ANNEXURE `K '

[ Page No. 72 - 92. of W.P.No.40994 of 2002 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

WRIT PETITION NO. 11211 OF 1995.

BETWEEN:

S. VASUDEVA. PETITIONER.

AND:

[1] State of Karnataka,

[2] Karnataka state Judicial Department Employees

House Building Co-operative society Limited, and others. Respondents.

STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS FILED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT No.2 _ KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES' HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,

Respondent No.2 above _ named (hereinafter also referred to as "society") begs to file the following statement of objections to the writ petition.

[1] In this writ petition, which purports to be one in public interest, the relief's sought include:-

[i] quashing the preliminary and final notifications Dated:11-02-1988 and 24-02-1989 issued under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984:

[ii] quashing the allotment of sites by Respondent No.2 Respondents 3 to 31;

[iii] for a direction to Respondents 3 to 31 to surrender their membership of the society and the sites allotted to them by the society;

[iv] for a writ or direction to the State Government to direct the Registrar of Co-operative societies to take action under section 64 of the Karnataka Co-operative societies Act, for alleged violation of certain provisions of the said Act;

[v] for a direction to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore, to hold an enquiry and to take action in respect of certain payments made by Respondent No.2 to Respondent No. 37.

It is submitted that the said relief's are all groundless, misconceived and untenable. No public interest is involved or adversely affected by what Respondent No. 2 society has done, warranting interference and that too, at the instance of a total stranger to the society. Petitioner is not a member of the society and has also no interest in the acquired land or sites formed therein. He is in no way affected by the impugned actions of the society public as such are not concerned with the acts of the society. No public interest is jeopardized and petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.

[2] The Karnataka Judicial Department Employees' House Building Co-operative Society Limited (Respondent No.2) is a co-operative society, which has been duly registered with the Registrar of co-operative societies in Karnataka. It is not "state" or "Authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution of India, nor is its functioning amenable to attack at the instance of utter strangers to the society like the petitioner and it is not amenable the writ jurisdiction. The members of the public as such have no locus standi to call in question the acts or omissions of the society or to take exception to the acquisition of land for the society, the making of a layout therein and allotment of sites formed by the society. This is entirely a matter of internal administration of the society, which total strangers such as the petitioner has no right to question, quite apart from the fact that there are no grounds whatever to warrant or justify the attack made by the petitioner in the writ petition.

[3] In the course of the petition, several wrong statements of facts and distortions there of have been indulged in and on such basis, wild allegations have been made against the society and Respondents _3 to 31, who are members thereof. It is submitted that a writ petition which attempts at unwarranted interference in the affairs of society and scandalizing the judiciary and Judges, should be nipped in the bud to protect further damage to the Constitutional institutions and office.

The attack against the society is wholly un-justified is clear from the facts set out hereunder.

[4] The society is a members' co-operative society which is registered as such on 11-08-1983, under the provisions of the Karnataka co-operative societies Act. Those serving in the judicial department in Karnataka as also the Judges of the High Court and the subordinate courts are eligible to be admitted to its membership. One of the objects of the society is to acquire land, make a layout of house sites therein and allot them to its members. The society is managed by the Executive Committee elected by the General Body of the members of the society at the Annual meetings held once in three years. There are presently 2,560 members on the rolls of the society. Among these, there are thirty six (36) Judges of the High Court including retired Judges.

[5] For the purpose of making a layout of those sties and allotment thereof to its members, the society selected an area of about 200 acres situated al Allalasandra, Chikkabommasandra and Jakkur Plantation Villages in Bangalore North Taluk, on the cut-skirts of the corporation of the City of Bangalore, at a distance of about 12 KMS. From the City limits, next to Yelahanka satellite Town. Thereafter, the society contacted the land owners, numbering about 70 and were able to obtain agreements from them in January 1984, for sale to the society to their respective lands at mutually agreed prices which were in no way less than the then ruling market value.

[6] In order to solve the problem arising under the land Reforms Act and questions of title, at a later stage., it was felt that it would be safer to get the lands under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Government was approached in this behalf for assistance, placing the entire scheme before the Government and how it was in public interest to acquire the required land for the society, the enable it to promote .

[Note : remaining portion of para 6 & portion of para 7 ; appearing at page 77 of WP is invisible hence is left-out. Page No. 78 which contains last portion of para 7 & remaining paras are continued below ]

[ 7 ]

An Award was made by the Land Acquisition Officer on 11-02-1990. All except two owners, namely, Pappaiah, and Muniswamappa, accepted the Award, received the compensation and delivered possession of the acquired lands. Only these two land owners, Pappaiah and Muniswamappa, challenged the acquisition and in spite of having entered into agreement with the society for sale of their lands and also receiving earnest monies pursuant thereto, through W.P.Nos. 3995 and 6556/1990. They were both dismissed after final hearing by this Hon'ble court as per judgment Dated: 17-11-1992.

