| Chief Justice of India: "Difficult to Detect Corruption in Indian Judcicary" | Digvijay Mote: Investigator 867 Judges Scam |
|
||||||
|
Fruits of Contempt
:
Share Holders
"King-Pins or Dare-Devils out-of 867 Judges"
|
 |
|||||
 |
|
||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
CJ & KBJ: Date: 22-1-2003 WP01 W.P.No. 40994/2002 ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite prohibition to change the character and nature of the open space land, the respondents have started forming sites in the open space land measuring 195' X 200' reserved for temple. Issue notice to respondents 1, 3 and 4 returnable in two weeks. Learned Government Advocate to take notice for respondent No.2. In the meanwhile respondent No.4 society not to change the character of the land described in I.A.No.1/2003.
CJ & KBJ: Date: 22-1-2003 WP 02.1 W.P.No. 40994/2002
CJ & KBJ: Date: 18-6-2003. WP02 W.P. 40994/2002 Order 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.
CJ
& KBJ: Date: 27-2-2004
WP03 Order Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 3 wish to file their reply within five weeks Post after six weeks.
CJ & KBJ: Date: 9-7-2004 WP04 W.P.No. 40994/2002 ORDER 1. By the order dated 22-1-2003 this court directed Respondent No.4 society not to change the character of the land described in I.A.No.1/2003. Thereafter by the order dated 18-6-2003 it was made clear that the society shall not transfer any civic amenity sites as shown in the plan submitted to the B.D.A. until further orders. However, on 27-2-2004, the case was adjourned for filing reply. 2. Now the Bench is formed for this case and to-day this case has come up for orders. Respondent No. 4-society has filed its statement of objections. Sri.B.V.Acharya, learned counsel for the 4th respondent-society submits that initially the society filed a plan along with an application to the B.D.A. for its approval. Thereafter, as the jurisdiction was with the CMC, Yelahanka, the plan was filed in CMC by the 4th respondent-society and the same was approved and the sites have been sold accordingly. He further submits that no civic amenity site was sold. 3. The first respondent B.D.A has also filed the counter. It is stated that in the B.D.A meeting held on 16-11-1992 vide subject No.503/92 it was resolved to approve the private layout subject to certain conditions. it is stated that despite the letters dated 8-12-1993 and 24-2-1994 the 4th respondent-society did not comply with the letters. NOC was not given as no layout plan was filed. Sri.C.B.Srinivasan, learned counsel for the B.D.A. submits that despite the order dated 18-6-2003 no copy of the layout plan said to have been filed to the B.D.A. or the list of transfer of civic amenity sites have been furnished by the 4th respondent-society. 4. Respondent No.3-CMC, Yelahanka, has filed its counter. It is stated that on formation of City Municipal Council, Yelahanka, Judicial Layout was included in its limits and on receiving the form, the 3rd respondent approved the layout plan submitted by respondent No.4-society on 22-5-1996 and roads have been formed. It is also stated that civic amenity sites as they stood in May 1996 continued to remain the same till to-day. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is very strange that despite the submission of the learned counsel for the 4th respondent-society that originally the plan was submitted to the B.D.A., the BDA denies that it has received the layout plan. He further submits that it is strange that the BDA has taken a plea that only application has been filed whereas he can substantiate by filing number of documents wherein reference is made to the plan said to have been submitted to the BDA. 6. It is also seen that a contempt petition in CCC No. 87/2004 is also filed for violation of the interim order dated 18-6-2003 despite the service of order and as alleged about 30 civic amenity sites had been alienated in violation of the order as apparent from encumbrance certificate Annexure-C series and the list filed by the complainant and therefore it is necessary to see both the plans i.e., one said to had been submitted to the BDA at the first instance while forming the layout and the other one approved by the CMC Yelahanka. The plan said to have been filed to the BDA is in the writ petition and the other plan said to have been approved by the CMC has not been produced either by the 4th respondent-society or by the 3rd respondent CMC. Therefore, it is necessary that respondent No.4-society and Respondent No.3-CMC shall file certified copy of the plan. They are also free to substantiate their respective claims on factual aspect by 9-8-2004 and exchange the counters. In the meanwhile, the direction issued in the writ petition not to transfer any civic amenity site will continue, and we further direct not to alienate any civic amenity site to any person, as per the alleged map approved by the CMC Yelahanka. It is also made clear that any construction made on any civic amenity site, as per the map, here onwards would be at the risk and responsibility of the person making such construction. Post this case on 19-8-2004. On that day, the B.D.A. Secretary and the President of the 4th Respondent-Society shall be personally present in court.
RMRJ
& HBJ: Date: 19-11-2004
WP05 Order By order dated 9-7-2004, this Court had directed the 3rd respondent -CMC and the 4th respondent-society to produce the certified copy of the plan sanctioned by the CMC which the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent-society submits is complied with by filing the same along with an application. The Photostat copy of the plan, produced, is not legible and we are unable to identify the area demarcated as civic amenity sites. The 4th respondent is directed to produce the plan which is legible and in which the civic amenity sites are identifiable. The 4th respondent shall also make available a copy of the said plan to the 1st respondent-BDA who shall, keeping in mind the Comprehensive Development Plan of the said area and zonal regulations, file a statement as to the areas notified as public, semi public residential park etc., The Registry is directed to place on record the original file in W.P.35837/1994 along with connected writ petitions disposed off on 12th October, 1995. Call on 10-12-2004.
