Advocate moves court over site allotment for 29 High Court Judges ; ( THE Indian EXPRESS, June 19, 1995 )

JUDGES’ JUDGMENT

Farmers allege land grab by Co-op JUDICIAL HOUSING SOCIETY ; ( THE ASIAN AGE, 10-11-98 )

BDA ensures that buyers’ dream-house stays just so – a dream ; ( THE INDIAN EXPRESS, 24-6-98. )

Ex–minister his facts in BDA site case Court asks Shivanna to pay Rs. 15,000 in suit against Vyjanath
( BANGALORE AGE DATE, 2-4-1998.)

Now, there’s a code of conduct for Judges ( THE TIMES OF INDIA, 9-7-1998 )

BANGALORE: advocate has a filed a writ petition against 29 High Court judges challenging the "legality, morality, propriety and judicial integrity" of their getting site allotments through a housing society.

He has cited the example of a demand for Rs. 55 lakh made by the Government towards conversion charges of the land acquired by the society. Instead of paying the money, the society filed a petition (no. 2382 of 1990) challenging the Government’s order. The Writ Petition came up before Justice Rajendra Babu who issued a stay order on February 2 1990. The petition has not yet come up for appeal despite the passage of five years. Justice Rajendra Babu is a member of the society.

After Vasudeva’s own petition was numbered on March 27, it was posted for hearing before Justice Ravindra on March 30. Although the board bench has scrutinized the petition and raised no objection, Justice Ravindra pointed out inaccuracies in the addresses of some judges and put off any hearing. The petitioner quickly eliminated the inaccuracies and the writ came up before Justice Ravindra Again on April 10. This time Justice Ravindra disqualified himself from hearing the petition. Justice Ravindra is a member of the Society.

The petitioner then appealed to Chief Justice Hakeem who posted it to court hall no. 3 before Justice Krishnamurthy. When the matter came up before him on April 20, Justice Krishnamurthy also disqualified himself he is a member of the society.

Advocate Vasudeva and his petition are still waiting.

Top

Top

Bangalore, November. 9 : Three landowners from Allalsandra in Bangalore north taluk plan to take legal action against the Karnataka Judicial Department House Building Co-operative Society Limited on the grounds that the society is forcibly trying to take over their properties. The society has allotted sites in Bangalore north taluk, among others, to high court judges.

One of the landowners. Jayamma, a widow who claims to be the rightful owner of land in survey no. 100, issued statutory notice to the registrar of co-operative societies in August this year informing him of her intention to file a civil suit against the office bearers of the society. She claimed that on August 5, office bearers of the society threatened to take over her property.

Similar statutory notices have also been issued to the registrar of co-operative societies by Akkayamma. Wife of Munishamappa, who claims to own 26.5 guntas in survey no. 104/2, and Muni Anjanappa, who claims to be the owner of three acres and 21 guntas in survey no. 104/2 in Allalsandra village. Both allege in their notices that their lands are being forcibly taken over by the society.

In the legal notices to the Registrar of co-operative societies, Mr. R.V. Jayaprakash, advocate, who is representing the three farmers, said: "The office bearers and agents of the karnataka Judicial Department House Building Co-operative Society Limited are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession (of the lands in question) of my clients(s) on the ground that the said land had been acquired by the government for the benefit of the society. The persons came near the land on August 5, 1998 and tried to interfere with the possession of my client(s). My client(s) resisted the attempt with great difficulty. The said persons threatened that they would dispossess my client(s) and form a layout on the land (in question) even though it has not been acquired by the government. As such my client intends to file a suit against the society."

Meanwhile, Justice Bhimarayappa K. Sangalad of the high court filed a caveat on November 6 this year in the city civil court praying that the court issue him notice if a suit is filed against him in respect of site no. 1269 allotted to him by the judicial employees co-operative society in 1995. He maintained that Mr. R. Venkataraman, President of the Karnataka land Owners’ Association, and one Gopala Reddy, a resident of Allalsandra, who "are strangers to the schedule site," were trying to interfere with his "peaceful possession"

of the site in question. "They are likely to present a suit against the petitioner by suppressing many material facts of the case relating to the schedule property. Hence the caveat petition," the judge said in his petition.

