(O. S. No. 6003/1999 " Affidavit of Plantiff " at Page No. 59 to 62 of File )

IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE : AT BANGALORE.
O.S. No. 6003 of 1999.

PLAINTIFF: The Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society Ltd.,

-Vs-

DEFENDANTS: M. Muniyappa and Another.


AFFIDAVIT.

I, S. SURESHKUMAR, Son of Siddalingappa, Major, Secretary, of the Plaintiff Society, High Court Building, Bangalore, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:-

(1) The Plaintiff is a Registered House Building Co-operative Society under the Karnataka Co-operative societies, Act. The Society has been formed with the avowed intention of providing House sites and Houses mainly to the persons working in different courts in the state. The society after its formation, took steps to acquire the land for the purpose of formation of layout. In this regard, the promoters of the Plaintiff-Society found that the lands in Allalalasandra, Chikkabommasandra, and Jakkur plantation may be suitable, the Villagers of the said Allalasandra, Chikkabommasandra and Jakkur plantation came forward offering their lands to be purchased/acquired by the plaintiff society, for formation of layout and house sites. The plaintiff considering the said offer made by the Number of Villagers of about more than 200 acres as compact area, decided to purchase and acquire the said lands in the said Villages.

(2) I submit that the 1st Defendant as owner of land Sy. No. 98/7, of Allalasandra Village, offered to sell the said land in favour of the Plaintiff-Society along with other Villagers and entered into an agreement in favour of the Plaintiff. It was agreed to be sold at the rate of Rs.80,000/- per acre which was the prevailing market rate at that time. Pursuant to the said agreement of sale, the Defendants received advance amount and delivered possession of the land to the Plaintiff. It was also agreed that the plaintiff is entitled to get the land, acquired through the machinery of the Government.

(3) I submit that the Plaintiff-Society also having entered into agreement that the several persons for purchase of the land for formation of layout during 1983-84, onwards approached the Government of Karnataka, for acquiring the said Defendant and other persons. While entering into an agreement, the 1st Defendant and other land owners have agreed that the plaintiff was at liberty to proceed with the Development of the land in question. Accordingly, the Government has also initiated acquisition proceedings to acquire the lands in favour of the plaintiff. However, while issuing Notification, the land in question and some other lands being left out from being included in the acquisition proceedings and these lands which come in the middle of the lands acquired in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff immediately thereafter corresponded with the Government for taking further acquisition proceedings in respect of the remaining lands. After such correspondence, the Government has also accorded permission to acquire the remaining extant of 39 acres of land, which his inclusive of suit Schedule property and directed the Deputy Commissioner to initiate the acquisition proceedings by issuing a preliminary Notification. The plaintiff has also thereon approached the Deputy Commissioner to issue 4(1) Notification to acquire the said lands along with other lands, and at that juncture the details of the lands, and at that juncture the details of the land was also called. The plaintiff submitted the persons whose lands are to be acquired who have entered agreement of sale with the plaintiff, including the 1st Defendant herein and the lands with the extent to be acquired including the suit schedule property of land Sy. No. 98/7 of Allalasandra Village. When the matter stood at that stage, the Government of Karnataka, has taken a decision in regard to the acquisition of lands in favour of the House Building Co-operative Societies, that instead of acquiring the lands in their favour for formation of layout, such societies would be permitted to acquire lands by directly purchasing it from the owners of giving permission in respect of the same as required under the Karnataka land Reforms Act. It is in view of the said Decision now taken by the government, the Plaintiff is entitled to purchase the land of the defendant pursuant to the said agreement of sale and Defendants have to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. In fact, the plaintiff has called upon the 1st Defendant to execute the Sale Deed in that regard for appertaining him directly.

(4) I submit that however, the Defendants No.1 and 2 colluding with each other however, fraudulently now appears to have created a Sale Deed in favour of the 2nd Defendant even though the 1st Defendant, has not right to sell the land in favour of the 2nd Defendant or any body, and even though the 1st Defendant is not in possession of the land in question and even though they knew that the land in question has lost its Character as agricultural land on account of the formation of layout along with other lands by forming the Roads, laying water supply lines, sewerage line and also providing electricity lines and by formation of layout, site numbers were given and sites were allotted to its members by executing Registered Sale Deeds in their favour and their Some of them have already constructed the Buildings and thus it ceases to be an agricultural lands. The said collusive act of the Defendants is with ulterior motive. I submit that the 1st Defendant, now taking advantage of undue delay in initiating the acquisition proceedings by the government by issuing Notification, under the Land Acquisition Act, began to act advance to the interest the plaintiff-society and by colluding with the 2nd Defendant purport to create documents in favour of the 2nd Defendant, styled as Indenture of Sale Deed, but it is actually not a Sale Deed. The said documents have been created by the Defendants wit ulterior motive and the same is not binding on the plaintiff. I submit that the 1st Defendant has no right to execute any such Sale Deed and it is only with sole object to defeat the rights of the plaintiff. The 2nd Defendant did not drive any title by virtue of the Sale Deed, said to have been executed by the 1st Defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant.

the Defendants are not in possession of the suit schedule property. In view of the same the so-called sale deed by the 1st Defendant in favour of the 2n Defendant, is a sham, collusive document, which did not create any right in favour of the 2nd Defendant. It is a sham transaction and void in law.

(5) I submit that the plaintiff-society is in possession and entitled to protect its possession as the 1st Defendant by entering into agreement of the sale receiving part of the sale consideration delivered possession to the plaintiff and the plaintiff being in possession of the said land, has developed the said land as a residential layout spending crores or rupees and providing all amenities and the possession of the plaintiff is protected as the same is in pursuance of the part performance of the agreement of sale. The Defendants cannot be allowed to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment and its members at this stage taking advantage of the fact, that the land was not acquired by the Government and that the 1st Defendant who is now required to execute the sale deed pursuant to the Agreement of sale, has not executed the Agreement of sale with ulterior motive, and in collusion with the 2nd Defendant. I submit that the Defendants, now on the basis of the purported sale deed in favour of the 2nd Defendant, have approached the A.D.I.R., Bangalore, to measure and demarcate the suit schedule property with ulterior motive, even though it cannot be identified to measure or demarcate in view of the fact, that it has merged with the other land in the formation of layout . The A.D.L.R. is now at the instance of the Defendants, bent upon to enter into the land and to effect survey purportedly to demarcate and identify the suit schedule property even though it is not possible to identify the same and thereby are trying to disturb and interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. The Defendants are acting in collusion with the rowdy elements in causing interference with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. The Defendants are not entitled to do it. The said acts are not bonafide but with ulterior motive for obligee reasons. If the Defendants are not prevented from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment, the plaintiffs will be put to irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. The Plaintiff has got balance of convenience, and has got a good case on merits. In view of the same, it is just and necessary to prevent the threatened action of the Defendants, and the purported survey to be done by the A.D.L.R. on the applications of the Defendants with their collusion by passing an order of temporary injunction, restraining the Defendants from doing such illegal activities the Defendants will not be put to any injury or loss .

(6) In view of the above facts and circumstances, if an order of temporary injunction is not granted by dispensing with the issuance of the notice to the Defendants, before granting such an order, the plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss, great injustice and the Defendants will definitely cause irreparable loss and injury to the plaintiff. As such, it is just and necessary to grant an expect order of temporary injection by dispensing with the notice to the Defendants.

WHEREFORE, I pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order of temporary injection restraining the Defendants, their men and other persons, claiming under them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiffs and its allottees of the sites formed in the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the above suit, which is necessary in the interest of justice and equity.

Bangalore. Dated: 03-08-1999. DEPONENT.

Identified by me. SWORN TO BEFORE ME.

ADVOCATE

Top