RMRJ
& HBJ: Date:11-03-05
WP06 Order Sri S.G. Bhat, learned Councel for respondent No.3 filed additional statement of objections, dated 11-03-05. Petitioner is permitted to file rejoinder, if any.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Chief Justice of India: "Difficult to Detect Corruption in Indian Judcicary" |
CJ & KBJ: Date: 29/1/2004 CCC01 C.C.C.87/2004 Order The learned Counsel for the complainants submits that despite the interim order dated 22-1-2003 and 18-6-2003, passed in W.P. 40994/2002 and service of copy of the interim order dated 18-6-2003 on 2-7-2003 on the Secretary/Manager, the Society has violated and alienated about 30 civic amenity sites, which is apparent from the copies of the encumbrance certificates at Annexure-C [series] and list-Annexure-D. Issue notice to respondent No.6 as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated, returnable in six weeks. The learned counsel for the complainants submits that he does not seek any relief against respondents 2 and 3. Accordingly, respondents 2 and 3 deleted at the risk of the learned counsel. Cause title to be amended accordingly.
CJ
& KBJ: Date: 19/8/2004
CCC02 Order In pursuance of the order dated 9/7/2004 Sri Vidyashankar, Commissioner-B.D.A who took charge one and a half month back, is present in court. Sri C. Shivalingaiah, President of the Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society, is present submitted a plan to the B.D.A. before it was transferred to the jurisdiction of the City Municipal Council Yelahanka. The map contains a portion of land which was not acquired. Sri Sharief, Commissioner The City Municipal Council, is also present in the court though voluntarily. He submits that after transfer of the jurisdiction they have granted permission as per law. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that despite the order dated 22-1-2003 not to change the character of civic amenity sites, the same have been sold in violation of the rules. Under the circumstances, the parties are directed to complete their pleadings in the form of counter affidavits. The personal attendance of the Commissioner B.D.A, President-Employees House Building Co-operative society and the Commissioner C.M.C., Yelahanka, is dispensed with for the present. However, they may file their respective replies in the Contempt petition mentioning the factual position. The question for consideration is whether the jurisdiction of the B.D.A. ceases after the area is transferred to the C.M.C., Yelahanka, as per the new Act. The question and its effect can be considered with the factual position whether the civic amenity sites have been sold or not, after hearing the parties and after completion of pleadings. Post after one month.
CJ & KBJ : Date: 14/10/2004 CCC03 C.C.C No. 87/2004 C/W W.P.No.40994/2002 ORDER It is stated despite time granted pleadings are not complete and even who 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.
RMRJ & HBJ Date: 17-12-2004 CCC04 CCC 87/ 2004 C/W WP 40994/02 Order Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we think it appropriate that the 4th respondent - Society should be directed to place on record the following particulars: [1] The number of public amenity sites, parks, stadium, playground, hospital, temple, schools, educational institutions etc., as earmarked, both, in the plan furnished to the BDA for its approval at the earliest point of time and in the alleged modified plan said to be sanctioned by the CMC, Yelahanka; [2] The percentage of the total areas set apart for the civic amenity sites, roads, drainage etc., other than the residential sites, both, in the plan submitted to the BDA and the plan said to be sanctioned by CMC Yelahanka; [3] The total number of residential sites formed out of the areas earmarked as above together with the particulars of the allotees of the said sites and the dates of execution of the deeds of conveyance etc., [4] The 4th respondent shall, prepare and submit a plan demarcating the areas set apart for civic amenity and other public amenities, as mentioned supra, as it is in existence today. It is borne out from records that this court by order dated 18th January, 2003 had directed the 4th respondent-Society to submit a copy of the plan submitted to the BDA as also the list of transfer of civic amenity sites, if any, within a month. We find that there has been no compliance of the said order. The 4th respondent is directed to comply with this order as well. Sri M.Sivappa, learned counsel for the 4th respondent seeks four weeks time to furnish the above particulars and comply with the directions of this directions of this court. It is made clear that four weeks time granted is as a last opportunity to the 4th respondent to place on record the relevant material necessary for decision-making.. Call on 21-01-2005.
RMRJ
& HBJ: Date: 28/1/2005
CCC05 Order The directions of this Court in its order dated 17-12-2004, are not compiled with. The conduct of respondent No.4 assumes great importance in the light of the allegations set out in the contempt petition. In the absence of the material sought for in our order dated 17-12-2004 and earlier order dated 18-1-2003, we left with no other option but to proceed further in the matter. We direct the respondents-5 to 8 to be personally present before this Court on 4-2-2005.
RMRJ
& HBJ: Date: 04-02-2005
CCC06 Order
Sri V. Lakshminarayan, learned counsel for 4th respondent- Society has
filed an application dated. 4.2.2005 stating the sites conveyed after
8.6.2003 would be immediately with- drawn, without prejudice to the
contentions raised by respondent We have observed from Annexure 'C' to the Contempt Petition which are certified extracts of encumbrance certificate issued by the Registering represented by on Sri C. Shivalingaiah, President who has executed the Sale Deeds. Having noticed this, Sri V.Lakshminarayana, learned Counsel for 4th respondent would seek leave of the court to file an affidavit of the executant of the Sale Deeds. In addition, the learned counsel would seek four weeks' time to make available all the relevant particulars that have been sought for in the previous orders of this Court. We do not see any reason not to grant time. Respondent No.4 is given a final opportunity to comply with the earl orders of this Court within four weeks' from today. Call on 04.03.2005. On that day, respondents 4 to 8 shall be present.
RMRJ & HBJ: Date: 08/04/2005 CCC07 C.C.C.No. 87/2004 C/W W.P. 40994/2002 Order Sri Keshava Reddy, learned HCGP submits that there is an on going enquiry into the alleged layout plans of the society and that the survey is presently undertaken to ascertain the extent of the areas earmarked for civic amenities and residential sites. The learned counsel for the State submits that if two weeks time is granted, the Government would place a comprehensive report before this Court. Sri V.Lakshminarayana, learned counsel for the contemnors submits that contemnors would secure necessary material and file affidavits with regard to the information sought for this court as directed in the order dated 17-12-2004. Registry is directed to place before this Court the records of the following writ petitions: W.P. Nos.35837/1994, 28797/95 a/w 11211/1995 disposed of on 12-10-1995 and W.P. 15101/2001. List these matters on 3rd of June 2005.
RMRJ & HBJ: Date: 08-07-2005 CCC08 CCC NO. 87/2004 C/W W.P. 40994/2002 Order Sri Keshave Reddy, learned AGA files a report dated 3/6/2005 along with enclosures. The report is taken on record. The Secretary of the 4th respondent society has filed an affidavit dated 3/6/2005 stating that the enclosures are in due compliance of the direction of this court. The deponent admits that the sites have been formed in the area shown as reserved for civic amenity etc., in the plan submitted to the BDA, but in view of the modified plan annexed to the affidavit duly sanctioned by the CMC, the society allotted the said sites to several members and Associate Members. According to him 70% of the associate Members are land lords of private pockets of lands included in the layout with whom the society had to enter into a compromise. Sri Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel points out to the affidavit and the list Annexure A to Contend that the sites as detailed therein admittedly fall within the reserved area but does not disclose the dates on which the allotments were made or sale deeds executed and also is not in compliance with the directions contained in the order of this court dated 17-12-2004. Sri V.Lakshminarayana, learned counsel for 4th respondent society submits that the dates or execution of the sale deeds are set out in detail, in a booklet filed into the court and that he would make available that information by the next date of hearing. Learned counsel also submits that after the interim order was made, except for six sale deeds, which have since been cancelled, no other sale deeds are executed in respect of the sites falling within the reserved area mentioned in the plan submitted to the BDA. Having perused the affidavit, there is considerable force in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that there is non compliance of the order dated 17/12/2004. In order to ascertain the exact area of land reserved for Civic Amenities like Parks, Schools, Playground, Hospitals and Temples etc., as provided in the plan filed by the society with the BDA, for sanction, in which sites have been formed by the 4th respondent society, on the basis of a modified plan sanctioned by the CMC, we think it appropriate that the BDA be directed to make an enquiry in the manner it thinks fit and place before the court a report containing the details of the total area reserved for civic amenity comprised in the layout formed in the area of 156 acres 26 3/4th guntas; their location and the number of sites formed in the said reserved area, with reference to both the plans. Sri C.B.Srinivasan, learned counsel for BDA submits that a week's time is required to comply with the direction. Two weeks time is granted to the BDA, while the 4th respondent society is directed to furnish the required particulars and comply with the order dated 17.12.2004 of this court. List on 22.7.2005. Registry is directed to issue a carbon copy of this order to Sri C.B. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the BDA.
RMRJ & HBJ: Date: 22-07-2005 CCC09 C.C.C.87/2004 C/w. WP 40994/2002 Order Sri C B Srinivasan, learned Counsel for BDA files report dated 22.7.2005 indicating that 404 sites of various dimensions are formed in the areas reserved for Civic Amenities and Parks, as detailed in the report. Sri V Lakshminarayana, learned counsel for 4th respondent seeks leave of this court to file statement of objections to the report of the BDA as well as report of State filed on 8.7.2005. Respondent No.4 is directed to comply with the order dated 8.7.2005 in addition to the furnishing the details of the following - [1] names and addresses of the allottees of the sites formed in CA and the park areas; [2] their site numbers; [3] the office bearers concerned who made the allotment; [4] the dates on which the allotments were made including the sale deeds if any; and [5] the names of Office bearers who registered the sale deeds. There is considerable force in the submission of the Senior Counsel representing respondent No.4 that personal presence of Sri C.M. Basavarya, Contemnor No.5 be dispensed with for the time being. Considering the fact that interim order dated 18.6.2003 which was made against Respondent No.4 represented by the Secretary, pursuant to which the contempt proceedings have been initiated, we consider it appropriate that the personal presence of Sri. C.M. Basavarya be dispensed with for the time being. List on 26.8.2005.
RMRJ & HBJ: Date: 6-1-06 CCC10 C.C.C.87/2004 C/w. WP 40994/2002 Order Sri V. Lakshminarayan, learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that the Annexure R2 to the affidavit dated 20-10-2005, particularises the details of the 250 sites, identified by the Society, from out of the 404 sites, said to be located in the civic amenity area, in the report of the Bangalore Development Authority. According to the learned counsel, the aforesaid 250 sites fall within the areas reserved for civic amenities. The learned counsel requests that a direction be issued to the BDA to conduct a joint inspection to identify the remaining 154 sites, as the society is unable to do so on the basis of the plan submitted by the BDA along with the report. Sri C.B. Srinivasan, learned Standing Counsel for BDA has no objections for a joint inspection and to identify the balance 154 sites, with reference to the report submitted. Recording the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the BDA is directed to conduct a joint inspection after issuing notices to the 1st petitioner and the 4th respondent Society fixing the date/s and time for inspection and identify the remaining 154 sites. The 4th respondent is thereafter permitted to file an additional affidavit in respect of the said sites. Sri Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner points out to the photo copies of the encumbrance certificates, to contend that more than 13 sites are conveyed by the present office bearers after the interim order was passed in this case, which is contrary to the submission of Sri. V. Lakshminarayan, learned counsel for the 4th respondent recorded in the order sheet dated 8-7-2005. Sri. V.Lakshminarayan seeks time to secure instructions as to whether all the said sites fall within the area earmarked for civic amenity etc. or elsewhere. Having regard to the fact that the 4th respondent has identified 250 sites falling within the area reserved for civic amenity etc., reference to which is made in the Annexure R2 to the statement of objections dated: 20-10-2005, it is necessary that the nature of the said sites should be preserved without effecting any change and hence, we direct that no construction or further construction shall be put up on the said 250 sites. But at the same time, it does not mean that construction could be made or proceeded within such of those sites which have so far not been identified by the society as falling within area reserved for civic amenity etc., though as a matter of fact they are in the said area. It is useful to extract the order dated 9/7/2004, which reads thus: It is also made clear that any construction made on any civic amenity site, as per the map, here onwards would be at the risk and responsibility of the person making such construction. In our considered view, the aforesaid order would take care of such of those sites which have not been so far identified by the 4th respondent society as falling within the areas reserved for civic amenities, parks etc., We further direct the 4th respondent Society to communicate this order to all its members. List on 3rd February, 2006. Let a copy of this order be made available to the learned counsel for 1st petitioner, 4th respondent society as well as learned standing counsel for BDA.
RMRJ & HBJ: CCC11 Date: 17-02-2006
Order
Sri Subbanna learned Sr. Counsel for respondent No.6 files a reply to the contempt petition, which is taken on record. Sri Subbanna submits that the contemnor seeks to purge the contempt by canceling the deeds of conveyance of the sites executed on and after the interim order passed in the writ petition. In addition, the learned Sr. Counsel submits that efforts and on to restore the vacant areas constituting C.A. Sites, parks, etc., as set out in the plan furnished to the Bangalore Development authority, for sanction and to make a written request to the Bangalore Development Authority to consider sanction of the said plan, subject to the conditions set out in the correspondence between the Authority and the society. Sri C.B.Srinivasan learned counsel for the. Bangalore Development Authority having been directed to secure and file a report of the factual position in regard to the 404 sites said to be formed out of the areas demarcated for civic amenities and parks. Submits that the report is ready and would be filed into the registry, after service of copies on the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel further submits that in the joint spot inspection, in the presence of the petitioner as well as office bearers of the society, 404 sites were identified as formed out of the area de-alienated and demarcated for civic amenities and parks, out of which approximately 83 contain unauthorized constructions while 321 are vacant sites. Learned counsel could further add that the Bangalore Development Authority is prepared to consider the representation of the society for sanction of the plan that was earlier submitted to it, subject however to compliance by the society of the conditions already communicated to the society, provided further that the layout is restored to fall in conformity with the plan furnished and the vacant areas notified for parks, civic amenities, etc., are relinquished in favor of the Bangalore Development Authority.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and the assurance of the learned Sr. Counsel Sri. T.R. Subbanna, we consider it appropriate to adjourn the hearing of this matter to 3rd of March, 2006, to enable the learned Sr. Counsel to file an affidavit of responsible office bearers of the society or the contemnors, undertaking to purge the contempt by executing cancellation deeds of the documents of conveyance or other forms of transfer executed on and after the date of the interim order passed in the writ petition and to relinquish in favor of the Bangalore Development Authority the areas demarcated in the plan furnished to the Bangalore Development Authority for civic amenities, parks, playgrounds, temple and other open spaces, further to comply with the conditions already communicated by the Bangalore Development authority, in addition to make a representation to the Bangalore Development Authority for sanction of the said layout plan. The contemnors shall ensure that the areas demarcated for the aforesaid purposes in the plan submitted to the Bangalore Development Authority shall be free from constructions which includes the 404 sites identified by the Bangalore Development Authority.
RMRJ & HBJ: Date: 07-07-06 CCC12 C.C.C.87/2004 C/w. WP 40994/2002 IN
THE MATTER OF
Judicial
Layout Residents and Site Holders Association (Regd.) Rep.
By its Board of Direction & Ors.
