are presented in Documentary Evidence viz., "Lokayukta Notices" to "Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees' House Building Co-operative Society Limited, High Court Building, Bangalore" & "Housing Society's Replies", which documents are Annexures to WP 15101 of 2001 [ for more see 023 folder in "Index to Documents" & "Skulls" in CD.]
|Justice N. Venkatachala, Lokayuta & His predecessors Justice Hakeem & G.P. Shivaprakash are all Illegal beneficiaries of sites in the said layout along with 1,000 Judges spread all over India.|
|On the contrary to Lokayukta's such illegal actions, "Judicial Layout site Owners' Association" admit not only those crimes but much more in Karnataka High Court in WP. 40994 of 2002, which Petition is treated as Public Interest Litigation. [ for more see 040 folder in "Index to Documents" & "Skulls" in CD.]|
Was being heard by CJ.N.K.
Jain & K.
Bhaktavatsala [also beneficiary].
surf 023 folder; for photocopies "open file code ending with 's' in "Index to Documents Link".
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.
No. BDA / TPM 1498 / 97-98.Date: 22-09-1997.
Notice under Section 17
of the KTCP Act 1961 and Rules 37 of Karnataka Planning Authority Rules
 Inspite of the notices issued by this office against the formation of layout unauthorisedly in several Sy. Nos. of Jakkur, Allasandra & Chikkabommasandra village, you have not responded or appeared before the sub committee. Also you have not yet stopped the work and restored the land to the original condition.
 As per section 17 of the karnataka Town and Country planning Act, and section 32 of the Bangalore Development Act, 1976 every development has to be proceeded only after getting necessary permission from the Bangalore Development Authority, which is the planning Authority for the Metropolitan Area of Bangalore under the said Act. The property in question lies within the Jurisdiction of the Bangalore Development Authority. Records of this Authority reveal that no permission for development has been obtained as required under provisions of the above said Act.
 When permission for such development has not been obtained from this Authority, such development shall not be deemed to be law-fully undertaken and carried out by reason only of the fact that permission, approval or sanction has been obtained from any statutory as per Section 76 - M of the Karnataka Town & Country Planning Act . Such unlawful activities are liable for action under Section 73 The KTCP Act.
 Hence, you are hereby called upon to discontinue such work and to show cause within seven days from the date of receipt of this notice as to why action should not be taken to stop the unauthorized work and restore the land to its original condition.
 If no reply is received from you within the above said period, it will be presumed that you have no explanation to offer and confirm that you are forming residential layout unauthorisedly in violation of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act and the rules framed there under. In that event, the Bangalore Development Authority is at liberty to take such action as is permissible under the law.
Lakshmi Venkatachalam .
xxxxNext Document xxxx
Proceedings of the Meeting of the Sub-Committee constituted to hear the cases of unauthorised contractions/developments B.D.A held on 8-5-1997 in the Chambers of the commissioner,
Unauthorized formation of layout and construction of buildings in several Syl Nos. of Allalasandra village, Chikkabommasandra village and Jakkur Plantation by the Karnataka State Judicial department Employees House Building Co-operative society.
Authority vide resolution No. 503/92 Date: 16-11-1992 declared to approve residential layout in favour of the society subject to certain conditions. Work order and the layout plan were not issued as the conditions were not complied with. Mean while the society has applied for modified layout. In reply, in reply, the society was informed to submit porpoises in accordance with the stipulations contained in G.O. Date: 17-11-1995. The Society informed BDA that they were unable to comply with the requirement of G.O. Date: 17-11-1995.
So for the society has not furnished the revised plan for approval as per G.O. Date: 17-11-1995.
Meanwhile the HBCS has taken up formation of unauthorized layout and building activities were also found in the layout. Notice was issued against the unauthorized Developments, under the KTCP Act. No reply is received from the society.
Division: It was decided to issue final notice with the survive of the notice with information of hearing. Top
(Page No. 113 to 115)
Proposed Sub-Division Regulations Sub-division Regulations:-
(a) Sanctioning of a layout plan for residential purpose shall be subject to the following conditions:
(i) 50% of the total area shall
be earmarked for residential sites.
|The purpose of these regulations is to guide the
development of new areas in accordance with the land use plan. As long
as this is done on sound planning principles with adequate space
standards, the future of the city is assured. The sub-division
regulations is confined to standards of size of the plots, street widths
and community facilities.
In sanctioning the sub -division of a plot/land under Section 17 of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, the Bangalore Development Authority shall among other things see that the following standards shall be followed for division of plots.
(1) Size of Plots: No building plot resulting from the sub-division is smaller in size than 0.4 hectares in the agricultural zone and 50 sq. mts. in all other zones. However, the Authority may relax this provision in case of sites formed for E.W.S. and plots sub-divided due to family partitions.
|(3) areas for open spaces and
(a) Sanctioning of a layout plan for residential purpose shall be subject to the following conditions:
(i) 50% of the total area shall be earmarked
for residential sites.
(ii) The remaining 50% of the total area shall be earmarked for
roads, parks and play grounds and civic amenities.
(iii) Out of 50% of the area so reserved, parks and playgrounds shall
not be less than 15% of the total area and the balance is for roads and
(ii) The remaining 50% of the total area shall be earmarked for roads, parks and play grounds and civic amenities.
(iii) Out of 50% of the area so reserved, parks and playgrounds shall not be less than 15% of the total area and the balance is for roads and civic amenities.
|The proposed use of land should be
indicated in the Layout plan.
Note: It should also satisfy all the requirements stipulated, under Section 17 of Karnataka Town & Country Planning Act and Section 32 of BDA, 1976.
If plot of official records at the time of adoption of these regulations is smaller than the minimum size specified for the zone in which it is located and compliance with requirements of these regulations is not feasible, the Bangalore Development Authority may permit the plot to be used as a plot/site.
|To the Notice issued by Lokayukta; BDA replied that Layout is still not approved. [See "Addl Info Folder -BDA.Lokayukta Correspondense Folder for Photocopies"|
|SUPREME COURT defined the effects of FRAUD in Govt. action or on/in Court & consequently the Duty ofCourts thus|
1) AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT 853
Short Note : Proceedings in court --Fraud by litigant - withholding of vital document relevant to litigation --It is Fraud on court --Guilty party is thrown out of court at any stage -- Litigant obtaining preliminary decree --Decree is vitiated by Fraud .
At paragraph 7: " Finality of litigation " can not be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an Engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants . The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One, who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused ……………….. . We have no hesitation to say that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
At para. 8 : " A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another . It is a deception in order to gain by another's loss .It is a cheating intended to get an advantage ".
Fraud avoids all acts , ecclesiastical or temporal" observed Chief
Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the
settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing
fraud on the Court is a nullity and non-est. in the eyes of law.
Such a Judgment / decree by the first Court or by the highest Court -
has to be treated as a nullity by every Court, whether superior or
inferior. It can be challenged in any Court even in collateral
2 ) AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2592
At Para. 20; This plea could not have been legally ignored by the Commission which needs to be reminded that Authorities be they Constitutional , Statutory or Administrative , ( and particularly those who have to decide lis ) possess the power to recall their judgement or Orders if they are obtained by Fraud as Fraud & Justice never dwell together .(Frau's et jus nunquam cohabitant ) . It has been repeatedly said that Fraud and Deceit defend of excuse no man.(Fraus et dolus namino patri cinary debent ).
At Para. 21 :In Smith Vs East Elloe Rural District Council 1956 AC 736 , the House of Lords held that the effect of Fraud would normally be to vitiate any act or order .
In Lazarus Estate Ltd Vs Beasley , ( 1956 ) 1 QB. 702 at 712 , Denning LJ said
" No Judgement of a court , no Order of a Minister , can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by Fraud . Fraud unravels Everything ."
At Para . 22 : The Judiciary in India also possesses inherent Power , specially under Section 151 CPC to recall its judgement or Order if it is obtained by fraud on court …………… .These powers spring not from legislation but from the nature & ……..or courts themselves so as to enable them to maintain their Dignity ,….. . This power is necessary for the orderly administration of the court's business .
At Para. 23 . : Since Fraud effects Solemnity , Regularity & Orderliness of the Proceedings of the Court and also amounts to an abuse of process of Court , the Courts have been held to have inherent Power to set aside an Order obtained by Fraud practiced upon that Court . Similarly , where the Court is Misled by a Party or the Court itself Commits a Mistake which prejudices a party , the court has the Inherent Power to recall its order .
