HKGH COURT 0? KARZVEATAKA AT BANGEXLQRE Dated this the 21" day of Navember, 2098 Befere THE IIOEWBLIE' MR .fiZ?S?'IC£ HL'L£?I€»-'ID! ;'e Deveiopment Aufhozéty By its Commissicmer _ '- Q_ T Chowdaiah Road, K P Was: . .. '_ ' 'Gammon Bangalore 569 020 ' ._ 5 V ~ Appeilant (By Sn' B V Shankaranarajzana Rafi; zidfii) » Sri S A Ra_i agop'aL 5! gig " Sfo S G Atn', 4124,' 7""i:3roa;s = _ Respondent
N R Co§o1_1y, Ba1iga§c1’e.19 in RFA ‘;’Gs’0S
” ” Smt :v4%;§aiir:i,Mauv:11y, 61″§;:~s- ———- –~ ”
wmfl N s’2z=1uge;1’:y.,$ 5: 124
‘=.’f*” Viiiross, ‘{:{)§(.}Ii§’. Respondent
Bnxggéiore in RFA “!1!O§
‘ _ (By M55 Sugtdarfiiivémy Raméas, Adv. )
T Iiieaéaeguiar First Appeais are filed under 3.96, 0 41 R :3 cm:
” set asida the cnmman judgment and decree éaied 8.92.984 in
& 03 876752001 by the: XVI Aédi, City (Evil & Sessions
‘ ‘» Iuége, Bangaitm.
These Reguiar First Appeais having been reserved fer (Edam, the
Cam deiivemti the foiiewing: _
.lUDGME;’\i’?”
These {we appeals are by $123 BDA geekirzg :0 set aside the .jti.e<-"free
passed by the Adél. City Civii 3: Sessicsns Judge, Bangalore .. V
2091 and 8707;' 2601.
The plaintiffs filed a suit to éeciase suit s¢hé6’u}é: _prt§pertyV as
not forming part of civil amenity site and so ught:_fsr. i:1j”:.2Vv:r§.L~…1;i’}.’i’i3!i:161’§i ,~inj1mcti0n against the BDA from
interfering wit}i”!h4::’p§gi;1fiiff3; fii§:3G6fi1} possession and enjaymenf ef the
* ._suit ‘ « ….. 14 v
” ‘p§éiinti.*E15s§’vnamc1y S A Ragagopal and Smt Nalini Murthy have
‘V files! éf:zjts.’a”§ainst the aomrnen defendant 5 BIDA for the above relief.
“;xm.»;~.:;i§ng”ta the plaixxiiffs, site No.58f7 and site N<:~.58a'8 situate in
Rfitkiaféo Layout are carved out of Sy.No.99s'1, 99,52 and 160%} of
'*K'§thfiguppa Village now known as Banashankari III Siaga, Bangakxre,
each measuring east 5:0 west 40 ft. and north tn south 60 ft. resprectiveiy.
"fhe respondents aresaid to have purchased the schedule: pmfveriies from
axe»/%
the pf€\'i9i18 ewner Smt Shakimtala Szinjvasan by virtue of t11e_4sa1e-«.gi_ee§1
dated '?;7.198() and 8.8.3980 respectively. These Sale .
rectified on 73' Juiy and St" July, 1986 at Bggavmagaéig = i{'::eéreI§:'ngV u
them, they were put in pessession of the fleén A'
Smt Shakuntaia Srinivasan under ,t'he__ sa1e 'deeds. L.
Srinivasan had acquired the property 'favour Rae
who is the ewnerideveioper eeiie.deedeVv'e:i V26.3.1980.
Thus,, the predecessor in title the pmperty t-3
Shaiszuntaia jjvho to the plaintifile.
According in the V”fi},aév.§bmmed perrnissicm from the
«i;é:3’aai iCeiiing Act, 19%. The said
aut§1ority h;:d from the scope ofthe Urban Land
Ceiiing Act. purchasers in the privaie §ayo1:t
_ «me Sri According to: the piaintiffs, Rama Ran had
net’ex_eez3ted. ‘relinquishment deed in respect of the civic amenity sites
as such, right and titie over the same vesied in the
V V’ _ privafe whom me vender of the plaintifis had purchased and in
1′ ” ” 3 4f’ ” —- :12: piaiefifis have purchased it.
‘ The defendant: BSA have not acquired any cswtnershig or title over
a same. The approved iaymst pkan is issued in me year 1972, thereafier
afier the expiry of 28 years, the Qifiendant EDA has no legal right in seek
relinquisltrnent deed ané g: is time barred anti the piaintiifs
exercising right over the land for neariy iwenty one years. 1 V’
the plaintifis viz, Shakxmtaia Srinivasm; had jams¢yex;g;”g§;¥;t”~;;;¢e:ti;:n§ gn ”
the year 3986 chajilenging the notices isswed TBDA’TTfor”-aézxcéiigtiafi 7/
ef the I-zathas which came to he d:spc;§¢;a..gf 01;’-_17;1:,192$”%1:;1¢:ng that
iiberty was given to the petitioners th..<:1»_:[J'.?.'-:r_» theifh éxpifizaiién am! to
convince the EDA that the kafha. 'fiat "i:1:'g*:z:§tsr§1ance with law.
When the plainiiffs wmte a-3 1¢:s:'=.r'n~;' t}1::..£§ef¢ndéa1¥ an 5.11.1939
seeking far transfe2j~<;sf' i£l:=fl'36f;I' x a~ém'a, of £irne_, 3 ascend
ShQW causé n0fi£ié"€$},3s veraliing upon thé piaintifis to
Show why ¥:'h:-3 iraatlfia Bis vendar shail not he canceiled on
{he grou.:1d_ that séitedfile faxing gran of the civic amenity site,
* £9; wvfhiéh ,piam:;fi"s §i.9iiie'~-~3~:V’i’5$2;€§V6d a native finm the ?o}ice Inspector anti the
R€1.!’:1’I:3’i{‘}'(;3If:fl’C€’L£7S:’t¥VL.’:–::aV1Z}$3f beffire them. Despite that, piaimtiffs continued
fie for transfer of katha in flxeir names. Their prayer was
x V’ :b:=.gécfed_.« enwthe gonna that sites in qnestisn farmed past 0f the area
-. far civic amenity. Accerdizig is the plaintiffs, their predecessor
” uii1’tiile was having a tifze and further accoréing :9 them, the eréginal owner
U Rama Rm had 110$ executaé flue raiiamgaishment dead as sue}; defendant
<3.
had no manner of title. Stating that the plaintiffs are the ..
purchasers? suit was filed.
The suit was contested by 3:: defendant EDA £§¢’£a.2;]”‘
objections flaat, sites are net available per _#h’e;ap;§ré¥V€;€1′: T
specificaily stated that fizese two sitesgtfe tbrrfiéd but ef CVi\;’1L.§;A’£Aéif¥’1i.$’i”ii}3:’ V
marked in the plan. Plaintiffs shouItI”L«11T£5t.have sites.
Under the BDA Act and they QWR Véicigvvpotver ta
regulate and aggprove satiation’ #i:e ‘L312-3,zi53irail§!§fve;’_’ {he defendant in
c:’)n1″‘ot’znitj; with $13: gwjies ..§f¢tii1é:«;:i3proV’ing the iayout
gjlan, tho$e”§iie3Tfé:1ne£i::T5:é:1 ‘ixfjgvéc éii:’ieni§3* sétesi. §’1aintifl’s under the
guise ef 331-lg {leads :’é:t::£rr;;3f§Vii1g9 :gg iélentify the property which fsmns
part of civic afirsgiiry sife Nk,~,3 agiéi no ;’33rii<:u}ar'S are avaiiable as per the
. ''£?¢','}})I'{}'té'€;':§i pm re§;ié::$s)_;f_th:»se tws) sites which are aileged tn have been
s»:31:(Vi'§"«§{ favaur 0f the vendor sf fire plaixxtifié who in tum
§§1;:"i;:.,tai%&.;¥_*ef :i~§§';":§ia;ntif£s. The sale deeds if any, are void and Rama
. R39 'iiiimrnseif. £161 scught for medificatitm of civic amenity into
.;'9es§d3;1tiaiV'§ites. The sites are vested with tha defendant authcriiy and
_' there' he cause ofaction te file the suit.
Eased an the pieadings, in hail: the sits, ths: fizfluwing issues were:
flamed. J/LWI
In OS $706591:
1 Whether the piaintifi” proves that he is the ahseiuté’
peacefili possessien azné enjoyment cf the suit schmia§.¢.%_’13z:(>15ex1y<.as
on the data affiiing ofthe suit'? I . — '
2 Whether the plairxtifi finfizar proves :12}: th–.§.=§f aefergaanfis
guise of treating the suit schcgéttie sites; 3 ci\?icTv.a;m3;1ity sife, "
fixierferixzg in iis possession and cmjfiygnenz by {her plaintiii?' "
3 If so, whether the plaintifi' is Vic; iaajve a .feiief_;;-f Vpérpeiuai
injunction against the d::fe';a;iants"as pfaycd? ' –
4 Whether the plaintiff is :ha\_%e_LTVa.A/_fel§e_£' ef manciaiery
injunction directing the dafcndagnts tn; tzjansfefir lghafa of the scheciuie
proprefifi' "fix ' -.
5 To what eras’;-” ms ._
In as 2702851: N 3 ”
I Wixciixer the V she is the absoiute owner in
lawful i’?’9.$S€8_si@f; _ of {ha “suit schedule pmperty with given
m¢a$m*emez13s_a1:::i.boufidari’es as on the data of fiiing cf the suit’?
J _ the plaiffi:ifi”;3rdves that the suit scheduia progeny is net .1
‘ . “civic az:1cnity._site’?
3A . finrthrzr proves that he is entiiied £0 have 3
‘ A transfer oférhiita with respect to the suit schedule property in his
‘1E’:wot1;” ‘by way of manaiatory injztnction?
” V AA \?s?I1;éI.¥’*x::i* file piaintiff fusrther proves that the defendant without any
V. ‘fight, titie or interest abstructixzg me plaintifi in the peaceful
” pgxésession and enjoyment of the suit scheduie property?
If so, whether gsiaixztiif is entitied :0 have perpetuai izximction
against due defendant’?
Wheflxer the defendant proves that the suit schedule property is a
civic mlenity site No.3 as such plainiifi” has no right, titl¢ or
interesct. over the suit schedule: mow
…g
‘1’ To what arder and dearee?
After trial, after hearing the argumemst the trial cams. .éec:ee§::zhe ‘
suits declaring the plaintifils as the absolute ewitcrs ti:§e;’9oé§ess_i6n. l T_T
enjoyment of tha plain: schedule pr0p¢:’£i::s an£:Iqa1§t:– declavfisgltl tiialll’
sites in quastiem do net form part sf éivic mnéizttylsités $335!’ that
deféndant has no manner: cf tight ancllléléoltilrectefl
the defendant ta change the kath;t the plaintiffs
and permanently injt1§x:c§’%:§’vt.¥1e Hence, these
two appeals by the,’ V
I~Iea:li_ the. Lti1.a»lfesl:;§:éa:.tive’l parties.
It is the éonténtieh Qf ti-gel aglgieilants’ ceunsel that these twe sites
~:;l;aimeci me ‘plaiz1tj€f§’are;__ of the civic amenity cites ear marked as
-lafycu: pianévjwhleh is carved nut as civic amenity site No.3 and
abs§,~is1té1y;vé§tl=§l”yviti1 Authority. Plaintifi are trying in grab the civic
‘ amenityyusétes v–i$e’1o;ag,mg tn) the statutory auflmrity under alleged sale deeds
.. “”{;\?%;’1″ heiither Rama Rae I101′ the plaintiffs’ vendor Shakuntaia
ll’S:i§:§§?3s2!1″lh3ve get right and title (war the same. The sale is void. The
f’all¢Vg_$§d possession certificate issued by Rama R30 is cancncteci and
liépicting unapprmzeé plan fer his unlawful gain anti fizrther, tssuance of
katha and coflection of taxes does not canfer any title t0 the plaintiffs.