[8] After acquisition of the lands as aforesaid was completed, a layout of sites had been made by the society. The number of house sites formed in this layout is 2,048. Formal inauguration of the Layout work was made on 01-05-1991 and was continued without break. The work is nearly complete except for drawing of electrical mains. The house sites laid out are of varying dimension ranging from 30'X40' to 80'X120'.

(a) 845 sites of the size 30'X 40'

(b) 070 sites of the size 30'X 45'

(c) 493 sites of the size 40'X 60'

(d) 220 sites of the size 30'X 50'

(e) 080 site of the size 50'X 80'

(f) 104 sites of the size 60' X 90'

(g) 039 sites of the size 80' X 120'

(h) 197 odd sites.

[ Total sites: 2048 ]

Provision has been made for roads, street lighting, water supply, sanitary mains and all other amenities necessary for a comfortable living. Besides provision has also been made for meeting public amenities required for the locality such as provision for park, stadium,

Play grounds, hospital, temple, schools, educational institutions, etc., keeping in view the norms prescribed by Bangalore Development Authority. Two large water storage tanks have been constructed & Five Bore-wells with Pumps are sunk. All this work has so far entailed an out-lay of about Eight Crores to meeting the cost of purchase / Acquisition of land, making the Layout , providing Roads, water supply, and sanitary mains, drainage and public lighting and other amenities for the locality.

[ 9 ] Out of the sites formed as aforesaid, about 1700 sites have already been allotted to Members as per resolution of the Executive Committee of the Society Dated January 4th 1993. Among them, 1000 allottees have already paid the full prices, taken sale deeds executed by Society in their favor and have also been put in possession of the sites by Society. Some of them have started construction.

[ 10 ] For the purpose of assisting the Society in the matter of forming the Lay-out and carrying out the development works which involve technical ability and skill, the Society entered into agreement dated November 12th 1986 with a Firm called "Devatha

Builders ", Respondent No. 37 herein, and they have assisted the Society in pursuing matters related to Acquisition, its development, formation of the Layout and all works connected with or incidental thereto. The amounts paid to them pursuant to the said Agreement have all been paid only by means of crossed Cheques and the same have been duly accounted for in the Books of Society. The Books of Account of the Society have been duly Audited . No adverse comments have been made against the Society by any of the Auditors, who audited the accounts for the year up to 1990-91. But during the subsequent period, one Auditor, by name M.S.Siriyannawar made a few adverse remarks. The reason for such adverse remarks is no any intrinsic lapses on the part of the society relating to the accounts, but is the unwillingness to give him bribes for certification of the accounts. The manner in which he conducted himself towards the society is set cut in detail by its letter Dated:05-04-1995 addressed by second Respondent-Society to the Director of Co-operative Audit and the same has been received on 06-04-1995. This letter is accompanied by an affidavit given by the Manager of the Society. These are filed herewith as ANNEXURE-`R-2. It is submitted that no value can be attached to the comments made by the Auditor in these circumstances. The criticism made by the Auditor is factually wrong.

For the reasons, it is submitted that the writ petition and the grounds of attack made therein against the society are wholly groundless and untenable.

[11] Now traversing the averments in the writ petition Para wise, it is submitted as follows:-

[12] Re: Para _ 1 :- The allegation that preventive or corrective measures are required immediately regarding the affairs of the society and that failure to do so will result in rule of law and administration of justice suffering, is bascules and unwarranted.

[13] Re: Para _ 2 :- While it is true that the society is registered under the co-operative societies Act, the allegation that the object of the society had been defeated by throwing open its members to the Judges, is baseless and unwarranted.

[14] Re: Para _ 3 :- The agreements were entered into by the society with the land owners. The area covered by the Agreement is not 237 Acres 14 Guntas, but only about 17 Acres. Notification issued under Section 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act are not open to any legal objection. It is false that the society, by allowing the Judges to become members, indirectly or otherwise prevailed upon the government and other statutory bodies to get requisite sanction/permission for acquisition. The objective of the society and the purpose for which acquisition was sought to be made were duly considered and approved by the Government and it is only thereafter that the Government was pleased to direct the acquisition of the lands to be made were duly considered and approved by the Government and it is only thereafter that the Government was pleased to direct the acquisition of the lands to be made.

[15] Re: Para _ 4 :- The allegation in the Para that a bridge had been constructed for providing easy approach to the Layout is irresponsible, absolutely baseless and false. No bridge has been constructed to provide approach to the society's layout. Such irresponsible statements as these warrant dismissal of the writ petition.

[16] Re: Para _ 5 :- The allegation that Judges have been the beneficiaries of the society and that the society has bartered away clandestinely and surreptitiously the sites of huge dimensions to the Judges, seeming, transferred or retired as alleged, is baseless and irresponsible. As stated earlier, the number of sites which have been laid cut in the acquired lands by the society is 2048. of these, the number of sites so far allotted to High Court Judges including retired, is barely 36. There are no sites of the dimension of 100' X 180' or 120' by 100'. The dimensions of the sites and the number of sites of different dimensions which been given earlier in Para _ 8. The prices at which these sites are allotted is also different. In the case of sites of larger dimension (80' X 120') the rate is Rs. 30.64 per sq. 28.25 per sq. ft and for other sites, the rate is Rs. 25.66 per sq. ft. The Prices charged per site as above, is inclusive of the land cost as well as development charges.

[17] Re: Para _ 6 :- It is true that allotments have been made to High Court Judges, who were members of the society. It is not true that Justice Mohan has informed the society that he has declined to accept the same. All these allotments have been made after due consideration by the society.

[18] Re: Para _ 7 and 8 :- It is true that several Judges mentioned in these paragraphs are members of the society.

[19] Re: Para _ 9 :- The sites have been formed after the layout was approved by the B.D.A. the contention to the contrary is factually incorrect. This is evident from the letter dated: 28-11-1992 from the B.D.A. to the society, filed herewith as ANNEXURE _`R-3'.

[20] Re: Para _ 10 :- The contention in this Para is untenable. As members of the Society, the High Court Judges are also entitled to allotment of sites. The total number of sites allotted to them is negligible compared to what is allotted to other members.

[21] Re: Para _11 :- It is false that Judges by becoming members prevailed upon the statutory bodies and others in power to get the acquisition made and formation of sites therein. The comment that benefit derived by the society is illegal, immoral and not justified in law, is wholly unwarranted.

[22] Re: Para _ 12 :- The artic of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court of that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to in this Para is not applicable here. The facts are different here. The acquisition was made here for the purpose of making a layout and the distribution of sites was to the members of the society and not to any others. There is nothing which is improper or objectionable in the conduct of the society. There is no middlemen in the case of this layout.

[23] Re: Para _13 :- The agreement entered into by the society with Devatha Builders, Respondent No. 37 is not open to any objection (The date of the Agreement is not 11-12-1986 but 12-11-1986). Respondent No. 37 had experience and expertise in developing lands and he had all the necessary infrastructure and staff for the purpose of taking up the development of the land to form the layout. Much prior to the agreement of the Society with the Respondent No.37, the latter had entered into an agreement with the owners of the land on 16-01-1984 itself. It is for the development of the lands and making the layout. That the assistance of Respondent No.37 was taken. A full reading of the Agreement will show that it is not open to and criticism or objection as the one made by the petitioners. It is wrong to describe Respondent No.37 as a middleman. Devatha Builders were a firm of Engineering Contractors and they have carried cut the entire work of the layout including making of roads, drainage, a water supply, provision of electricity, true planting and all other amenities which are required in a Layout. Whatever money have been given to them, either by way of remuneration for their services or for meeting the costs of acquisition or development have been paid only by crossed cheques, after deducting the deduct able tax according to the Income Tax Law. The criticism contained in the Audit report of Sri. M. Siriyannawar is distorted and totally against fact and is a result of the society not a acceding to his demand for bribe, as stated earlier. The manner in which the said Auditor conducted himself in relation to the society is set cut in the complaint lodged with the Director of co-operative Audit. Such a distorted and corrupt report cannot be the basis for criticism referred to in this paragraph.

[24] Re: Para _ 15 :- The allegation that the 2nd Respondent has paid Rs. 94,38,572/- to Respondent No. 37 and that he has not been able to account for the same is absolutely false. Respondent No. 37 has duly accounted for every rupee paid to him. It is false that and money has been given to Respondent No. 37 for the purpose of passing it on to persons in power to get the acquisition notifications issued, as alleged by the petitioner. [25] Re: Para _16 :- The allegation in this Para is again baseless and false. All the land owners entered into agreements and lands were subsequently acquired and they have delivered possession. Only two persons objected to the acquisition (S/Sri. Pappaiah and Muniswamappa). Even their lands have been taken possession pursuant to the acquisition. The allegation in the Audit report that 2nd Respondent has not taken possession of the land in the midst of the layout is false and is deliberate distortion of facts.

[26] Re: Para _ 17 :- As stated earlier, no middleman is engaged by the society for the purpose of approaching persons in power. It is equally false to contend that the Agreement is opposed to public policy. The land owner were willing parties to the agreement and took no exception to the acquisition or the award. The allegation that the Agreement with Respondent No. 37 is opposed to public policy is wholly untenable.

