{"id":231427,"date":"2008-11-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bangalore-development-vs-s-a-rajagopal-so-s-g-atri-on-21-november-2008"},"modified":"2016-12-05T07:56:03","modified_gmt":"2016-12-05T02:26:03","slug":"the-bangalore-development-vs-s-a-rajagopal-so-s-g-atri-on-21-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bangalore-development-vs-s-a-rajagopal-so-s-g-atri-on-21-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"The Bangalore Development … vs S A Rajagopal S\/O S G Atri on 21 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
The Bangalore Development … vs S A Rajagopal S\/O S G Atri on 21 November, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh<\/div>\n
  HKGH COURT 0? KARZVEATAKA AT BANGEXLQRE\nDated this the 21\" day of Navember, 2098\n\nBefere\n\nTHE IIOEWBLIE' MR .fiZ?S?'IC\u00a3 HL'L\u00a3?I\u20ac\u00bb-'ID! ;'e Deveiopment Aufhoz\u00e9ty\n\nBy its Commissicmer  _ '- Q_ \n\nT Chowdaiah Road, K P Was:  .  ..  '_ ' 'Gammon\nBangalore 569 020 '  ._ 5  V  ~   Appeilant\n\n(By Sn' B V Shankaranarajzana Ra\ufb01; zid\ufb01i)    \u00bb\n\nSri S A Ra_i agop'aL 5! gig    \"\nSfo S G Atn', 4124,' 7\"\"i:3roa;s = _  Respondent<\/pre>\n
N R Co\u00a7o1_1y, Ba1iga\u00a7c1’e.19   in RFA ‘;’Gs’0S<\/p>\n
 ” ” Smt :v4%;\u00a7aiir:i,Mauv:11y, 61″\u00a7;:~s- ———- –~ ”
\n wm\ufb02 N s’2z=1uge;1’:y.,$ 5: 124
\n‘=.’f*” Viiiross,  ‘{:{)\u00a7(.}Ii\u00a7’. Respondent<\/p>\n
Bnxgg\u00e9iore in RFA “!1!O\u00a7<\/p>\n
‘  _ (By M55 Sugtdar\ufb01iiv\u00e9my Ram\u00e9as, Adv. )<\/p>\n
T Iiiea\u00e9aeguiar First Appeais are filed under 3.96, 0 41 R :3 cm:<\/p>\n
  ” set asida the cnmman judgment and decree \u00e9aied 8.92.984 in
\n & 03 876752001 by the: XVI A\u00e9di, City (Evil & Sessions<\/p>\n
  ‘ ‘\u00bb Iu\u00e9ge, Bangaitm.\n<\/p>\n
These Reguiar First Appeais having been reserved fer (Edam, the<\/p>\n
Cam deiivemti the foiiewing: _<\/p>\n
.lUDGME;’\\i’?”\n<\/p>\n
These {we appeals are by $123 BDA geekirzg :0 set aside the .jti.e<-"free<\/p>\n
passed by the Ad\u00e9l. City Civii 3: Sessicsns Judge, Bangalore .. V<\/p>\n
2091 and 8707;' 2601.\n<\/p>\n
The plaintiffs filed a suit to \u00e9eciase  suit s\u00a2h\u00e96’u}\u00e9: _prt\u00a7pertyV as <\/p>\n
not forming part of civil amenity site and so ught:_fsr. i:1j”:.2Vv:r\u00a7.L~…1;i’}.’i’i3!i:161’\u00a7i ,~inj1mcti0n against the BDA from<\/p>\n
interfering wit}i”!h4::’p\u00a7gi;1\ufb01iff3; \ufb01i\u00a7:3G6\ufb011} possession and enjaymenf ef the<\/p>\n
 * ._suit  ‘ \u00ab  ….. 14 v<\/p>\n
”   ‘p\u00a7\u00e9iinti.*E15s\u00a7’vnamc1y S A Ragagopal and Smt Nalini Murthy have<\/p>\n
‘V \ufb01les!  \u00e9f:zjts.’a”\u00a7ainst the aomrnen defendant 5 BIDA for the above relief.<\/p>\n
“;xm.\u00bb;~.:;i\u00a7ng”ta the plaixxiiffs, site No.58f7 and site N<:~.58a'8 situate in<\/p>\n
  R\ufb01tkiaf\u00e9o Layout are carved out of Sy.No.99s'1, 99,52 and 160%} of<\/p>\n
  '*K'\u00a7th\ufb01guppa Village now known as Banashankari III Siaga, Bangakxre,<\/p>\n
each measuring east 5:0 west 40 ft. and north tn south 60 ft. resprectiveiy.<\/p>\n
"fhe respondents aresaid to have purchased the schedule: pmfveriies from
\naxe\u00bb\/%<\/p>\n
the pf\u20ac\\'i9i18 ewner Smt Shakimtala Szinjvasan by virtue of t11e_4sa1e-\u00ab.gi_ee\u00a71<\/p>\n
dated '?;7.198() and 8.8.3980 respectively. These Sale  .<\/p>\n
rectified on 73' Juiy and St" July, 1986 at Bggavmaga\u00e9ig = i{'::e\u00e9reI\u00a7:'ngV  u <\/p>\n
them, they were put in pessession of the  \ufb02e\u00e9n    A'<\/p>\n
Smt Shakuntaia Srinivasan under ,t'he__ sa1e 'deeds.    L.<\/p>\n
Srinivasan had acquired the property  'favour   Rae
\nwho is the ewnerideveioper   eeiie.deedeVv'e:i V26.3.1980.<\/p>\n
Thus,, the predecessor in title   the pmperty t-3
\nShaiszuntaia jjvho    to the plainti\ufb01le.\n<\/p>\n
According in the  V”fi},a\u00e9v.\u00a7bmmed perrnissicm from the
\n \u00abi;\u00e9:3’aai iCeiiing Act, 19%. The said
\naut\u00a71ority h;:d   from the scope ofthe Urban Land<\/p>\n
Ceiiing Act.    purchasers in the privaie \u00a7ayo1:t<\/p>\n
 _  \u00abme Sri  According to: the piaintiffs, Rama Ran had<\/p>\n
 net’ex_eez3ted. ‘relinquishment deed in respect of the civic amenity sites<\/p>\n
  as such, right and titie over the same vesied in the<\/p>\n
V V’ _ privafe  whom me vender of the plainti\ufb01s had purchased and in<\/p>\n
1′ ” ” 3 4f’ ” —-  :12: piaie\ufb01\ufb01s have purchased it.\n<\/p>\n
‘ The defendant: BSA have not acquired any cswtnershig or title over<\/p>\n
a  same. The approved iaymst pkan is issued in me year 1972, therea\ufb01er<\/p>\n
a\ufb01er the expiry of 28 years, the Qifiendant EDA has no legal right in seek<\/p>\n
relinquisltrnent deed an\u00e9 g: is time barred anti the piaintiifs <\/p>\n
exercising right over the land for neariy iwenty one years.    1 V’<\/p>\n
the plainti\ufb01s viz, Shakxmtaia Srinivasm; had jams\u00a2yex;g;”g\u00a7;\u00a5;t”~;;;\u00a2e:ti;:n\u00a7 gn  ”<\/p>\n
the year 3986 chajilenging the notices isswed   TBDA’TTfor”-a\u00e9zxc\u00e9iigtia\ufb01 7\/ <\/p>\n
ef the I-zathas which came to he d:spc;\u00a7\u00a2;a..gf 01;’-_17;1:,192$”%1:;1\u00a2:ng that<\/p>\n
iiberty was given to the petitioners th..<:1\u00bb_:[J'.?.'-:r_\u00bb theifh \u00e9xpi\ufb01zaii\u00e9n am! to<\/p>\n
convince the EDA that the kafha.  '\ufb01at "i:1:'g*:z:\u00a7tsr\u00a71ance with law.
\nWhen the plainiiffs wmte a-3 1\u00a2:s:'=.r'n~;' t}1::..\u00a3\u00a7ef\u00a2nd\u00e9a1\u00a5 an 5.11.1939<\/p>\n
seeking far transfe2j~<;sf' i\u00a3l:=\ufb02'36f;I' x a~\u00e9m'a,  of \u00a3irne_, 3 ascend<\/p>\n
ShQW caus\u00e9 n0fi\u00a3i\u00e9"\u20ac$},3s    veraliing upon th\u00e9 piainti\ufb01s to
\nShow why \u00a5:'h:-3 iraatl\ufb01a Bis vendar shail not he canceiled on<\/p>\n
{he grou.:1d_ that  s\u00e9ited\ufb01le  faxing gran of the civic amenity site,<\/p>\n
 * \u00a39; wvfhi\u00e9h ,piam:;\ufb01"s \u00a7i.9iiie'~-~3~:V’i’5$2;\u20ac\u00a7V6d a native \ufb01nm the ?o}ice Inspector anti the<\/p>\n
R\u20ac1.!’:1’I:3’i{‘}'(;3If:fl’C\u20ac’L\u00a37S:’t\u00a5VL.’:–::aV1Z}$3f bef\ufb01re them. Despite that, piaimtiffs continued<\/p>\n
fie  for transfer of katha in \ufb02xeir names. Their prayer was<\/p>\n
x V’ :b:=.g\u00e9cfed_.\u00ab enwthe gonna that sites in qnestisn farmed past 0f the area<\/p>\n
-.  far civic amenity. Accerdizig is the plaintiffs, their predecessor<\/p>\n
”  uii1’tiile was having a tifze and further accor\u00e9ing :9 them, the er\u00e9ginal owner<\/p>\n
U Rama Rm had 110$ executa\u00e9 \ufb02ue raiiamgaishment dead as sue}; defendant<\/p>\n
<3.\n<\/p>\n
had no manner of title. Stating that the plaintiffs are the ..<\/p>\n
purchasers? suit was filed.\n<\/p>\n
The suit was contested by 3:: defendant EDA  \u00a3\u00a7\u00a2’\u00a3a.2;]”‘<\/p>\n
objections \ufb02aat, sites are net available  per _#h’e;ap;\u00a7r\u00e9\u00a5V\u20ac;\u20ac1′:  T <\/p>\n
speci\ufb01caily stated that \ufb01zese two sitesgtfe tbrr\ufb01\u00e9d but ef CVi\\;’1L.\u00a7;A’\u00a3A\u00e9if\u00a5’1i.$’i”ii}3:’  V<\/p>\n
marked in the plan. Plaintiffs shouItI”L\u00ab11T\u00a35t.have   sites.
\nUnder the BDA Act and they QWR  V\u00e9icigvvpotver ta
\nregulate and aggprove satiation’ #i:e  ‘L312-3,zi53irail\u00a7!\u00a7fve;’_’ {he defendant in<\/p>\n
c:’)n1″‘ot’znitj; with $13: gwjies ..\u00a7f\u00a2tii1\u00e9:\u00ab;:i3proV’ing the iayout<\/p>\n
gjlan, tho$e”\u00a7iie3Tf\u00e9:1ne\u00a3i::T5:\u00e9:1 ‘ixfjgv\u00e9c \u00e9ii:’ieni\u00a73* s\u00e9tesi. \u00a7’1ainti\ufb02’s under the
\nguise ef 331-lg {leads :’\u00e9:t::\u00a3rr;;3f\u00a7Vii1g9 :gg i\u00e9lentify the property which fsmns<\/p>\n
part of civic a\ufb01rsgiiry sife Nk,~,3 agi\u00e9i no ;’33rii<:u}ar'S are avaiiable as per the<\/p>\n
 . ''\u00a3?\u00a2','}})I'{}'t\u00e9'\u20ac;':\u00a7i pm  re\u00a7;i\u00e9::$s)_;f_th:\u00bbse tws) sites which are aileged tn have been<\/p>\n
 s\u00bb:31:(Vi'\u00a7"\u00ab\u00a7{   favaur 0f the vendor sf \ufb01re plaixxti\ufb01\u00e9 who in tum<\/p>\n
\u00a7\u00a71;:"i;:.,tai%&.;\u00a5_*ef :i~\u00a7\u00a7';":\u00a7ia;ntif\u00a3s. The sale deeds if any, are void and Rama<\/p>\n
. R39 'iiiimrnseif.  \u00a3161 scught for medificatitm of civic amenity into<\/p>\n
 .;'9es\u00a7d3;1tiaiV'\u00a7ites. The sites are vested with tha defendant authcriiy and<\/p>\n
_'  there' he cause ofaction te \ufb01le the suit.\n<\/p>\n
Eased an the pieadings, in hail: the sits, ths: \ufb01z\ufb02uwing issues were:<\/p>\n
\ufb02amed. J\/LWI<\/p>\n
In OS $706591:\n<\/p>\n
1 Whether the piainti\ufb01” proves that he is the ahseiut\u00e9’   <\/p>\n
peace\ufb01li possessien azn\u00e9 enjoyment cf the suit schmia\u00a7.\u00a2.%_’13z:(>15ex1y<.as
\non the data af\ufb01iing ofthe suit'? I . — ' <\/p>\n