At Para. 26 : In Webster Dictionary , International Education , " Forgery" is defined as :- " The act of falsely making or materially altering ,with intent to defraud ; any writing which , if genuine , might of legal efficacy on the foundation of a legal liability . "
3 ) AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 1165 .
Short Title ( A ) Civil P.C (5 of 1908 ). Sec.151 :--Power to recall its order --Order obtained by practicing fraud --Every Court / Tribunal has power to recall such order .
No Court or …. can be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if it is convinced that the order was wangled through Fraud or Misrepresentation of such a dimension as would affect the very basis of claim .
Para - 14 :- In S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu ( dead ) by L Rs. v. Jagnnath ( dead ) by Lrs., ( 1994 ) 2 SCC 1 ( AIR 1994 SC 853 ) the two Judges Bench of this Court held : " Fraud avoids all acts , ecclesiastical or temporal" observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the Court is a nullity and non-est in the eyes of law. Such a Judgment / decree by the first Court or by the highest Court - has to be treated as a nullity by every Court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court even in collateral proceedings.."
Para - 15 :- In Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres ( India ) Pvt. Ltd.. ( 1996 ) 5 SCC 550: ( 1996 AIR SCW 3281 AIR 1996 SC 2592 ) another two Judges bench, after making reference to a number of earlier decisions rendered by different High Courts in India, stated the legal position thus: "Since fraud affects the solemnity, regularity and orderliness of the proceedings of the Court and also amounts to an abuse of the process of Court, the Courts have been held to have inherent power to set aside an order obtained by fraud practiced upon that Court. Similarly, where the Court is misled by a party or the Court itself commits a mistake which prejudices a party, the Court has the inherent power to recall its order."COURT defined the effects of FRAUD in Govt. action or on/in Court & consequently the
High Court (of Karnataka) Directive to Co-operative Society.
(Deccan Herald, January 23-01-2003, Page No. 05)
Bangalore: Jan 22 (DHNS) The Karnataka High Court today directed the Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees' House Building Co-operative Society not to change the nature of a site, which was reserved as civic amenity site for the purpose of construction of a temple, in Judicial Layout on Bellary Road.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice N.K. Jain and Justice K. Bhaktavatsala passed the above order on a public interest litigation filed by Judicial Layout Residents' and Site Holders' Association.
The association has alleged in the petition that the Society was illegally converting the open space reserved for parks, sites reserved for civic amenities, underground drainage, roads in the layout as residential sites in clear violation of the layout plan approved by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). The society had formed 2,048 residential sites by utilizing some portion of 193 acres of land allotted to it by the government. The remaining portion was kept for various public purposes. The petitioner alleged that the society had sold more than 500 sites in addition to 2048 sites by illegally converting land reserved for other purpose.
The petitioner also said BDA which as per the law had to take over the control of open space in the layout had failed to discharge its duty. The High Court has also ordered issue of notices of BDA and Yelahanka CMC.
Leave Petition [C] No. 21000 of 1993
JAGANNADHA RAO & U.C. BANERJEE,JJ.
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY
Transfer of Property Act, 1882:- Section 55 [b] - Property auctioned to highest bidder- Default by bidder [Skippers] in deposit of consideration even under revised agreement - Matter in Court - Bidder prohibited from inducting any person or creating rights in favour of third parties-Still entering in so sale agreement-Re-entry by DDA-Earlier proceedings noting that Skippers have collected huge amount from purchasers-DDA re-auctioning plot with incomplete building-Certain amount deposited by DDA in Court-Purchasers under agreements in respect of same property-If have statutory charge against interest of vendor in the property-Court attaching properties and bank accounts of Skippers-If charge can be enforced against substituted security-Are the purchasers entitled to claim interest. Held that buyer has a statutory charge on converted security and is also entitled to interest.