[27] Re: Para-18 :- It is true that Government of Karnataka appointed a committee called "G.V.K. Rao Committee" to go into certain alleged irregularities in regard to various House Building Co-operative Societies. So far as this Respondent is concerned, the Committee has not made any adverse criticism, but on the contrary, had appreciated the good work done by the society. The comment that the rate agreed upon for payment to Respondent No. 37 is on the High side, is not justified, having regard to the volume of work involved and the rate ruling in B.D.A. itself for such work.

[28] Re: Para _19 :- The inference of the petitioner from the statement of Shivalingaiah given before the G.V.K. Rao Committee is not correct.

[29] Re: Para _20 :- The allegation that Respondent Nos. 3 to 31 have sworn to false affidavits that they are not owning house or sites, in order to secure allotment of sites from the society, is absolutely false. None of the Respondents 3 to 31 has furnished any affidavit. Owning of site is not a disqualification for allotment by the society. Not all the Respondents 3 to 31 owned other sites or houses, when the society made allotments.

[30] Re: Para _22:- The contention in this Para is untenable.

[31] Re: Para _ 23:- The oath taken by the High Court Judges on assumption of their offices does not preclude them from becoming members of the society or seeking allotment of sites there from.

[32] Re: Para _24:- The report of the Auditor for the years 1991-92, 92-93 and 93-94 were malafide and due to refusal of the society to give him the bribe sought. The report is a result of distortion of facts and omission to properly lock into the account.

[33] Re: Para _25:- It is untenable to contend that Judges cannot become members of this Respondent Society.

[34] Re: Para _26:- Petitioner has no locus standi. He is not an aggrieved person for the reasons mentioned earlier.

[35] Re: Para _ 26:- The acquisition notifications issued are not open to any objections.

Re: GROUNDS:-

[36] Re: Paras 27 to 30 :- The attack against the acquisition notification is groundless, untenable and unwarranted.

[37] Re: Para _ 31:- There is no disability for the Judges to become members of the society. Section 12 of the co-operative societies Act has no relevance.

[38] Re: Para _ 32:- The layout has been duly approved by the B.D.A. and the acquisition for this purpose has also been approved by the Government. Reference is also invited to clause viii(b) of sec. 3(f) as in force in Karnataka.

[39] Re: Paras 33 and 34 :- The contents in these paragraphs are denied.

[40] Re: Para _ 35:- It is false that any extraneous considerations have operated as alleged.

[41] Re: Paras 36 and 37 :- There are no such paras in the copy furnished to this Respondent.

[42] Re: Para _38:- There is no declaration by the Judges and there have been no false statements by them.

[43] Re: Para _ 39 :- The contention in this Para is untenable.

[44] Re: Para _ 40:- The challenge to the conversion charges is subject matter of W.P. 2382/1990 and is, therefore, sub-judice. Whatever charges is payable according to law, have been paid.

[45] Re: Para _ 41:- The contention regarding Bye-law 7 is untenable,

[46] Re: Para _42:- The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to has no application to the facts of this case.

[47] Re: Para _43:- The contention of the petitioner in this paragraph is untenable.

[48] Re: Para _44:- There is no go-between in this case. The land owners have not made any grievance in regard to the acquisition or transfer of their lands to the society. The petitioner who is a total stranger cannot raise the issue. There is no basis for the contention that Government's action in this matter suffers from legal malfides or is a colourable exercise or power.

[49] All other contentions and allegations in the writ petition, not expressly traversed herein and contrary to what has been stated above, are hereby denied.

It is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed with costs.

For Karnataka State Judicial Department

Employees House Building Co-operative Society Limited.

Bangalore.

Dated: 13-07-1995.

Hon'ble Secretary.

Respondent No. 2.

Advocate for Respondent No.2

**************************************************************

A F F I D A V I T [ page No. 92 of the WP 40994 of 2002]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

WRIT PETITION No. 11211 OF 1995.

BETWEEN:

S. Vasudeva. . Petitioner

And:

State of Karnataka & Others. . Respondents.

A F F I D A V I T

I, N. Lingaiah, Son of Lingaiah, aged 46 Years, Hon'ble Secretary of the Karnataka State Judicial Employees House Building Co-operative Society Limited, Respondent. No.2 herein, do hereby state as follows:-

[1] I have been Honorary Secretary of the 2nd Respondent-Society from its inception and am acquainted with the facts of the case.

[2] The facts set forth in paragraphs 1 to 49 in the accompanying statement of objections, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

[3] ANNEXURES _ R-1 to R-3 are true copies of the originals.

Signed.

Deponent.

Bangalore.

Dated: 13-07-1995.

Identified by:

Advocate.

No. of Corrections: