High Court Karnataka High Court

The Ideal Homes Building Co-Op … vs Bangalore Development Authority on 17 October, 2008

Karnataka High Court
The Ideal Homes Building Co-Op … vs Bangalore Development Authority on 17 October, 2008
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
- 1 -

IN THE HIGH couaw or Khanmmaxa Am aAnaALOR3;I=_

DATED THIS TUE I?'" OAI OF OOTOOER,_:OO§=f}f* '

BEFORE _-m_

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE s§aBOfiL'NA3EE§ I5' "I

WRIT PETITION NO.21§3 OE 200$ (BOA? "~~'

BETWEEN:

THE IDEAL HOMES BOILOING_ 7"

CO~OP SOCIETY =1v ,""*.f ,», . ,
zmwmAm$m&mM%R i:~"*f¥»g

MYSORE ROAO,HvaiQ_:'v' * --"TV

BANGALORE ' _', *. -gs ~O= 3'

BY ITS sgqRgTARYg__ ,"_' '._W.?... PETITIONER

{By gri P. SEIOITASAIAH, ADV.)

AND:

,fEANOA:ORK»OEyELOéMENT AUTHORITY
'BY.1TS OOMIISIONER,

KOMA3A"9A3K-WEOT.

aANOALORE.Ty_{, ... RESPONDENT

7g I-{By érI*O.AéOuL KHADER, AOv.>

“7I»TH:s WRIT PETITION Is FILED UNDER ARTICLE

2361 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,

“‘»23ATIHG T0 QUASH THE GRDER ?ASSED BY THE
“RESPONDENT VIDE ANX~B DATED 17.10.2005.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING GN FOR

PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED

THE FOLLOWING:

-3…

{new BEA) had approved the said pies even int

respect of the Government land and that sites 2*

formed in the sari Government_iandWhe§.teen’

allotted to its members. 3 This ‘Cost? insdh7

passed an interim order en 26}9.2QO5 is the
writ petition direstinqtwthe_FSpecial_ Deputy
Commissioner to held .en§tenqhiry_ in this

regard. The relevant psrtisn_of the order is

as under:

–.Special Deputy
Commissioner icsnsifier the replies
filed thy etheT silottees and pass

V tspgrspriate«_orders on the .notices
‘A”,ini:sss®rdance with law. The
nqpeeflfgl be done within three weeks.
‘X$imils§i$r BEA shall also consider
the reply submitted by the society
in.gndi pass appropriate orders in
“wsscordsnce with law; Learned
counsel appearing for the society
states that EDA should be directed

to affsrd personal hearing” to the

society. The learned counsel for

%\,\’1

3

‘Vuneubmite_that pursuant to the said order, the
vtwufioooiel Beputy Commissioner, Bangalore
E”g;Dietriot, Bangalore has held an enquiry’ and

:passed an order on 17.10.2085 {as per Annexure

-4-

BDAT has no objection in tnis»?«’
regard. Let the society throfighfyoir
its representative be §?§$entf’
before the Commieeioner;«tBER,nfonVee7K
4.10.2005 at 11 am in
the Commissioner, e Banga1oreM E
Development Ruthorit§; to ,presefi;
its case. Tnereefter¢tHtheA order
snail be passed and actien taken in
aooordanoe with iawfl _ The Epeoial
Deputyn figfimiesionerv end ithe BEA
ehou1dt}aesooie§§,_eheQ_oetitioner-
sooiety $3 gait before passing the
fxina__.1_ EDA and the
Soeoial’.@eooty£eCommiesioner shalt
filaoe a 909? of the orders on the

. record of tnre case before the next

x”dete_of hearing.”

o_2.V.Leerned counsel for the petitioner

‘J’? holding that the petitioner and the

‘ct

-5-

eilettees of sites from the petitioner are in”g

iiiegal possession of their respectifie-L

portions Claimed by them and that the 1:ee’1¢,

question is a government lanes; *TheaSpeeieLiVr

Deputy Commissioner ‘hgs_ flireeted’ “the

respondents therein fto $aeete’,the'”lende in
their wrongful poeseeeiofififiitflifi i5 days from
the” date of thee reeei§$1 eff rgr 5eeid order.
Feelifig aggIi3?§§[ firg the” said” order, the
respondente “fihe3giefirfiléewfiwrit petitions
before this ib’V”‘i_;i—._’W”jP.Nos.2485l/O5 and

other confieeted “matters. This court after

,considerihq the_ rival contentions of the

Vpertigg, nae remanded the matter on 4.12.2007

in tfiexfeiiewifie terms:
.”Ifi;that View of the matter, the

impugeed order cannot be sustained.

A’Hence, I pass the following order:
Vffl) The writ petitions are allowed.

(2) The impugned order is set aside.

ix

(33

(4)

– 5 –

All the oases are remitted back Wei
to the Deputy Commissioner for »Eff *

fr
proceed from the stege_et;whiofi.i

eeh enquiry. He

the pleadings were oompieted;i”ai

In order to see phat there ie*«

no further delay ihidispoeeliofi

these mettere;””f;ell’ the”

petitioners ere directed to be
present before “.the 1 Special
Depfit§ytV.7Commiesiooer* on

l?}i3;2Ce?, Qithout waiting for

ahVf;notioeW from the Deputy

t.Commieeionerboi,

“.[hold , e

i’objeotions,

,”Commieeioher

_AsV’the”‘pieadinge are complete
‘Weed eveoi documents are filed

*ee1oog. with the statement of

the
shall

formal

proceed to
enquiry as
contemplated under law by giving

the

sufficient opportunity to
substantiate

by

petitioners to

their contention and

receiving any further evidence
if and to

they so produce

ii

Deputy

V’l?.l2.2QO7

nu-7:-

diepoee of these disputes and

ease appropriate orders withinWigi*”

three months from 17.12.2007.

Such of these petitiehere?,wbeitr
are not yet eerVed7 with lthee

notices are not: entitled Vwithgem

further notice and’ ehall Vtgeat

the impugned erder es eetice ehd'”

such of thoeer-petitienere*_who

have not filed Qbjeetiehe shall

file

Jtheir Kebjectienex en or
beferef.E?QlZ gee? _elehg with

;doeumehts}f”EVeg

theee who have

hot received fietices shall file
their” objectiehs on or before

alongwith their

iadecuments “aha even in their

i”. eases,”

‘*r,deeieeé”” within

°<r:?a%

feny further constructions,

shall be

months

. the C3383
three

a£ter'a formal enquiry.

The petitioners shall not put up
make
any improvements in the exieting

constructions or alter the

character of the property till

the dispute is resolved finally.

§

(8) The Bangalore Developmanttiitji

Authority, the Town Munioioalfali
Council, Cit3r.Munioipal tfiaonoill
and Bruhat Banqalo;e;yMahanaqar'l"
Palike ahall p;oau¢ei»a11_5t5é°
relevant dooument§xwhion.aré;inW%
their possossionwfixy'raspéot,of§

the propéatf 'in .difi§&t and

e
assist the'1_S§eoialoQaEeputy

Commiaaionér in détéxmining the

claims of the oetitioners."

3. Learned oounsal for the parties submit

that the”_mattériCis:”nowi pending before the

Special Deputy Commissioner. In the meantime,

‘afihe_Bangalo§o_Devélopment Authority has passed

tho order at Annexure~B holding as under:

VL . ~*Anl area of’ O7 .Acras 06 43ts.,
lialfhioh is a Qovt. land, which area
for the purpose of identification
is marked as Annexure-ma) in the
plan at Annexure~A is withdrawn

he

(

-10-

5. Learned eeunsel for the petitioner

submits that since the order passed by _the,

Special Seputy Commissioner at Annexure¥JV§aa+,l

already been quashed by this eeurt,”th§t¢reer

passed by the respondent at finnexQre§B by the g

BSA is not sustainable in law; Learned ceuneel
for the respondent submits _that “this eourt
after quashing the verder ;at”5annexurewJ has

remanded the matter» tea the ispégial Deputy

Commissioner. “sa:*,’r:esh’ consideratien in

accordance with Seetien 39 of the Land Revenue

4,Act .§and’ that- “if _____ the Special Deputy

“Cemmiaeioner after the enquiry comes to the

cenelueion that the petitiener has encroached

the éevernfient lands, EDA is entitled to

_ “initiate” proceedings for

-eangeilationfwithdrawal of the lay-ut plan in

*reepect of encreached portion. The submission

of the learned Advocate appearing for the EDA

is just and reasonable.

\
mt

-13..

directions of this Court in W.P.NQ.l8895/2005

dated 4.12.2007 as early as possible and sgnfihh

a copy of the said order to the EDA.

Eiv) The respondent is direct¢dt =to,

dispose of the matter pursuadt to thiéh0rde£ t_f

after receigt of the order from the,Spe¢ialf

Deputy Commissioner, Bahhfiiote h~Gistrfipt,
Bangalore in case Ne;@$D.($)5CR;§§fQ4–O5.
(V) The offige is,directe@’t0 fiend a copy

of this ordér}*ht¢h_€the_”,SQecial Deputy

Commissidner; .Bahgél¢r§”~Distri¢t, Bangalore
forthwith. N9″CQéts}h”

Sd/-I
Judge

$31.2!