2 Whether the plairxti\ufb01 fin\ufb01zar proves :12}: th–.\u00a7.=\u00a7f aefergaan\ufb01s <\/p>\n
guise of treating the suit schcg\u00e9ttie sites; 3 ci\\?icTv.a;m3;1ity sife, "
\n\ufb01xierferixzg in iis possession and cmj\ufb01ygnenz by {her plaintiii?'    "<\/p>\n
3 If so, whether the plainti\ufb01' is Vic; iaajve a .feiief_;;-f Vp\u00e9rpeiuai
\ninjunction against the d::fe';a;iants"as pfaycd? ' – <\/p>\n
4 Whether the plaintiff is  :ha\\_%e_LTVa.A\/_fel\u00a7e_\u00a3' ef manciaiery
\ninjunction directing the dafcndagnts tn; tzjansfe\ufb01r lghafa of the scheciuie
\npropre\ufb01\ufb01' "\ufb01x '  -.\n<\/p>\n
5 To what eras’;-” ms  ._
\nIn as 2702851: N  3 ”\n<\/p>\n
I Wixciixer the V she is the absoiute owner in<\/p>\n
lawful i’?’9.$S\u20ac8_si@f; _ of {ha “suit schedule pmperty with given
\nm\u00a2a$m*emez13s_a1:::i.bou\ufb01dari’es as on the data of \ufb01iing cf the suit’?<\/p>\n
 J  _  the plaif\ufb01:i\ufb01”;3rdves that the suit scheduia progeny is net .1<\/p>\n
‘ . “civic az:1cnity._site’?\n<\/p>\n
3A  .  \ufb01nrthrzr proves that he is entiiied \u00a30 have 3
\n‘ A transfer of\u00e9rhiita with respect to the suit schedule property in his
\n‘1E’:wot1;” ‘by way of manaiatory injztnction?\n<\/p>\n
”   V  AA \\?s?I1;\u00e9I.\u00a5’*x::i* \ufb01le piaintiff fusrther proves that the defendant without any<\/p>\n
V. ‘\ufb01ght, titie or interest abstructixzg me plainti\ufb01 in the peaceful
\n” pgx\u00e9session and enjoyment of the suit scheduie property?<\/p>\n
   If so, whether gsiaixztiif is entitied :0 have perpetuai izximction<\/p>\n
against due defendant’?\n<\/p>\n
  Whe\ufb02xer the defendant proves that the suit schedule property is a<\/p>\n
civic mlenity site No.3 as such plainii\ufb01” has no right, titl\u00a2 or
\ninteresct. over the suit schedule: mow<\/p>\n
…g<\/p>\n
‘1’ To what arder and dearee?\n<\/p>\n
After trial, after hearing the argumemst the trial cams. .\u00e9ec:ee\u00a7::zhe ‘<\/p>\n
suits declaring the plainti\ufb01ls as the absolute ewitcrs  ti:\u00a7e;’9o\u00e9\u00a7ess_i6n.  l T_T <\/p>\n
enjoyment of tha plain: schedule pr0p\u00a2:’\u00a3i::s an\u00a3:Iqa1\u00a7t:– declav\ufb01sgltl tiialll’<\/p>\n
sites in quastiem do net form part sf \u00e9ivic mn\u00e9izttylsit\u00e9s $335!’ that
\ndef\u00e9ndant has no manner: cf tight   anclll\u00e9l\u00e9oltilrecte\ufb02
\nthe defendant ta change the kath;t   the plaintiffs
\nand permanently injt1\u00a7x:c\u00a7’%:\u00a7’vt.\u00a51e   Hence, these
\ntwo appeals by the,’     V
\nI~Iea:li_ the.   Lti1.a\u00bblfesl:;\u00a7:\u00e9a:.tive’l parties.<\/p>\n
It is the \u00e9ont\u00e9ntieh Qf ti-gel aglgieilants’ ceunsel that these twe sites<\/p>\n
~:;l;aimeci me ‘plaiz1tj\u20acf\u00a7’are;__ of the civic amenity cites ear marked as<\/p>\n
 -lafycu: pian\u00e9vjwhleh is carved nut as civic amenity site No.3 and<\/p>\n
abs\u00a7,~is1t\u00e91y;v\u00e9\u00a7tl=\u00a7l”yviti1 Authority. Plainti\ufb01 are trying in grab the civic<\/p>\n
‘ amenityyus\u00e9tes v–i$e’1o;ag,mg tn) the statutory au\ufb02mrity under alleged sale deeds<\/p>\n
..  “”{;\\?%;’1″  heiither Rama Rae I101′ the plaintiffs’ vendor Shakuntaia<\/p>\n
ll’S:i\u00a7:\u00a7\u00a7?3s2!1″lh3ve get right and title (war the same. The sale is void. The<\/p>\n
 f’all\u00a2Vg_$\u00a7d possession certificate issued by Rama R30 is cancncteci and<\/p>\n
  li\u00e9picting unapprmze\u00e9 plan fer his unlawful gain anti \ufb01zrther, tssuance of<\/p>\n
katha and co\ufb02ection of taxes does not canfer any title t0 the plaintiffs.
\n34:,\u00bb<\/p>\n
The katha was issued under the miseeneeption in respect sf <\/p>\n
existent site. The tie} mart erred in not \ufb01zaming any issue x\ufb01e’g–erdiftigv:’ii\u00a3e  ‘ *<\/p>\n
icientity of the su\u00e9i scheduie preperty and meremzer, therei\u00e9 hey,-fueIi’esiies <\/p>\n
in existence as per the approved plan, and que;etioa11’\u00a3)f..e’oniseying:;;if<\/p>\n
by Rama Rae in one Shakumala Sn%nive$z’e1__ her \u00a3e !:\ufb01e:p3.a;;i;}ti?:1’3i”s VA<\/p>\n
thraugh saie deeds is void. Even  Sginieasae g\u00e9d \ufb01xed writ
\npetitievns regarding Show cause  ieeuee  Ie her anti
\nas to why the katha shail pct be  came to be
\ndimnissed during }\u00a3s\u00a7xe\u00a3e;b\u00a7;rV19\u00a3i\u00a2–$. 1*;~.\u00e9\u00ab_..1i;iT’na: eansider Ex.D1
\nVV’U'( approved iayotitg    iii existence. Question ef
\nissuance ef  the EDA over the civic
\namenity siteis-\ufb02ees   imisthtake, ihe earlier katha was issued<\/p>\n
to a nan~existeni\u00b0s~\u00a7ie”en;i  aetien was taken fer eaneeilatien ef<\/p>\n
” \u00e9he sazjjez. is siebmitted that at one poem of time Rama Rae<\/p>\n
.V’\u00a71irztee}i”–~h;3{iv.\u00a7\u00e9fr&t\u00a7enj”a ietter In the BDA that he is unabie te deveiep the<\/p>\n
iayeut and id {\u00a7i_L:e f:}\u00a7’er the same. As such, questiem of exeeuting a<\/p>\n
‘eeiinquieiagrxent deed in faveur of the BEA by Rama Rae dees not arise.<\/p>\n
 :i’12eA B335  go: power nn\u00e9er $.32 ef the As’; for aeeerding sanction fer<\/p>\n
.f\u00a2’fozi;1aiien of new extensiens or iayout.\n<\/p>\n
Per eotme, eeunse} for the respemients contenderi that the triai<\/p>\n
” eourt has rightiy decreed the suit, BIZSA has no right ever the same as there<\/p>\n
‘}4{_}_.\n<\/p>\n
is 1’19 relinquishment deed exectiiezd in favour of the EDA by Ramg Rae<\/p>\n
who was developing the property and alga me action of the BDA ‘E;<\/p>\n
a belated one as by ef\ufb01ux sf fans, titie has been   ~<\/p>\n
piaintiffs. There is no right whatsoever ii}   K ” ‘V<\/p>\n
have not acquircd right was the sitm in qu\u00e9stimj;”‘a:<s\u00a7l zt1so1'ref\u00e9triiig:'tz}&\u00a5Eit\u00a2:_'<\/p>\n
decision of this court in the case of 3m_V Vs   {;;.;e_f2aa1!4  w<\/p>\n
EAR 1335 and aiso in Na\u00e9ruzppa "P\u00a7&}*q  \u00e9az\u00e9ny V.'si:m'e:y 2\/s
\nBDA – 11.1: 15195 EAR 1723;. \u00e9ctien 9f the EDA is hit
\nby limitation and aisqthe BEA h\u00a7\u00a7$V.no.v'}\u00a7}as:\u00a7*er"tiz  inter Se between<\/p>\n
the Society and its :3Regar\ufb01\u00a7ng'c;t\u00a7\u00a71\u00e9\u00e9'i\u00a7atin}t of katha , it has to be<\/p>\n
done by decltifa\ufb01ign   court  not by the axstlmtitias by way
\nof canceii\u00e9ticn; % mapper! of his argumcnt, he has raiied<\/p>\n
upon _th_\u00a2  in cz\u00e9s\u00e9 sf Kama! Chopra Vs' Cammr. (If<\/p>\n
 *  _ca;\u00a7;\u00a7'm;.\u00ab.u}z a;jc3zy};j";3*aa:gaeore .. [LR 193.9 KAR 2416 in this regard<\/p>\n
   ia mas relinquishrnent deed ex\u00e9cuted in fa\\\u00ab*f;:13.:" (sf<\/p>\n
tticw  his  Rae to confer r\u00e9ght over the Civic: Amenity site as such<\/p>\n
 question taking any aeticn by the BDA against the plainti\ufb02s does not<\/p>\n
A V.  ~ asisex<\/p>\n
In repiy, appellants' counsel argued that as per the layout plan
\nohtaine\u00e9 by Rama Rae i\ufb01msei\ufb01 sites in question are falsely deveieped by<\/p>\n
Rama Rae by preparing a false plan as against the approved pian<\/p>\n
deceiving the purchasers, without tracing the site number by giving<\/p>\n
notienai site nurnher, property has been gold which does not c\u00a3:nv\u00e9j;'\u00ab..:ii13(<\/p>\n
tiiie and them is no site available in the appmved K  ~<\/p>\n
regard, no issue was raised by the triai court 334. 'i\u20acCided."  V' ~ 1:  . <\/p>\n
In the Eight of the arguments aiiizaziced, Tet.  cor1sT\u00e9ci%'VVfV\u00a2s\u00a5:11;:V:\ufb011eii\u00a7
\nirial court is justified in dttcreeing the \u00a7u~a;"of_tVhe giiainii\ufb02si; wizgther me
\ntriai ceurt has not raised apgiifiypriai\u00e9i  idiiniity of die<\/p>\n
property and, whai order.\n<\/p>\n
A;v~gt\u00a7\u00e9’ibu\u00a3si\u00a7f, it ii: iifairi\ufb02sactions, one Rama Rae while
\nis the dev\u00e9iq\ufb01\u00e9f iiiayixut plan \ufb01nm the BDA me than<\/p>\n
CITE, for dex}\u00e9\u00a7:1;i\u00a7zr;.a:iiic:f Iii: iagzii\ufb02t as par E31,}?! produced cu: nf which<\/p>\n
 , ‘sites  ali\u00e9gad to\u00bb “hai”J\u00a7’,__’b’\u20ac:\u00a7:’Il fmmed from the civic amenity sites .<\/p>\n
AV’x_VQu\u00a2s\ufb01<:pn mf 'rs'Iis1ijiIis_hr:xeni of the property registered as civic. amenity<\/p>\n
si\u00a3;*siiia.fa'\u00a7\u00e9u:i_tsf th;,\u00a5{BDA though my not be there, as per \ufb01n; contention<\/p>\n
V _ sf\ufb021ei'BDA–.V1ifaIEner dated 5.4.1976, Rama Ran the Develcper is said to<\/p>\n
H H "  1ii:aveV[.a\u00a7}and61ied the development of the prajwt. However, subsequentiy<\/p>\n
 i\ufb01ti 26;3–;i9E9, by giving national site numbers in the appreve\u00e9 layout plan<\/p>\n
 fin:-:r–?mari:;ad for civic amenity; he has mid the same is} Shaiumtaia<\/p>\n
"iiSrir:ivasan wider Ex.P7{'J -~ 3326 deed' Therea\ufb01er, it has been conveyed to<\/p>\n
\ufb01ne plaintiffs. Aitixaugh under a wmng noizirm at the instance of the parties,
\n(#6.,<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
the BBA ha\u00e9 issued katha as per the submigsion ma\u00e9e, having raali-sad it<\/p>\n
was not as per the approves} plan, subseqtmntiy, an attempt iwfiis<\/p>\n
made its cancel the kathn made in favour of the Vt:-mist cf :th\u00a2 , V’<\/p>\n
when they sought for transfer of the Iwzatha and the sagh\u00e9 \u00a5i\u00e9a\u00a7.’:;2ac\u00a7’t.V’is${ued;-  K V’<\/p>\n
When Rama Rae \u00a3136 abandoned develepmg,the;’pre_;\u00e9c{%y <\/p>\n
intention by writing a letter :9 \ufb02ue _Vmig1’fi-b\u00e9’ itVwa*\u00a3: of –. V L’<\/p>\n
reljnqtaishing the project itself and that \ufb01\ufb01g\ufb01t :9 hav\u00e9i  by
\nthe trial court by framing  issfus\u00e9 isaga\ufb01iing \ufb02u: identity of the
\nproperty. Even  depictg  tiiat  sites have been<\/p>\n
cieveloped in are   :’xi5.rl\u00a7\u00a3\u00a7dvj:L:s~V\u00a7:ivi!V;::menity. Rama R39 is<\/p>\n
said tee  te’..’\u00a7ii\u00e9V’vender of the piairati\ufb01s on
\n26.3.l98(i .&.\ufb01\\#iso, V   iatter written by Rama Rat) to the<\/p>\n
BDAECIIB ai$:’a’:’;dVreix;::gV’v._\ufb011\u00e9*–V_;%r1*\u00ab\u20acs-j\u00e9cnt mum have been cansidsred befbre<\/p>\n
  ogder  ‘te….:*:hether in the circumstmzces ef the case,<\/p>\n
by Rama R30 to EDA was necessary or nut and<\/p>\n
  available as per the approved plan 0!’ net and as<\/p>\n
