---- oI\-'o':|v¢'I¢Il'IlII'' :-
--VII '-II-VIII, -u-uuvrurunn rlnari hvunl Ur l\«RIIl'u\§Hl\.H I"'lIl9l'I LUUKI Ur KAKNATAKA HIGH COURT OF
IN 'THE HIGH CCKI¥?I' OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALGRE
DATED ms TE-IE» mt DAY op' FEBRUARY 2009
BEFORE
THE HONBLE Mr. JUSTICE AJITJ ii) A T
BETWEEN:
Kaaturhai Kl:1acii " ~. "
Gr%og Sahakari
Ho.1186, 31* Cross, 43* Tfilodi, _ 2 V
Jayanagar, [Dpp.ESI Hospimi) * A}
Bangalore-560041. " i' V
Rept By its Chief Pf01I10tei'" ' V. 1: "
snu.3.N.Lw1a.~ ' ' 4% _....1=E'rrnoNER
(Sri S.P.KL1l1~mriIi; Atiwfaej
AND:
1. The Camm;3a% t
Authority,
w T.CIV_§iu*;xu;1_é§y'},fa, Raid? .... .. «
Kama West,
9°9-
_ By its Secretaryl,
','T.C1nt~.!daéyya Road,
West,
Fetrolasnun
' "C-oz'porm:ian LIu11' 'ted
A % No.17, 7m Flmr, D.U.
Park Thrimti. M.G.Rt>ad,
560 €301. ...RE23POHDEI'i'TS
WRIT PE'I'lTIO2*I xo.g935 gooJg§ 'mi Y .
........:._ nu-u\n1ruru'\.l|'l nuars LUUKI Ur KAKNAIAISR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR'
(Sri K.G.Ra.ghavan, Adv. for R3; SI11t.Bhagi1"ath1' far
K.N.Puttcgowda, Adva. far R1 and R2 J
This W.P7n flied under Articles 226 and V "
Comfimfion caf India praying to quash the order 1
6.11.2004 by RS' being arbitraqi, c1'rox;<3_*.<:;i1$,'
contrary to law equity am justice virie» em_
'Th1's W.P csoznmg' on for p1'eI1'rI;:"'«ix:;g ;-3; h
Group this day, the Ceurt made ro11¢wmg;
onnnR§ % %
The petitioner Tm year
1959 undo::r tha Act,
1959. The _13;.y 24.93.1963,
allotted git»; site in block
Ha.IV T',
sax 19-5* South. Acc«ord1r1gIy' ,
'vifease deer! in favraur cf the
" d of 30 years. Pesswsian <:<:rtJfi' sate
favuur of the petitioner society on
1a.1e.%19§e;A%%Baz however, the claim of the pexzitimer is
% A m the demand made by the then cm,
Pronaoter, ciepoaited a sum of Rs.5,oooz- arad
an:::t11er sum of Rs.26,5%/-- an
'y&' §§1.o3.19m. After the acpiry cf flu: lease pcried, it
/'
/'
---- ----,.- -------mn r-vn --vu-u vr nnlmnlnnn rm.-n1 count OF KARNATAKA I-§iGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUfl
.f;J.P.Ho.14034f 2005. The said writ petition was fikxd by
appears the petitioner was in oorzrnwpondeme with the:
State for the renewal of lease. It appears; a letter Wag
also add;-med to the then Chisasf
conaide-.ra15:u:nI1 of their request 531' rial of 'V 3 K
appears, the then Chief Mirfistcr
autlaorixiaea, namely the Com1n_'m§_ion;ér see V'
could be rarxr.-mad. But is
flmt trmtlspired
The second respondant dated
05.11.2904, }§£kLas.wi§o.12 made in
fauna: of thc I968 oi: the
grmmd already expired and
furtlmr th::"siL1fic- not put ta the use: for
'flax .T1Breafter pumuant B: a
V daat-sec'; 22.11.2004, the petitioner society
to review the arcier dated
. reccnaidcr its claim' for renawal of the
But however, happened
. Harms, the petitioner queafiomad the am-dc:
the allotment by way :31' a writ petIt_1n' ' 11 in
q 'r-1 «run:-1
'""'" '-"'V'A' ',.. I\l"|I\I'.l"'|I.l'\l\l'l rllutrl MUUKI ur ISHKNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF HIGH
the Chief Pmmoter crf thc amiety. Tim Catmrt dcclinad
tn ex1I3ertainthewritpeti1:krnu11thegro1n1d
pctition was not maintainable, irxaamuch as, "
' _. the aaciety was VV 1 1
Hquflamr was appoizltad. This Coiég iv
go into Inaariizs of the l1'.lfi13tE.'£';§.-'i.'If_1.I:'1E3.1;.!V.1'.1_:'.'#f?i aJs,_.}9;e~.f}c:1: .