HELD:- In the absence of a contract to the contrary, the buyer will have a charge on the seller's interest in the property which is the subject matter of the sale agreement insofar as the purchase money and interest on such amount are concerned, unless the buyer has improperly declined to accept delivery. The charge is available against the seller and all persons claiming under him. The buyer's charge under this Section is a statutory charge and differs from a contractual charge which a buyer may be entitled to claim under a separate contract. [Para - 29]
When the property upon which the charge is created gets converted into another form, the buyer will be entitled to proceed against the substituted security. This is, a general principle of law and Section 73 of the Transfer of Property Act is only an example of the said principle. If immovable property is charged and is converted into another property or money, then the charge will fasten on the property or money into which the subject matter of the agreement is converted. [ Para - 30 ]
HELD: - In
this case, Skipper entered into a large number of bookings, nearly three
times the available units of accommodation and collected monies. This
was fraudulent, Skipper, therefore, cannot be allowed to rely upon the
term relating to 'contract to the contrary' and escape the payment of
interest. Once there is fraud, the inducement for payment by the
purchasers cannot be traced to the agreement. In the judgement of this
Court dated May 6th, 1996, this Court has already observed,
that interest is payable to both pre 29-01-1991 and post 29-01-1991
purchasers. [ Paras - 36, 37 ]
M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.
[ 1 ] On May 6 th , 1996 this Court delivered judgment in Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. [P] Ltd. JT 1996  SC 679 = [1996  SCC 622 ]. Thereafter, various other issues regarding the Skipper group of Companies continued to pose serious issues of law and fact. Sometimes, it looked like a maze which could baffle lawyers and courts alike. More claims with regard to Jhandewalan property which was the subject matter of the above case, of persons who claimed to be purchasers of space proposed to be built at Jhandewalan came before us. In addition, claims of similar purchasers or property at Barkhamba Road and also in regard to Technology Park, came before us. In this judgment, we propose to deal with certain issues concerning the Jhandewalan property, which have remained undecided or not decided finally in the earlier orders of this Court.
[ 2 ] In order to understand how these issues arise, it is necessary to go back [A] to the long history of events set out in the above said judgement and [B] to the subsequent events. In Part [C] we shall deal with four issues which have crystallised. In the rest of this judgment Delhi Development Authority is described as DDA and Skipper Construction Company [P] Ltd. is described as Skipper, for convenience.
PART - (A)
[ 3 ] In October, 1980, Skipper became the highest bidder for purchase of a plot of land at Jhandewalan in Delhi which was advertised for sale for Rs. 9.82 crores and deposited 25% of the price. The balance was to be deposited as per the tender schedule. Skipper defaulted in spite of seven extensions during January 1981 to April 1982. When proceedings for cancellation of the bid were in the offing, Skipper moved the Court and obtained a stay order on 29-05-1982 and started making representations. DDA appointed a Committee to work out a formula and pursuant to the recommendations of the Committee, Skipper was asked to enter into a revised agreement incorporating fresh terms. Skipper raised objections to these proposals from 1984 till 1987 but finally the agreement was entered into on 11-08-1987. Even before permission to enter was however granted under the revised agreement, skipper started selling the space to be built in the proposed structure and started receiving monies. Though skipper paid the 1st installment much beyond the time, it did not pay the second installment but furnished Bank guarantees which were found to be defective. It however made some token payments to DDA. Subsequently, CWP. 2371/1989 was filed for a direction to DDA to sanction plans/permit construction at its risk. On 19-03-1990, High Court of Delhi permitted construction in accordance with sanctioned plan subject to deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs in two installments and 1.94 crores in one month. DDA filed SLP [C] 6338/90 and 6339/90. Meanwhile, the Delhi High Court passed an order in the WP. 2371/89 on 21-12-1990 directing payment of Rs. 8.12 crores approx. in 30 days and stopped further construction w.e.f. 09-01-1991 till payment and stated that in default, the revised agreement dated 11-08-1987 would would stand cancelled and DDA would be entitled to re-enter the plot. Reasons for the order were given on 14-01-1991, Skipper defaulted but approached this Court on 29-01-1991 in SLP [C] 186/91 when this court passed an interim order for deposit of Rs. 2.5 crores in one month and Rs. 2.5 crores before 08-04-1991 and Skipper was expressly prohibited from inducting any person in the building and from creating any rights in favour advertisement on 04-02-1991 and on latter dates in newspapers in Delhi and invited further purchasers to purchase the space in the proposed building. Sales agreements were entered into be certain purchasers inspite of DDA's warning dated 13-02-1991 published in newspapers. SLP [C] 186/91 was dismissed on 25-01-1993.
[ 4 ] DDA re-entered the plot and took physical possession on 10-02-1993 along with the building thereon " free from all encumbrances" in terms of the revised agreement/licence and as provided in the orders of the Delhi High Court dated 21-12-1990 and 14-01-1991. It also "forfeited" the amounts paid till then by Skipper in terms of the revised agreement dated 11-08-1987 and the judgment of the Delhi High Court.