~V   of the sites. In the circmnstamces, as righ\ufb01y argued by<\/p>\n
u x V  ca:-a1;zsev1 ‘foa* the appeilants, the trial mm had not app-iied iis mind as tn<\/p>\n
.’  EH6 Vsi\u00e9sriz’-jexistaace of these two sites as per the approved layout plan. The<\/p>\n
T  ”  conienticm of the respondents is that since there is no re-linquishment<\/p>\n
” V\u00e9ee\u00e9 executed in fawn: of the EDA by Rama Ran, it did not cimfes” any<\/p>\n
right and titie ever the civia amenity sites te \ufb01ne EDA but the fast remains<\/p>\n
By abandoning tin: prejerct mad hy conveying the same to t\u00a71r’:  ‘EDA,<\/p>\n
virtually tantamounts ts) relinquishmg the right to the BDA.   <\/p>\n
arnenity area which aspea has to be censidere\u00e9 a\ufb01er a\ufb02pfgfrizg  _  ”~<\/p>\n
to will the partias. Howe’v’e:r, the fact  ‘s:>:_ist\u00a2:nZ~;sit::\u00a7i argz . _Sh’;iwr: 1<\/p>\n
to have been cunvczyed in faw\u00e9ur of th\u00a7:\u00a5.’. pia\u00e9\ufb01fi\ufb01s  Atheit  ‘-<\/p>\n
Shakimtala Srinviasan and ti} her by’1<ag%\u00a7:zs._1:ao. % " Thg 'sav\u00a2;1j%pc\u00a7;taon 1'<\/p>\n
is that, no estoppel can be pleadgd vs?h;z2'*f:;z\u00a7i;;d  'crept  ' In  View of
\nthe matter, we decree of the   s\u00e9fsntzsjdering the factxxal
\nposition and wi\ufb02xoifrraisingi"\u00e9f\u00a7j\u00a7t1\u00a7\u00a7\u00a7r\u00a7:\u00a7\u00a7e\u00ab.::i5sf3a%\u00e9-   point regard\u00e9ng
\nidentity of the.'    written re the EDA<\/p>\n
abandoning iii:    –  _ '
\nIn tin  it\ufb01i degree and judgment are 56! aside.\n<\/p>\n
  in  court fer raising proper issues and to
\n ggfifne   oppommity to bath are patties.\n<\/p>\n
‘ Accozt\ufb01fngly, was are allewed. Parties to hem” their own ooata<\/p>\n
Sd\/-=
\nIudqe<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court The Bangalore Development … vs S A Rajagopal S\/O S G Atri on 21 November, 2008 Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh HKGH COURT 0? KARZVEATAKA AT BANGEXLQRE Dated this the 21″ day of Navember, 2098 Befere THE IIOEWBLIE’ MR .fiZ?S?’IC\u00a3 HL’L\u00a3?I\u20ac\u00bb-‘ID! ;’e Deveiopment Aufhoz\u00e9ty By its Commissicmer _ ‘- Q_ T Chowdaiah Road, K […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-231427","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Bangalore Development ... vs S A Rajagopal S\/O S G Atri on 21 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bangalore-development-vs-s-a-rajagopal-so-s-g-atri-on-21-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Bangalore Development ... vs S A Rajagopal S\/O S G Atri on 21 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bangalore-development-vs-s-a-rajagopal-so-s-g-atri-on-21-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-05T02:26:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-bangalore-development-vs-s-a-rajagopal-so-s-g-atri-on-21-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-bangalore-development-vs-s-a-rajagopal-so-s-g-atri-on-21-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Bangalore Development … vs S A Rajagopal S\\\/O S G Atri on 21 