Annexure-K was net liable The
petitioner' preferred a
It app-aa.r3, dufing arder
appainting mg 'é.i""';1aught. The
Division iimma filed by the
2 figrithdraw the writ apmal
resae11m.'¥' Lib-&~rl:y« - Ether remedy axrafl able to
F 1;; éppearé', the p:I:'es¢.=:nt writ petificm is
relief. Indeed, in this writ petiticm,
% the cancellation of the Ewe
the poaamaion. Ancathm' relief
' 59:» by the petitioner is for quashing the
order dated 18.03.2005 made in favour of the
' D» respondent and to re-allot the same to the
p5¥fiti0I)sE:1′. >
u-nu-1 In many-
– -warn-ny__u Is:-nnlirlll-‘Ru-| l1IlJl”I I-\lUlII Elf’ BHKIVIIIHKR H59″ LUUKI OF
2. Mr.S.P.Ku1karni, kearned cnurusel appaa.ri11g fd1f
the petitionexr submits that the impugned ”
tha base deed and reallotmexlt of the 3
rwpondent was in violation of _ i_
He further suhmijzs V.
itltxerrwum, i.e., between the of
and the disposal of to a
reaolufian, thus Banwra. has
allotted the siféf: respondent
No.3. He hésffire cancelling thfi
base of the site, the
petitiezmsezr not {he altcmate, he aubmita
gm: t1;eree,peofidm us be% dig-acmd to gum; the petitioner
site far the Purpeae at’ running :3.
j Sangha.
for the third rmpondent submits that indeacad,
V fiociety was superseded and a liquidaixar
/
was appointed and pursuant ta :9: commtmmtimn. a W
Z’
1-rad uurvtrf. l’\.f”l,l\l’l”|lDI.I\l’| l”u\.fl”l MUUK! U!’ KHKNREAKA HIGH CCU”? OF KARNATAKA HIGH
copy sf which is produced at Annexuzm-R1 along with
the amemm of abjections hf Bangalore Dmmhpnrgfit
Authority would indicate that the IiqL1id.atgr.”
requested the Bangalore Developnment p.ut1aaz~i:3«§;. f ”
back the poaamaion, inasmuch 3:3;
tnmutlmriaed mnanucfinns 1
property was not put to usage it “Ha
further submits that in
favour of tluc third has
already came cf the
gcncral amt: cthexwiaa,
the % fignum, raquested the
Bangalore: to take back the
be in the nature of de jizcio
that the: petitioncr has no
the base was initially fur a perinni
% of so from 24.08.1968 and the: same
% Q 1ong back, the question ofthe petitioner
L quaahing Amuse-K and aiso annufling the
made in favour of the third respondent do not
…… ………._. .3. …-……-…-m.-. nlvn -..uuuu ur -uumnmnn !’lII.fl1 uuulu or KAKNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR
4. Learned ccurmel appearing for the
reapondent aubmita that pursuant to ”
produced along with the mmmmt T
posasasian has alraacly beam _
of quanhing Ann:-.xure-K ..
5. The facts grmgmh
.as, the then C.ITB_ site in
question in 32-1-‘;:O8.1968 for a
mm’ of so %:t%;4a am, & xéiiaputc that after
the of tha petitioner society ran
into some was amaointeti. The
aka: ‘V .tm:1ure as a liquidatar had
to the Bangakm: Dewlapmmt
possession on the grouzuzl that
the aifié’ been put to use and aha that them are
. construction. ‘ the
gtepondent, Bmalore Develepmcnt Authority
the ammmt and has taken back
‘gfiossessinn. It ‘3 no doubt true that fiaumg’ thia
‘ “”””” “‘ “””””'””W–‘- “W” ~»vvff’!. mumu-unnn mun <-..uuIu ur KAKNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR
intcrmgnum. thus pctitionzer was in oorrespondencm with
t& Stain and Bangalore Bevelnpment Authority .ftnj
ranewal of the lease. But however. what is "
tint the said Isaase was not reneweé T' 1
rezzsommmdation made by many.