[ 5 ] It is stated in DDA v. Skipper Construction Co. [P] Ltd. JT 1996  SC 679 = (1996 (4) SCC 622) That before 29-01-1991 Skipper collected about Rs. 14 crores from various parties to sell space in the proposed building. Even after 29-01-1991, Skipper collected various amounts, about Rs. 11 crores. It appears that the same space was sold to more than one person and monies were collected.
[ 6 ] Skipper
filed Suit No. 770/93 against DDA seeking injunction restraining DDA
from interfering with its alleged title and possession over the plot and
sought a declaration that the re-entry by DDA was illegal and sought a
ceclaration that it had validly paid all amounts due to DDA. It obtainde
stay of re-auction Against the order dated 09-12-1993, DDAfiled
SLP.21000/93.This Court issued suo moto contempt proceedings
against Tejwant Singh and his wife (Surinder Kaur), Directors of
Skipper. This Court held them guilty of contempt and under Article
129 and Article 142, sentenced them to imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000
each. Attachment orders were passed on: 08-2-1995 as follows:
[ 7 ] DDA invited fresh tenders and sold the plot with the 14th floor structure [incomplete] to M/s Banganga Investments [ Videocon] for Rs. 70 crores. The sale was accepted with permission of Court and the purchaser deposited the consideration with DDA and the land and structure stood transferred to the purchaser.
[ 8 ] This Court felt concerned about the buyers to whom space was sold before 29-01-1991 and later. Claims of those who purchased before 29-01-1991 were estimated to amount Rs. 14 crores. DDA was therefore directed to deposit Rs. 16.75 crores in this Court.
[ 9 ] This Court appointed Justice R. C. Lahoti Commission to go into the claims of purchasers before 29-01-1991 and a report dated 02-02-1996 was submitted by that committee. A sum of Rs. 13.27 crores approx. was paid to about 700 persons.
[ 10 ] This Court appointed Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy to inquire into role of DDA officers and Report was received on 07-07-1995. This Court appointed Justice Saharya Commission to inquire into conduct of Bank officials. A Report was submitted in that connection. The issues arising from the said reports would be taken up later.
[ 11 ] Another order was passed on 06-05-1996 appointing Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy to go into the post 29-01-1991 sales and a Report was submitted. In respect of these purchasers, the principal amount of about Rs. 6.50 crores held due to them has been paid from funds lying in deposit in this court.
[ 12 ]
The judgment of this Court in DDA v. Skipper Construction Co. [P]
Ltd. JT 1996  SC 679 = [1996 SCC 622 ] shows that DDA filed a list
of properties held by Tejwant Singh, his wife, Surinder Kaur and their
sons and daughters which properties, according to them, belonged to
these persons. Question arose whether the various companies of which
they were directors were merely 'fronts' or "devices" to
defraud and defeat the claims of purchasers. Then
this Court held that [a] the contemners could not be allowed to enjoy or
retain the fruits of contempt; [b] the corporate veil could be lifted
and that the Courts was not precluded from treating the priorities as
"one entity belonging to Tejwant Singh and family" [c] that
the concept of resulting trust laid down in Attorney General for India
v. Amratlal Prajivandas JT 1994  SC 583=[1994 SCC 54], could be
applied, [d] that Article 142 could be applied, in the absence of
statutory provision, and that when:
[ 13 ] In the judgment, this Court held [ See para 34]  that pre 29-01-1991 purchasers had to be reimbursed in full, "which means that they should also be paid interest at the appropriate rate."  Secondly, the post 29-01-1991 purchasers had also to be reimbursed "in full".  Ignoring the corporate veil, the property under lease to Israel Embassy at No. 3, Aurangjeb Road, could be sold.  For that purpose it would stand attached [if not already attached] and the said property would be sold if Tejwant Singh and wife were not able to deposit Rs. 10 crores by 06-07-1996  attachment of all properties was to continue including the one on properties mentioned in IA. 29/96 filed by DDA. [Skipper failed to make the payment as directed above].
[ 14 ] The above is the long list of events and orders/directions issued in DDA v. Skipper Construction Co. [P] Ltd. JT 1996  SC 679=[1996  SCC 622].