YERRAGOLLA YESUDAS Vs. HUBLI-DHARWAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned advocates appearing for parties, namely Shri V.P. Kulkarni appearing for petitioners and Shri R.H.Angadi for respondent No.1. Notice is not issued to 2nd respondent, for the reasons that would unfold herein below.

(2.) 2nd respondent is a Co -operative Housing Society and is said to have purchased land in Sy. No.67/2 and other adjacent and abutting lands situated at Keshavapura, Hubli and after having converted the same into non -agricultural residential purposes, it formed a layout. On forming such layout, it has approached 1st respondent for approval of layout plan which came to be approved on 14.05.1990. Perusal of said approval plan would indicate that site Nos.137, 138 and 139 has been reserved for civic amenities, namely for Garden, School and Community hall respectively and accordingly said plan came to be approved by 1st respondent authority. In respect of sites formed in the said layout, 1st respondent is said to have allotted sites to its members. However, petitioners who are also claiming to the members of 2nd respondent Society, contended before Assistant Registrar of Co -operative Society that on account of society not having executed sale deed in their favour an order be passed in their favour directing the society to allot sites in their favour by raising a dispute which culminated in an award being passed by the Assistant Registrar of Co -operative Society in the year 2003 in different disputes relating to the petitioners. As per the said award, society was said to have been directed to execute the sale deeds in favour of petitioners. Said awards are not available on record and petitioners have also not filed the same along with these petitions. Pursuant to the said award, petitioners filed Execution Petitions before the Civil Court and the award came to be executed by appointing a Court Commissioner and directing the said Court Commissioner to execute sale deeds in favour of petitioners. Accordingly, Court Commissioner has executed sale deeds in favour of petitioners, as per Annexures B to T. As such, petitioners claim to be in possession and enjoyment of said sites.

(3.) 1st respondent has issued notice on 16.11.2013 to the petitioners as per Annexures U 1 to U17 directing thereunder the petitioners to remove the marked sites in the area earmarked for civic amenities and directing them not to undertake any work in said sites claimed by the petitioners under sale deeds referred to herein above. Being aggrieved by the said notice, petitioners are before this Court.