evan as an taday, the base ii3'~,,_
not renewed. Even as on };;etiiic3§i§égr: 'ti¢§3ss
lmve a aernblamze of a Hcnan an
applicatimm madc by second
ma-pendent sine No.12 in
its favour. %%%% M dated 16.03.2005.
lease agreement is
also third raapcndents on
2e.1a.gm::s.. same day, the third respondent
Thua, after the expiry of the
much wanna' has flown
inasmuch as, third party rights are
Indeed, it is also ts he noticed that a
' statisn has also coma up in the civm' '
fl
– ‘urban: urn Inruunnirnup-guy;-Q ¢
cu-tall In-\rIJl\y_g I\l’Il\l’lIIl’|l\l’| FIIIJI1 EJJIJIKI Ell’ l\l’\Kl’I\ll’\l\.H HIT” QUUKI U!’
6. Indeved, an efibrt W83 made: by I*sir.Kulkami,
barrnefitl muxlsel appearing for the petitioner to the
that wen before the czzancellatic-n cf the Lease in ”
the petitioner at K, a rasohztioxgh T. K
about purporting ta grant the
favour aftlm third It is ‘t:: ‘£ae
the lease was grantead in fawurcimg
on 16.08.2005 the
Conmlissiomr. Homing into the
resolution £3 The fact
remains t:nat: fiumuant tn the
vhad naqunmted the
aeatxmcl loprmxut Authority in
‘take pté!s6£4s3i:.§n’.._ dnubt true that the
Bquidatar was set at naught by the
But however, what is s1gmfica’ ‘ nt is
mt t1?ie.1i§1vi1i:fl1;atnr. durirg his tenurc, had issued a
. in the second rmpondent to tales
of the property. Indeed, the question wcsuld
any acts or axztinns done by the liquidator
his tenure weuld stand. obliterated er m
-run «nu-gnu-‘:1-J-nu’.–I 1|
“-“‘ “‘-“-“‘t\A’V.A HHMVMIMRH ruun LUUKI ur ISAKNAEAIUI HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR’
some amcxw in the said shed. Exszzept fur thia small
continue to hold water. Indeed, the: Apex Ccn.1r*£ in the
case of GOICAIAJTJ’ R.AKGAR.n’-I-3’8 VI. STATE
Album mwm repcrtead in am 1931
w11.1’1em:amm’3.ng’ the doctrme’ afde L
“The defile-to domains is new T
the stem afthe Oficers
within the scape of V»
autlmrity, in the p1iBEiA:¢ ‘ar
persons and not i f:f.nr are
garmally as valid were the
acts ofofi_m::a_ E13 _
The Bench in the
ease of f*vs;kJf§’rA*m or mmsrmu
reported in In was.-w’ of the decisiun
um in this regard, I am of the
and actiem dam: by the liquidator
be gum. am in Ammm
wtfich hvfgasa-sci in the year 2004, mm is an
r made by the mmpetent mztlrmrtity, who on
the site in question has faund that there is
building with three ac sh-eem and there are
. wurunl III nu-mun-nun Iuvli -..vunu_.yr nnnnnunnn nuwn uvulu vr l\l\l(l’.l-II!-|l\.l\ rI|I.-In LUUKI Ur’ IKAKNAIAIEA HIGH L.’UIJRI’ OF KARNATAKA HiGH COUR1
‘£1
eonstructisn, tmre are no other activities. It 53 aim
observed therein that no documents are
shpw that any transactien er busirmss is ”
since 1970. The petitioner scrciety is not 3 1 V
serious activity after 1970. It ‘a
civic site there .
cormtructicsn. mama, the said an
a spot inspection done
This h ano1:her reasan is not
entitled for it has no
Locus, mm: ta an
iheae fhcts, I am of the View
or intcrfcring with the mexmaen sf
j of the civic amenity site to the
Vv dares mat arm. Indeed, an alternate
‘ Qf Mr.Kulkarni is required to be considered.
is tn be ncficed that the least: has come to an
» order Buperced11g’ the society and appointing a
has bean set aside: which would neczscaaarily
1′
J
%