Explaining how he came to possess the site the judge said in the caveat: "The Karnataka Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society Limited, Bangalore, acquired certain plots in Allalsandra, Chikkabommasandra and Jakkur plantation and the society was put in possession of the said lands. The said society formed a layout and allotted the site bearing no. 1269 as per allotment letter dated December 2, 1995. The town municipality of Yelahanka made a Katha of the schedule site in favour of the petitioner (the judge), describing the petitioner as owner in possession of the said scheduled site. The town municipal council also sanctioned licence and plan for putting up construction on the schedule site as per licence and plan dated September 16, 1998. The petitioner has paid property tax to the town municipal council," the judge added.

Top

Mr. Puttaswamy, President of the judicial employees co-operative society, could not be reached for his comments as he was not in town.

………………………Next…….N E W S ……………….

( In the above cited Judgement and in the sale deeds executed by society, the Judges turned members admit that the BDA has approved the layout. Matter of Fact, the BDA has declared the said layout as an unauthorised layout on 22-9-97, as the society did not pay the lawful demands of BDA nor it submitted layout in accordance with Town Planning Act and also the Society failed to produce the documents proving the ownership of an extent of 172 Acres. The Commissioner of BDA Miss Lakshmi Venkatachalam is under real coersion and is afraid of attracting "Contempt of High Court"

Such conclusion could be arrived at by reading between the lines of the article appeared in Indian Express, cited below. )

Bangalore, June 23: A dream house for several thousand members of some housing co-operative societies in the City will be a far cry with the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) putting a spoke in the works by warning members not to buy housing sites from these societies.

The housing societies on their part have been crying foul against the BDA, which had slapped heavy levies running into crores of rupees on the societies to get approval from the BDA.

The levies per acre of land are for supply of Cauvery water at the rate of Rs. 3 Lakhs, construction of water at the rate of Rs. 3 lakh, construction of Ring Roads for Rs. 1 lakh, BMRTC cess of Rs. 50,000 charges for developing slums Rs. 10,000 per acre besides charges for development, inspection, asphalting and for development of CA sites and improving other amenities.

According to Vijay Singh, Honorary Secretary, Association of Housing Co-operatives in Bangalore, some of the housing co-operatives are singled out while slapping the levies while some others are exempted from such charges.

"It seems that the BDA is in a hurry to raise funds to pay the salaries of its staff. It is a matter of surprise that all these are happening even as a recommendation by the present BDA Commissioner A. Ravindra to scrap the BDA is pending. The BDA, which had failed to perform its duties of allotting sites for nearly a decade, is now trying to gag the societies which are working more efficiently than the BDA it-self.

He accused the BDA of taking unilateral decision by suppressing material facts thereby misleading the members of the societies by yielding to the pressure of local politicians and former land owners despite the fact that these lands were denotified and reconveyed to the housing societies legally by the Revenue Department

Adding to this is yet another blow from the BDA, which came out with a notification blacklisting certain societies. They include: Ex-servicemen House Building Co- operative Society, NTI Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha, Atmeeyara Geleyara Balga Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha, Vittalnagar HBCS Limited, Maruthi Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha and Sri Venjgopal Reddy, Poornaiah Rathan and Thyagaraj Amalgamated Property Developers. A large extent of land acquired by these societies now has been termed as ‘unauthorised layouts without obtaining approval from BDA.

However, the Housing Co-operatives have been crying foul against the BDA stating that the unilateral and unjustifiable decision’ taken by the BDA would attract contempt proceedings in appropriate courts.

Some of the housing societies had openly stated through the media that the demand note on levies sent by the BDA on Oct 20, 1995 was unjustifiable as it was impracticable for the BDA to supply Cauvery water as water was not available, and there were no Ring Roads passing through the layouts formed by the societies and there are no slums in the adjoining areas.

Vijay Singh stated that there appears to be pressure on BDA and there was no need for it to publish notices in newspapers misleading the misleading the members and public.

"Let the BDA allow the societies to complete the pending projects without further delay, subject to payment of supervisory charges legally determined by the High Court at a later stage so as to help the members of these societies who had invested their life savings in the hope of getting a shelter," he added.

…………………..Next N E W S…………………..

Elsewhere in the country, the respective High Courts have even initiated criminal actions against the violators of the law of Town Planning/Green Belt, such one case of an I.A.S Officer is mentioned below.

Top

…………………..NEXT NEWS…………………..

Mr. Shivanna had filed the petition protesting against the cancellation of a site allotted to him by the BDA and its subsequent allotment to Mr. Patil, who was a minister in the recent Deve Gowda government in Karnataka. He said that he had been allotted the 60 x 90 site at R.T. Nagar in 1981 under a Legislators Housing Development C0-operative Society scheme for allotment of sites to legislators and minister. He had paid the required amount for the site tots he society. However, on November 18, 1992, the BDA informed him that as he owned two sited in the city-one in HAL II stage allotted to him in 1973 by the then City Improvement Trust Board and the R.T. Nagar site – he would have to surrender one of them.

Mr. Patil also told the court that Mr. Shivanna had filed a false affidavit with the BDA in 1981 saying that he owned no other site within the authority’s jurisdiction, although he was already in possession of the HAL site. It was on the basis of this affidavit that he was allotted the R.T. Nagar site, Mr. Patil, Mr. J.V.Hulsoor, produced copies of both the affidavit and the letter surrendering the site in court.

In his order, justice Tilhari said, "I feel sorry to find that a person who held office of minister and was legislative member filed a false affidavit before an authority. If persons holding such offices behave clandestinoly like this, a day will not be too far off when people may completely lose faith," The judge added, "If such persons, who are expected to be men of character, behave in such a fashion…. In my opinion such person’s do not deserve exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 from the court in their favour. He dismissed the petition in view of the fact that " material facts" had been concealed from the court and imposed the costs on the former minister.

Top

…………………..NEXT NEWS………………….

A judge should not adjudicate on a business case if he holds shares of that company. "A judge shall not speculate in shares, stocks or the like".

He should also not engage, directly or indirectly, in trade or business, either by himself or in association with any other person.

He should not seek or accept contributions or actively associate himself with the raising of funds for any purpose.

He should not seek financial benefit in the form of prerequisite privilege attached to his office unless it is clearly available.

He should not allow any member of his "immediate" family (spouse, son, son-in-law, daughter, daughter-in-law or brother) to appear before him or even be associated with them in any manner with an official cause to be dealt with by him.

Now member of a judge’s family belonging to the Bar shall NOT be permitted to reside with him and use certain facilities (meant for the judge) for his professional work.

A judge should practice a degree of aloofness consistent with the dignity of his office, the code says.

It is expected of a judge to keep off the media.

He should also not enter into a public debate or express his views in public on political matters or on matters that are pending before him or likely to arise for judicial consideration.

Every judge must be conscious, at all times, that he is under the public gaze and there should be no act or omission by him which is unbecoming of the high office he occupies

He should not contest election to any office of a club, society or an association or hold such effective office except in a society or association connected with the law.

Chief Justice of India, Justice A.S. Anand who was a party for formulating the "Code of Conduct", knowing the affairs of not only the Karnataka Judges but also the Judges transferred from here to other High Courts including the ones who are elevated as Judges of Supreme Court vis-à-vis membership/allotment of sites from the tainted Society is maintaining a stoic silence. Who knows when the dragger hanging on the heads of the Judges, shall befall ?

Top