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-05T02:26:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-bangalore-development-vs-s-a-rajagopal-so-s-g-atri-on-21-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2850,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-bangalore-development-vs-s-a-rajagopal-so-s-g-atri-on-21-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-bangalore-development-vs-s-a-rajagopal-so-s-g-atri-on-21-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-bangalore-development-vs-s-a-rajagopal-so-s-g-atri-on-21-november-2008\",\"name\":\"The Bangalore Development ... vs S A Rajagopal S\\\/O S G Atri on 21 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-05T02:26:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-bangalore-development-vs-s-a-rajagopal-so-s-g-atri-on-21-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-bangalore-development-vs-s-a-rajagopal-so-s-g-atri-on-21-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-bangalore-development-vs-s-a-rajagopal-so-s-g-atri-on-21-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Bangalore Development … vs S A Rajagopal S\\\/O S G Atri on 21 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Bangalore Development ... vs S A Rajagopal S\/O S G Atri on 21 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bangalore-development-vs-s-a-rajagopal-so-s-g-atri-on-21-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Bangalore Development ... vs S A Rajagopal S\/O S G Atri on 21 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bangalore-development-vs-s-a-rajagopal-so-s-g-atri-on-21-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-05T02:26:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bangalore-development-vs-s-a-rajagopal-so-s-g-atri-on-21-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bangalore-development-vs-s-a-rajagopal-so-s-g-atri-on-21-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Bangalore Development … vs S A Rajagopal S\/O S G Atri on 21 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-05T02:26:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bangalore-development-vs-s-a-rajagopal-so-s-g-atri-on-21-november-2008"},"wordCount":2850,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bangalore-development-vs-s-a-rajagopal-so-s-g-atri-on-21-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bangalore-development-vs-s-a-rajagopal-so-s-g-atri-on-21-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bangalore-development-vs-s-a-rajagopal-so-s-g-atri-on-21-november-2008","name":"The Bangalore Development ... vs S A Rajagopal S\/O S G Atri on 21 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-05T02:26:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bangalore-development-vs-s-a-rajagopal-so-s-g-atri-on-21-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bangalore-development-vs-s-a-rajagopal-so-s-g-atri-on-21-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bangalore-development-vs-s-a-rajagopal-so-s-g-atri-on-21-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Bangalore Development … vs S A Rajagopal S\/O S G Atri on 21 November, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231427","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=231427"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231427\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=231427"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=231427"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=231427"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}