34:,»
The katha was issued under the miseeneeption in respect sf
existent site. The tie} mart erred in not fizaming any issue xfie’g–erdiftigv:’ii£e ‘ *
icientity of the suéi scheduie preperty and meremzer, thereié hey,-fueIi’esiies
in existence as per the approved plan, and que;etioa11’£)f..e’oniseying:;;if
by Rama Rae in one Shakumala Sn%nive$z’e1__ her £e !:fie:p3.a;;i;}ti?:1’3i”s VA
thraugh saie deeds is void. Even Sginieasae géd fixed writ
petitievns regarding Show cause ieeuee Ie her anti
as to why the katha shail pct be came to be
dimnissed during }£s§xe£e;b§;rV19£i¢–$. 1*;~.é«_..1i;iT’na: eansider Ex.D1
VV’U'( approved iayotitg iii existence. Question ef
issuance ef the EDA over the civic
amenity siteis-flees imisthtake, ihe earlier katha was issued
to a nan~existeni°s~§ie”en;i aetien was taken fer eaneeilatien ef
” éhe sazjjez. is siebmitted that at one poem of time Rama Rae
.V’§1irztee}i”–~h;3{iv.§éfr&t§enj”a ietter In the BDA that he is unabie te deveiep the
iayeut and id {§i_L:e f:}§’er the same. As such, questiem of exeeuting a
‘eeiinquieiagrxent deed in faveur of the BEA by Rama Rae dees not arise.
:i’12eA B335 go: power nnéer $.32 ef the As’; for aeeerding sanction fer
.f¢’fozi;1aiien of new extensiens or iayout.
Per eotme, eeunse} for the respemients contenderi that the triai
” eourt has rightiy decreed the suit, BIZSA has no right ever the same as there
‘}4{_}_.
is 1’19 relinquishment deed exectiiezd in favour of the EDA by Ramg Rae
who was developing the property and alga me action of the BDA ‘E;
a belated one as by effiux sf fans, titie has been ~
piaintiffs. There is no right whatsoever ii} K ” ‘V
have not acquircd right was the sitm in quéstimj;”‘a:<s§l zt1so1'refétriiig:'tz}&¥Eit¢:_'
decision of this court in the case of 3m_V Vs {;;.;e_f2aa1!4 w
EAR 1335 and aiso in Naéruzppa "P§&}*q éazény V.'si:m'e:y 2/s
BDA – 11.1: 15195 EAR 1723;. éctien 9f the EDA is hit
by limitation and aisqthe BEA h§§$V.no.v'}§}as:§*er"tiz inter Se between
the Society and its :3Regarfi§ng'c;t§§1éé'i§atin}t of katha , it has to be
done by decltifafiign court not by the axstlmtitias by way
of canceiiéticn; % mapper! of his argumcnt, he has raiied
upon _th_¢ in czésé sf Kama! Chopra Vs' Cammr. (If
* _ca;§;§'m;.«.u}z a;jc3zy};j";3*aa:gaeore .. [LR 193.9 KAR 2416 in this regard
ia mas relinquishrnent deed exécuted in fa\«*f;:13.:" (sf
tticw his Rae to confer réght over the Civic: Amenity site as such
question taking any aeticn by the BDA against the plaintifls does not
A V. ~ asisex
In repiy, appellants' counsel argued that as per the layout plan
ohtaineé by Rama Rae ifimseifi sites in question are falsely deveieped by
Rama Rae by preparing a false plan as against the approved pian
deceiving the purchasers, without tracing the site number by giving
notienai site nurnher, property has been gold which does not c£:nvéj;'«..:ii13(
tiiie and them is no site available in the appmved K ~
regard, no issue was raised by the triai court 334. 'i€Cided." V' ~ 1: .
In the Eight of the arguments aiiizaziced, Tet. cor1sTéci%'VVfV¢s¥:11;:V:fi1eii§
irial court is justified in dttcreeing the §u~a;"of_tVhe giiainiiflsi; wizgther me
triai ceurt has not raised apgiifiypriaiéi idiiniity of die
property and, whai order.
A;v~gt§é’ibu£si§f, it ii: iifairiflsactions, one Rama Rae while
is the devéiqfiéf iiiayixut plan finm the BDA me than
CITE, for dex}é§:1;i§zr;.a:iiic:f Iii: iagziiflt as par E31,}?! produced cu: nf which
, ‘sites aliégad to» “hai”J§’,__’b’€:§:’Il fmmed from the civic amenity sites .
AV’x_VQu¢sfi<:pn mf 'rs'Iis1ijiIis_hr:xeni of the property registered as civic. amenity
si£;*siiia.fa'§éu:i_tsf th;,¥{BDA though my not be there, as per fin; contention
V _ sffl1ei'BDA–.V1ifaIEner dated 5.4.1976, Rama Ran the Develcper is said to
H H " 1ii:aveV[.a§}and61ied the development of the prajwt. However, subsequentiy
ifiti 26;3–;i9E9, by giving national site numbers in the appreveé layout plan
fin:-:r–?mari:;ad for civic amenity; he has mid the same is} Shaiumtaia
"iiSrir:ivasan wider Ex.P7{'J -~ 3326 deed' Thereafier, it has been conveyed to
fine plaintiffs. Aitixaugh under a wmng noizirm at the instance of the parties,
(#6.,
13
the BBA haé issued katha as per the submigsion maée, having raali-sad it
was not as per the approves} plan, subseqtmntiy, an attempt iwfiis
made its cancel the kathn made in favour of the Vt:-mist cf :th¢ , V’
when they sought for transfer of the Iwzatha and the saghé ¥iéa§.’:;2ac§’t.V’is${ued;- K V’
When Rama Rae £136 abandoned develepmg,the;’pre_;éc{%y
intention by writing a letter :9 flue _Vmig1’fi-bé’ itVwa*£: of –. V L’
reljnqtaishing the project itself and that fifigfit :9 havéi by
the trial court by framing issfusé isagafiiing flu: identity of the
property. Even depictg tiiat sites have been
cieveloped in are :’xi5.rl§£§dvj:L:s~V§:ivi!V;::menity. Rama R39 is
said tee te’..’§iiéV’vender of the piairatifis on
26.3.l98(i .&.fi\#iso, V iatter written by Rama Rat) to the
BDAECIIB ai$:’a’:’;dVreix;::gV’v._fi1é*–V_;%r1*«€s-jécnt mum have been cansidsred befbre
ogder ‘te….:*:hether in the circumstmzces ef the case,
by Rama R30 to EDA was necessary or nut and
available as per the approved plan 0!’ net and as
~V of the sites. In the circmnstamces, as righfiy argued by
u x V ca:-a1;zsev1 ‘foa* the appeilants, the trial mm had not app-iied iis mind as tn
.’ EH6 Vsiésriz’-jexistaace of these two sites as per the approved layout plan. The
T ” conienticm of the respondents is that since there is no re-linquishment
” Véeeé executed in fawn: of the EDA by Rama Ran, it did not cimfes” any
right and titie ever the civia amenity sites te fine EDA but the fast remains
By abandoning tin: prejerct mad hy conveying the same to t§1r’: ‘EDA,
virtually tantamounts ts) relinquishmg the right to the BDA.
arnenity area which aspea has to be censidereé afier aflpfgfrizg _ ”~
to will the partias. Howe’v’e:r, the fact ‘s:>:_ist¢:nZ~;sit::§i argz . _Sh’;iwr: 1
to have been cunvczyed in fawéur of th§:¥.’. piaéfififis Atheit ‘-
Shakimtala Srinviasan and ti} her by’1<ag%§:zs._1:ao. % " Thg 'sav¢;1j%pc§;taon 1'
is that, no estoppel can be pleadgd vs?h;z2'*f:;z§i;;d 'crept ' In View of
the matter, we decree of the séfsntzsjdering the factxxal
position and wiflxoifrraisingi"éf§j§t1§§§r§:§§e«.::i5sf3a%é- point regardéng
identity of the.' written re the EDA
abandoning iii: – _ '
In tin itfii degree and judgment are 56! aside.
in court fer raising proper issues and to
ggfifne oppommity to bath are patties.
‘ Accoztfifngly, was are allewed. Parties to hem” their own ooata
Sd/-=
Iudqe