.. Complainant
Versus
Bangalore Development Authority Rep. By its Commissioner & Ors. Respondents
Order
(2)
The complaint avers that there is willful disobedience of the
order dated 18-06-2003. It is averred in the complaint that the
complainants are the president, secretary and Directors of the Judicial
Lay-out, Residents and Site-Holders Association (Regd.), and that the
Association had filed writ petition W.P.No. 40994/2002 seeking a direction
to the respondents to take necessary steps to protect, preserve and
maintain the open spaces like C.A.s
parks, play-ground and bus terminus in the judicial Lay-out and
that when the matter came up for preliminary hearing on 22-01-2003, this
court directed emergent notice to the respondents and passed an interim
order restraining the respondents from changing the nature of the land
with regard to the temple site measuring 195X200 and that on
18-06-2003, this Court directed the fourth respondent to produce the map
that was submitted to the BDA along with, list of civic amenity sites
which have been transferred within one month and that BDA was also
directed to submit its report within two months and that this court while
continuing the interim order dated 22-01-2003, an order stating that the
society shall not transfer any civic amenity sites shown in the map and
that on 02-07-2003, made an order stating that the society shall not
transfer any civic amenity sites shown in the map and that on 02-07-2003,
the complainants have served copy of the interim order on the
secretary/Manager of the said society and that in spite of the interim
order dated 18-02-2003, the society has deliberately sold residential
sites in the open area in direct and willful disobedience of the interim
order dated 18-06-2003, it is also averred that the society has changed
the nature of civic amenity sites by converting them as residential sites
and it is selling and registering the same to different person even after
the order passed by this court on 18-06-2003, in support of the same, the
complainants have produced series of encumbrance certificates. They have
also produced the list of civic amenity sites and layout plan submitted by
the society to the BDA and modified plan said to have been approved by the
CMC, Yelahanka. It is, therefore, they have prayed for initiation of
contempt proceedings against the respondents herein for willful
disobedience of the order dated 18-06-2003. (3)
This court by its order dated 29-01-2004 has directed notice to
the respondent No.6 and thereafter by its order dated 09-07-2004 it had
directed notice to the respondents1,4,5,7 and 8 and R.2 and 3 have been
deleted by order dated 29-01-2004 and no notice is directed to respondents
9 to 19. (4) The respondent No.1 has filed its response contending
that there is no violation of the order passed by
this court. It has also stated that this court had directed the
fourth respondent to submit a copy of the map filed by it to the BDA and
also directed the BDA to submit its report within two months and that the
fourth respondent did not furnish the copy of the map said to have been
filed by it to the BDA and that as it did not act according to the
direction, the Town planning Member of the BDA addressed a letter to the
fourth respondent of 17-07-2003 and there was no response to said letter
and therefore one more letter was written on 23-07-2003 and there was no
response to the said letter also and therefore it was not possible for the
BDA to submit its report in terms of the order dated 18-06-2003. it is,
therefore, it has prayed for dismissal of the petition. (5)
In the affidavit dated 03-03-3005 filed on behalf of the
respondent No.4-society, Sri Suresh Kumar, secretary, has stated that as
on 22-05-1996 the society was in possession of 193 acres and 2 Ό guntas
of land and out of that plan has been sanctioned in respect of
466197.48sq. yards by the City Municipal Council. Yelahanka, vide
resolution dated 22-05-1996
and that in the said plan, sites have been allotted for school, park and
play-ground. He has also stated that in the land measuring 934392.96
square yards totally 2268 sites have been formed and 90% of them have been
sold to the members of the society. He has also stated that respondent
No.4-society has not disposed of any civic amenity sites reserved in terms
of the sanctioned plan dated 22-05-1996. It is also stated that BDA in its
meeting held on 16-11-1992 had resolved to approve that private layout
plan subject to certain conditions and that plan was not released by the
BDA as huge amount was demanded towards conveyance, water supply and ring
road and that it was challenged before this court in W.P.No.39338-34/1992
and it came to be dismissed in view of the letter dated 16-05-1994 issued
by Sri.T.S.Ramachandra, Advocate. It is also stated that the area was
brought within the limits of Municipal Council and municipal Council has
approved the plan on 22-05-1996 and there is no violation of the interim
orders passed by this court. It is also stated that the sale deeds
mentioned by the complaints are all residential sites in the approved plan
dated 22-05-1996. (6)
The respondent No.6 has filed his response dated 04-08-2004
contending that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and it is
not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is filed with malafide
intention of harassing the respondents. It is also stated that some of the
complaints had contested the election for the post of Director of the
Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operative
Society and that they had lost the election and therefore, they have a
grudge against him. It is also averred by him that the complainants had
sought for a site in the Judicial Lay-out for construction of the temple
and that the Board of Directors of the society decided that the society
itself can construct the temple in a site measuring 80X100 and that
this angered the petitioners. Further it is averred that Sri.B.L.Acharya,
Advocate, had filed vakalath for the fourth respondent and his name was
not shown in the cause-list, and therefore he was not present before the
court on 18-06-2003 when the order was passed. It is also averred by him
that he has not violated the interim order passed by this court. Further
it is averred that this court had passed interim order dated 22-01-2003
directing the respondents not to change the nature of the land in regard
to the site measuring 195X200 which has been termed as a temple site
in the writ petition and that in fact as per the lay-out plan sanctioned
by the Yelahanka Municipal Council, the said land area comprises of
several residential sites and some of them had been transferred before the
interim order was passed by this court and that whatever sites had not
been transferred have remained as they are. It is also averred by him that
no plan submitted to the BDA is available in the records of the fourth
respondent-society and that he is not aware of any plan having been
prepared and submitted to the BDA. According to him as per the records of
the society and as per his knowledge, only one layout plan has prepared
and it has been submitted to the third respondent-City Municipal Council.
It is also averred by him that BDA has issued an endorsement stating that
no layout plan is available in the records of the BDA. It is also averred
by him that this court had directed the fourth respondent-society not to
transfer any civic amenity sites as shown in the map submitted to the BDA
and that since there was no plan submitted to the BDA and plan was
submitted by the fourth respondent to the third respondent-City Municipal
Council, the interim order was considered by this respondent and the Board
of Directors of the fourth respondent
society as preventing and precluding them from transferring the civic
amenity sites shown in the layout plan submitted to the third
respondent-City Municipal Council. He has denied the allegations that the
society has deliberately sold the sites for residential purposes in
violation of the order passed by this Court on 18-06-2003. He has stated
that sites which have been sold are not civic amenity sites. He has also
stated that civic amenity sites specified in the layout plan approved by
the City Municipal Council have not been converted or transferred or
alienated and that all the civic amenity sites have been transferred to
the City Municipal Council, Yelahanka. He has also stated that the
sale-deeds shown in the encumbrance certificates produced by the
complainants relate to the sale or residential sites which have taken
place in the routine course of business of the fourth respondent-society
and that the allegation that Annexure-D depicts the list of civic
amenity sites is not true. It is also stated that in fact all these sites
had been sold years back when the respondent was not the president of the
society. He has also stated that as per the records and as per his
knowledge no layout plan has been submitted to the BDA for approval. He
has also stated that he has the highest regard for all the courts and he
has served as Registrar of this court for nearly 20 years and therefore,
has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. (7)
Thereafter, the respondents 4 to 8 have filed their detailed
reply to the contempt petition on 17-02-2006 contending as follows:
That the order dated 18-06-2003 has two directions, namely, that
the fourth respondent society shall not change the character of the
land described in I.A.1/03 and that I.A.1/03 is for an ad-interim order of
temporary injunction restraining the fourth respondent or anyone acting
under it from forming sites or otherwise altering the nature of the site
measuring 195X200 and that the fourth respondent has sold three
sites namely 859/A, 589/E and 859/F prior to the order dated 18-06-2003
but pursuant to the order dated 22-01-2003 and that the said action of the
respondents is due to lack of knowledge or info motion as to the order
passed by this court on 22-01-2003 and 18-06-2003. They have also stated
that the said order was not communicated to the fourth respondent society
or its office bearers. It is also stated that the office bearers of the
fourth respondent society are employees of this court and the courts
below and they have served this institution for more than 20 years and
they have the highest regard for all the courts. They have also stated
that thee is no willful or intentional violation of the orders passed by
this court, but it is only due to non-communication of the orders passed
by this court. It is also stated that keeping in mind the grievance of the
complainants, the respondents are taking steps to see that the site
measuring 195X200 is kept vacant for the purpose of building the
temple and that the respondent No.4-society has requested the Members in
whose favour sale-deeds have been executed to surrender the same and to
which some of them have accepted and the respondent No.4-society is in the
process of getting the remaining sale-deeds cancelled. It is also stated
that in so far as site
No.859/C and 859/D are concerned, the sale-deeds have been executed on
18-11-2002 and 26-10-2002 and site No.859/B1 measuring 10,000sq.ft., has
been kept vacant for the purpose of temple and that efforts are being made
to see that the land measuring 195X200 is earmarked for the purpose
of temple. It is also stated that the second portion of the order dated
18-06-2003 states that the society shall not transfer any civic amenity
sites as shown in the plan submitted to the BDA until further orders and
that pursuant to the order dated 18-06-2003, totally 24 sites have been
sold and out of the same, the respondent has cancelled 7 sale-deeds and
only 17 sale-deeds are to be cancelled to which the respondents herein
have already issued notice to the allottees to get the sale-deeds
cancelled. It is also stated that the sixth respondent was not a party in
the said writ petition and the order passed by this court in the writ
petition. It is also averred that respondents 5,7 and 8have not executed
any sale-deeds in violation of the orders passed by this court and they
were not parties to the writ petition and they were not aware of the
orders passed by this court, it is also stated that the respondent No.4
society had engaged the services of B.L.Acharya, Advocate and his name
was not shown in the cause-list and therefore he was not present before
the court on 18-06-2003 when the order was passed. It is also stated that
the sale-deeds have been executed without being aware of the orders passed
by this court and if the respondents were aware of the orders passed by
this court, they would not have executed the sale-deeds. It is also stated
that the action of the respondent No.4 society in executing sale-deeds
is not willful and intentional to violate the orders of this court and the
respondents are taking all steps to get the sale-deeds cancelled which
have been made pursuant to the orders of this court and therefore,
contempt proceedings may be dropped. They have also stated that the court
can accept the unconditional apology tendered by them and drop the
contempt proceedings. (8)
In the affidavit filed by Sri.Kempathimmaiah i.e., the
respondent No.8 herein on 24-03-2006, it is stated that sale deeds have
been executed bonafide and without the knowledge of the interim orders and
that he society would purge itself of the contempt alleged by cancellation
of the deeds in respect of which sites have been sold in violation of the
interim orders and that the sale deeds have been cancelled and that they
have the highest regard for this court and they will scrupulously obey the
orders of this court and therefore they have prayed for dropping of the
proceedings. They have also produced copies of the cancellation deeds. (9)
The learned counsel for the complainants contended that the
respondents have committed willful disobedience of the orders passed by
this court and therefore, they are liable to be prosecuted. He also
submitted that the encumbrance. Certificates produced by the complainants
clearly show that the respondents have violated the orders passed by this
court and therefore they are liable to be prosecuted. He therefore, prayed
to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents. (10)
The Learned Senior Counsel Sri. T.R.Subbanna, appearing for the
respondent No.6placing reliance on the decisions of the Honble Supreme
Court submitted that there is no willful disobedience of the order passed
by this court and unless there is willful disobedience and it is
intentional, contempt proceedings cannot be inflated and therefore
contempt proceeding may be dropped. He also submitted that rights
of the parties will be seriously prejudiced if contempt petition
and writ petition are not heard together. He also submitted that
respondents have retraced their steps and they have already taken steps to
cancel the sale-deeds and therefore contempt proceedings may be dropped.
He also submitted that the respondents have tendered unconditional apology
and the same may be accepted and contempt proceedings may be dropped. He
also submitted that the respondents have served this court and they have
the highest regard for this court and therefore, they have no intention to
commit willful disobedience
of the orders passed by this court and therefore, contempt proceedings may
be dropped. (11)
Sri Venkata Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.7 submitted that writ petition was filed on 11-11-2002 and
thereafter interim orders were passed on 22-01-2003 and 18-06-2003 and
there is no willful disobedience of the interim orders and therefore there
is no contempt. He also submitted that 24 sites have been sold and they
have retraced their steps and therefore, there is no contempt. He also
submitted that 24 sites have been sold and they have retraced their steps
and therefore, there is not contempt and the proceedings may be dropped.
He also submitted that the respondents have tendered unconditional apology
and the same may be accepted and contempt proceedings may be dropped. He,
therefore prayed to drop contempt proceedings. (12)
The learned Senior Counsel Sri.Subramanya Jois appearing for
the respondent No.8 submitted that the writ petition may also be heard
laong with the contempt petition. He also submitted that the complainants
have not approached this court with clean hands and they have suppressed
the material facts. Further he submitted that complainants a,b,c,d and e
are all beneficiaries and the respondent No.8 and others were not parties
to the writ petition and they were not informed to the order. He also
submitted that there is no plea of disobedience and there is no willful
disobedience of the order passed by this court and therefore contempt
proceedings may be dropped. (13)
We have carefully considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties. (14)
In our considered view, a prima facie case has been made out
against the respondents 4 to 8. (15)
It is not in dispute that the respondents 5 to 8 are the office
bearers of respondent No.4-society. This court by its order dated
22-01-2003 has directed the respondent No.4-society not to change the
nature of the land with regard to the temple site measuring 195X200and
thereafter by its order dated 18-06-2003 it has directed the respondent
No.4 not to transfer the civic amenity sites shown in the map submitted to
the BDA. It has also directed the respondent No.4 to produce the map that
was submitted to the BDA along with list of civic amenity sites
transferred within one month. It has also directed the BDA to submit its
report within two months. In spite of this, the respondent No.4-society
has transferred the sites. (16)
It is clear from the response filed by the respondents 4 to 8
on 17-02-2006 that the respondents 4 to 8 have alienated civic amenity
sites. They have sold 24 sites. In the land measuring 195X200 they
have sold three sites bearing Nos.859/A, 859/E and 859/F subsequent to the
order dated 22-01-2003 and prior to the order dated 18-06-2003.
They have stated that due lack of knowledge of the orders dated 22-01-2003
and 18-06-2003 they have alienated the sites. They have also stated that
the said orders were not communicated to them and that the respondents 5
to 8 were not parties to the writ petition. At this stage it is difficult
to believe this. It is averred in the complaint that the order was
communicated to the secretary on 02-07-2003. Apart from this, the
respondent No.4 was represented by the learned counsel. While it is true
that he was not present before the court on 18-06-2003, when the order was
passed, but the fact remains that the society was aware of the
proceedings. The respondent No.6 in his statement dated 04-08-2004 has
stated that the directed the fourth respondent has to amenity sites as
shown in the map submitted to the BDA and since no plan was submitted to
the BDA and plan was submitted to the City Municipal Council, the Board of
Directors and himself considered that interim order passed by this court
was precluding and preventing them from transferring civic amenity sites
shown in the layout plan submitted to the third respondent City
Municipal Council which clearly shows that the respondents 4 to 8 had the
knowledge of the interim orders passed by this court. In our considered
view, there is no merit in the contention that the respondents 4 to 8 had
no knowledge of the orders passed by this court. (17)
The respondent No.6 surprisingly in his response dated
04-08-2004 has stated that no plan was submitted to the BDA and it is not
available in the records of the respondent No.4 society which is totally
incorrect. The material on record clearly discloses that plan was
submitted to the BDA and it was not sanctioned since conditions were not
fulfilled. The covenants in the sale deed executed by the society
stipulate that the layout plan was duty approved by the BDA in its
resolution bearing No.503/1992 dated 16-11-1992. in our
considered view, there is no merit in the said contention. (18)
This court by its order dated 18-06-2003 had directed
the respondent No.4 not to alienate the civic amenity sites shown in the
map submitted to the BDA. Admittedly the respondents 4 to 8 have sold 24
sites in violation of the order passed by this court. They have also sold
three sites in the land measuring 195X200 in violation of the order
passed by this court. In view of this. In our considered view, there is no
merit in the contention that there is no willful disobedience of the
orders passed by this court. No doubt in their response dated 17-02-2006
they have stated that they have retraced their steps and they are
taking steps to cancel the sale-deeds and some of the sale-deeds have been
cancelled, but the fact remains that they have violated the orders passed
by this court and failed to comply with the direction of this court. In
view of this, in our considered view there is prima facie case against the
respondents 4 to8. The respondents 4 to 8 after taking all kinds of stands
in the course of proceedings have now tendered their unconditional apology
which is unacceptable. A prima facie case of willful disobedience of
lawful orders of this court has been made out against the respondents 4 to
8 calling forth framing of charges. (19)
In so far as respondent No.1 is concerned the direction was to
submit a report within two months and in response to which it has stated
that it had addressed letters to the respondent No.4 society to
furnish the details and since details were no furnished, it has not filed
its report we accept the same and drop the proceedings against the
respondent No.1.
