Un-Holy & Anti-Constitutional  Nexus Between Karnataka Judges and "Karnataka Government  "

Judges PLOT for PLOT of Land
Un-Holy & Anti-Constitutional  Nexus Between Karnataka Judges represented by "THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY , HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,BANGALORE –560 001"  and "Government of Karnataka represented by B.D.A, Urban Development Department, & all Departments. For a PLOT of Land how Judges are coercing Govt. in High Court Writ Proceedings. Violating all Laws & Judgments. For more visit www.JudgesPlot4Plot.Com

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE 

DATED THE 14th DAY OF OCTOBER 2004

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.BHAKTHAVASTALA

C.C.C.No.87 / 2004

 C/W WRIT PETITION NO 40994 / 2002

Petitioner

[1] JUDICIAL LAYOUT RESIDENTS AND SITE HOLDERS ASSN (REGD.)

    GKVK POST, BANGALORE- 560 065

   OF SHRI B.V. BYRA REDDY, PRESIDENT

   No. 1362, III CROSS, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 065.

And 13 others,   By Sri RAVIVARMA KUMAR

-Versus-

Respondents

[1]    BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP BY ITS COMMR

T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,

KUMARAPARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020.

 

[2]    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY Its SECRETARY ,HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT.

M.S. BUILDINGS, BANGALORE – 560 001.

 

[3]   THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL YELAHANKA

REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER

BANGALORE – 560 064.

 

[4]   THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPT

EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY [ 014.00 ] [ Judges are not Employees ]

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

HIGH COURT BUILDINGS

BANGALORE –560 001

 

O R D E R

 

    It is stated despite time granted pleadings are not complete and even two sites were given including temple site and civic amenity site. I may mention as Chief Justice, that I was eligible and offered a site at the initial stage as well as now. With thanks I have declined. However, the counsel for the society submits that they will consider the cases of the judges who are appointed first and have not been given the site, as it is  reported that some of the judges who were appointed later were given and allotted sites even from the civic amenity.

    In reply to this Mr. Ravivarma Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they are not concerned with the allotment of sites to the judges. The main grievance is that the society has allotted sites from civic amenity sites to the persons in violation of the Rule and also the order of this Court and no reply has been filed by R-4 till date. We cannot go into the question of fact or investigate them at this stage. Moreover, I am demitting my office on 19-10-2004. the pleadings are not complete. Therefore the case is adjourned by one month for filing the reply by the society.  

[N.K.JAIN, CJ]        [K.BHAKTAVATSALA, J] Date: 14-10-2004

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2003

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.BHAKTHAVASTALA

WRIT PETITION NO 40994 / 2002

Petitioner

[1] JUDICIAL LAYOUT RESIDENTS AND SITE HOLDERS ASSN (REGD.)

    GKVK POST, BANGALORE- 560 065

   OF SHRI B.V. BYRA REDDY, PRESIDENT

   No. 1362, III CROSS, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 065.

 

And 13 others,

By Sri RAVIVARMA KUMAR

-Vs-

Respondents

[1] BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP BY ITS COMMR

T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,

KUMARAPARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020.

 

[2] THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY ITS SECRETARY

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT.

M.S. BUILDINGS, BANGALORE – 560 001.

 

[3] THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

YELAHANKA

REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER

BANGALORE – 560 064.

 

[4] THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPT

EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

HIGH COURT BUILDINGS

BANGALORE –560 001

(Govt. Adv., takes notice for R-2)

      Whereas, a Writ Petition filed by the above named petitioner under article 226 of the constitution of India, has been registered by this court.

Read the Interim Order granted on 22-1-2003.

After hearing, the Court made the following:-

O R D E R

Enclosed order dated 18-6-2003, in W.P. 40994/2002.

[1]      Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite the order dated 22-1-2003 the civic amenity sites are being sold by the 4th Respondent –Society and in this way it is changing the character. The petitioners are directed to file the details of such sites, which have been sold in violation.

[2]     Respondents 3 and 4 are served, but not appeared despite service. Learned Standing Counsel for the B.D.A., and the learned Government Advocate are present, but no counter has been filed.

[3]    It is necessary to ascertain the facts. Therefore, Respondent No. 4/Society is directed to submit a copy of the map filed to B.D.A., to this court and a list of transfer of civic amenity sites, if any, within one month. Respondent No. 1/B.D.A., shall also submit its report within two months.

[4]     The interim order dated 22-1-2003 shall continue and in addition it is also made clear that during the pendency  of this petition, the society shall not transfer any civic amenity sites as shown in plan submitted to B.D.A., until further orders. In the meanwhile the respondents can file their counter.

  Put up after two months.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE. 

“COPY”   [ 23-6-2003]  

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.  [27-6-2003 ]
Up Dates: 000.02.01s WP.40994.IntOrder  Contempt of 1000 Judges admit in HC