SURABHI SEVA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are before this Court praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the resolution dated 7-11-2006 in Subject No. 67/2006, letter of allotment dated 16-4-2007 and the sale deeds dated 23-11-2007 and 20-12-2005; and for a mandamus declaring the impugned resolution dated 7-11-2006 and 16-4-2007 and also the sale deed executed in favour of the 5th and 6th respondent are rather void and illegal and in contravention of the Bulk Allotment Rules.

(2.) SY . No. 28 of Ramasandra Village measuring 22 acres was originally belonging to one Bhadramma and Nanjamma. According to the petitioners, on the application made by them, there is a conversion order being passed and thus, it was later sub-divided into Sy. No. 28/1a and 28/3. There was also a partition in the family and mutation was also duly effected. Also the entries have been carried out in the revenue records. One Shivanna, Nanjappa and Basavaiah who are the sons of Bhadramma and relatives of Nanjamma and the sons have executed the power of attorney in favour of B. C. Mudduramappa wherein these petitioners in all are said to have got executed a sale deed in their favour each site measuring 30 x 40 ft. and they were said to be in possession and enjoyment. Further, there was a notification issued by the BDA for formation of Vishweswaraya Layout but, prior to that these petitioners were allotted site by one B. C. Mudurammappa in view of the power of attorney held by him and he also had formed an association in the name of Surabhi Niveshanadarara Kshemabhivruddhi Sangha. Pursuant to the acquisition proceedings issued by the BDA challenging the notifications dated 14-12-2001 and 31-10-2002 in various writ petitions filed by these petitioners, this Court while disposing the petitions, referring to the decision reported in ILr 2005 Kar 608: (2004 AIR - Kant HCR 3343) Junjamma and Ors. v. Bangalore Development Authority & Ors. had directed them to file representation. However, according to the petitioners, there was a direction issued to consider the case of the petitioners for allotment of sites as per Junjamma's case, but that has not been considered.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioners there was a bulk allotment made in favour of Kanakashri House Building Co-operative Society in violation of S. 65 and also under S. 38 (b) read with the Rules for Bulk Allotment. There is no land as such available. In fact, the petitioner Society has formed sites and many of the members of the society have already built the houses. The allotment made in favour of the respondent Society is in violation of the Rules. Petitioner is seeking to make available the land already developed by them by re-notifying the land which comes under the Green Belt. The society had filed W. P. 2376/06 and as it was not maintainable, the said writ petition was withdrawn and as per the endorsement issued by he BDA, no work order is issued nor there is approval of the plan. Accordingly, they have sought for allowing the petitions.