(20)
In so far as respondents 9 to 19 are concerned, as no notice is
directed to them, we drop the proceedings against them. (21) List this matter for framing of charges against the respondents 4 to 8, on 28-07-2006.
RMRJ & HBJ: Date: 02-03-07 CCC13 C.C.C.87/2004 C/w. WP 40994/2002 IN
THE MATTER OF
Judicial
Layout Residents and Site Holders Association (Regd.) Rep.
By its Board of Direction & Ors.
.. Complainant
Versus
Bangalore Development Authority Rep. By its Commissioner & Ors. Respondents
Order Learned counsel for the petitioner files an affidavit dated 2-3-2007 of one S.D. Venkataramaiah, one of the petitioners, by way of a counter to the I.A. dated 17-11-2006 filed by the 4th respondent. The same is taken on record. Sri. Subramanya Jois, learned Senior counsel for one of the contemnors submits that the Writ Petition be heard on its maintainability. We are not impressed by this submission. The maintainability of the writ petitions will be heard along with the merit of the petitions the trial in the contempt case is yet to commence. Moreover, the volume of orders passed in this petition and the contempt petition only disclose the extent of leeway extended to the society and the contemnors, to place relevant material before this court. It is true that the society and the contemnors have evinced interest, at the instance of this court, to bring about a resolution. Nevertheless, the tenor of the objections filed by the writ petitioners, discloses that a plausible resolution is like a mirage in a desert. One a perusal of the order-sheet maintained in the writ petition and the contempt petition, what is noticeable is the fact that C. Shivalingaiah, President of the Society made a statement, as recorded in the order dated 19-08-2004 that a plan was submitted to the BDA before it was transferred to the jurisdictional City Municipal Council, Yelahanka, and this court by order dated 17.12.2004 directed him to furnish the said plan submitted by the BDA for its approval, at the earliest point of time, which is not complied with till date. It is the allegation of the petitioners that in every Sale Deed executed by the society, contains a covenant that the site allotted / conveyed was pursuant to the sanction of a layout plan by the BDA. Thus, the said plan assumes great importance in order to decide the controversy brought before this court. We say so because, admittedly the plan earmarked areas for civic amenity, open spaces, playgrounds, parks, etc., The particulars and identity of the said areas in the layout must be with reference to BDA plan, which unfortunately is not forthcoming. The Society and more particularly, C.Shivalingaiah, President has evaded the production of the said plan. It is not as if the Society did not deliberate in any of its meetings over the layout to be formed in the land acquired for the society. It is not as if the society did not earmark specific areas for residential, commercial, playgrounds, parks, temples, schools, etc., It is not as if the Society, without any basis, went about its business of allotting sites to its members. Strangely, though not these facts are strongly guarded secrets. In this view of the matter, we are left with no other option but to direct the society to place before this court all and every relevant material relating to the resolutions passed by the society from its inception as well as the audited statement of accounts which might throw some light in the direction of deciding the questions that arise for consideration. We are aware of the past litigation, the pleadings of which are a part of this petition disclosing affidavits of C. Shivalingaiah, President furnishing sketchy details of the percentages of land earmarked for open spaces amenities, roads, etc and the fact that those calculations are based upon a sanction of a layout plan by the BDA. It has been the Endeavour of the petitioners to point out to the statement of the president of the society, at every stage, in each and every proceedings to point out the percentages of land set apart for civic amenities, etc. It is no doubt true that the Bangalore Development Authority, at the instance of this court filed a report detailing the total number of residential sites that fall within the civic amenity areas, playgrounds, parks, etc., earmarked and delineated in the plan submitted by the society. This report is yet to be considered and ordered. Thus, looking at it from any angle, the answer to the questions lies in the plan submitted by the society to the BDA. We are therefore constrained to direct the society to place before this court before the next date of hearing all and every material recording the resolutions passed from the inception of the society, till yesterday. Sri. Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior counsel seeks a weeks accommodation to commence the trial. List on 16-03-2007 for evidence and for the society to comply with this order. Let a copy of this order be made available to both the parties.
|
