M VENKATESH Vs. BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has sought for a direction in the nature of mandamus, directing respondents 2 to 5 to consider the representations dated 28.10.2017, 30.10.2017 and 31.10.2017 and to take suitable action pursuant to the same.

(2.) It is the claim of the petitioner that he is one of the co-owner of the property bearing Sy.No.6/5 measuring 8 guntas in Kothihosahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, which originally belonged to one Muniswamy S/o. Lachama. It is the contention of the petitioner that the property came to be granted by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition in Case No.IA-3/Case 3/1956-57 on the inception of Inams Abolition Act, pursuant to which register No.8 came to be issued and revenue entries came to be mutated to the name of Muniswamy S/o. Lachama. Muniswamy died unmarried. Since he had no legal heirs, the property owned by him came to be inherited by sons of his brother Kempaiah i.e., Dodda Nanjundappa, Chikka Nanjundappa, Munishamappa, Chikka Munishamappa. It is the grievance of the petitioner that one of the son of Kempaiah, namely, Chikka Nanjundappa contending that he is legal heir and absolute owner of the property bearing No.6/5 had sold the same in favour of one Janardhana Rao and Rama Prasad who have formed a Co-operative Society in the name of Defence Employees House Building Co-operative Society Limited ['Society', for short], on 25.11.1982 and formed a layout in various survey numbers of Kothihosahalli Village. The Bangalore Development Authority had issued 'no objection certificate' to the President of Society to acquire the property in Kothihosahalli Village and Kodigehalli Village on 3.6.1982 itself. The said Society appears to have sold site bearing Nos.150 and 151 in favour of Respondent No.6 under two registered sale deeds dated 6.6.2006 and 7.9.2006. The Bangalore Development Authority issued an endorsement dated 6.8.2010 to the effect that they have decided to issue layout plan to the Society. However, they have not approved the sanction plan. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies by order dated 14.06.2006 ordered for closure of the Society and appointed an Administrator. Thus, the said Society is not functioning and not in existence from 27.11.198 However, the said Society formed unauthorized layout and sold sites to various persons. On the basis of the said sale deed, the Respondent No.6 obtained building sanction plan vide LP No.1036/2006-07 from the authorities.

(3.) It is the contention of the petitioner that the said plan got lapsed during the year 2008-09. Despite the same, without getting the plan renewed, the Respondent No.6 in utter violation of the well established principles of law, proceeded with construction. The petitioner contends that the representations were made before the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 regarding the construction work carried on by the Respondent No.6 without obtaining sanction plan and valid title to the property in question. It is the grievance of the petitioner that respondents 2 to 5 have not taken any action to stop construction work of the property in question by the Respondent No.6. Hence, these writ petitions.