MUNISWAMY REDDY NINGAMMA TRUST Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) these three appeals are directed against common judgment dated March 16, 1990 delivered by learned single judge in three writ petitions and can be conveniently disposed of by common judgment. The facts unfold at the hearing of the appeals disclose the dishonest manner in which the appellants have secured the prime lands from Bangalore development authority and obviously in collusion with some of the officers of the authority. The facts speak for themselves and are required to be briefly set out to appreciate the grievance of the respondents-original petitioners.

(2.) the Karnataka government passed Bangaloredevelopment authority Act, 1976 and provided for the establishment of a development authority for the development of city of Bangalore and areas adjacent thereto. The Bangalore development authority is constituted under Section 3 of the act and consists of large number of members. The state government appoints commissioner for the authority in accordance with the Provisions of Section 12 of the act and the officer is one not below the rank of divisional commissioner. The authority has the power to undertake works and draw up schemes for the development of Bangalore metropolitan area. The predecessor of the authority was city improvement trust board. In accordance with the powers conferred under city of Bangalore improvement Act, large areas of land adjoining Bangalore city were acquired for public purpose by the authority. The public purpose was to develop lands for purposes of housing. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 69 of the Act, the government of Karnataka had framed rules known as the Bangalore development authority (allotment of sites) rules, 1982. Rule 6 deals with disposal of sites for public purposes and inter alia provides that sites can be allotted on lease basis to educational institutions, play-grounds, hostels, temples, community centres etc., but only for public purposes and on such rents and subject to such conditions as may be specified by the authority. Among the lands acquired by the authority were the area covered by the erstwhile village of dhookanahalli and which were adjacent to indiranagar, a prime locality in the city of Bangalore. The authority had prepared scheme for forming layout in this land and which is known as the extension of indiranagar.

(3.) appellant 2-m.b. reddy-owns vast extent of lands in Bangalore city and also owns large number of constructed premises. Appellant 2 is working as a civil contractor and is on the recognised list of the authority. The family members of appellant 2 also owns vast extent of lands and properties in Bangalore. On August 2, 1982, appellant 2 created a private trust of which the family members including two minor children of appellant 2 were nominated as trustees, appellant 2 as the author of the trust, declared a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as trust property. The name of trust is muniswamy reddy and ningamma trust and the office of the trust is also situated in the premises of appellant 2. Appellant 2 was appointed as managing trustee of appellant 1 while the other members of the trust were the family members and who are also beneficiaries. The object of the trust was to construct a kalyana mantapa, religious and charitable institutions, temples and construction of choultry. The trust deed recites that the income of the trust after deducting outgoings, expenses shall be divided and credited to the accounts of each of the beneficiaries in equal shares and such income shall belong to the respective beneficiaries absolutely. The clauses of trust deed leave no manner of doubt that the trust was created for the personal benefits of appellant 2 and his family members. Within a week after creation of the trust, a letter was addressed on August 9, 1982 to the commissioner, Bangalore development authority requesting for allotment of civic amenity site in indiranagar ii stage. The letter recites that the managing trustee is willing to construct choultry, nursery school and temple and hence, requests for allotment of civic amenity site. Another letter dated September 21, 1982 was addressed to the town planning member of the authority setting out that the trust was registered and members of the trust are the family members of appellant 2. Reasons for allotment of civic amenity site were reiterated. A third letter dated December 27, 1982 was addressed to the authority demanding allotment of site admeasuring 60 x 90 metres out of sy. Nos. 19 and 20 of dhookanahalli village. Neither of these letters are produced by the authority on a specious ground that the file is not traceable. The appellants produced copies of the first two letters but not the third letter. On December 1, 1982, the board members of the authority passed resolution No. 413 and it reads as follows: