Sri. Praveen Kumar B N Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:37710 WP No. 28564 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 28564 OF 2025 (CS-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR B.N. S/O NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.1300, 1^ST FLOOR, 21^ST B MAIN, HSR LAYOUT SECTOR 1, BANGALORE-560 102 (BY SRI. VINOD PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE-560001.

¶12

ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (H AND M) OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES NO.1, ALI ASKER ROAD, BANGALORE-560052.

¶13

JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MYSURU REGION, SIDDARTHANAGAR, CHAMARAJAPURAM MOHALLA, LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSURU-560004.

¶14

KARNATAKA STATE COLLEGE LECTURERS AND SCHOOL TEACHERS HOUSE BUILDING

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:37710 WP No. 28564 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., (CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT) REPRESENTED BY ITS C.E.O., NO.22, 2^ND CROSS, BASAWESHWARA MARGA (IN-FRONT OF THE PARK) GURUKULA LAYOUT, JP NGAR, KUPPULRU, MYSURU-570031.

¶18

SRI. MAHADEVA SWAMY M.S. S/O SHIVAPPA M PRESIDENT, KARNATAKA STATE COLLEGE LECTURERS AND SCHOOL TEACHERS HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.22, 2^ND CROSS, BASAWESHWARA MARGA (IN-FRONT OF THE PARK) GURUKULA LAYOUT, J P NGAR, KUPPULRU, MYSURU-570031.

¶19

M/S BHAVANI MINERAL ROCK GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LTD. O/AT NO.1552, 13^TH CROSS, ANIKETHANA ROAD, C AND D BLOCK, KUVEMPU NAGAR, MYSORE-570023. REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR/ MANAGING DIRECTOR (PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN)

¶20

SRI. U.S. SIDDALINGAPPA, S/O LATE B. SIDDALINGAPPA PARTNER, M/S BHAVANI MINERAL ROCK GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPERS (REGD)

¶21

SMT. MAHADEVAMMA, W/O U S SIDDALINGAPPA, PARTNER, M/S BHAVANI MINERAL ROCK GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPERS (REGD)

¶22

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:37710 WP No. 28564 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

RESPONDENTS NO.7 AND 8 BOTH R/AT NO.1552, 13^TH CROSS, ANIKETHANA ROAD, C AND D BLOCK, KUVEMPUNAGARA, MYSURU-570023.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. A.S.HARISH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3;

¶27

VIDE ORDR DATED 19.09.2025, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 8 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 8 TO REGISTER THE SITE IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER AND PUT HIM IN POSSESSION OF THE SITE BEARING NO. 219 NOW BIFURCATE BY THE DEVELOPER IN 219/A AND 219/B IN THE LAYOUT FARMED BY THE SOCIETY IN GURUKULA LAYOUT, J.P. NAGAR, KUPPALUR, MYSORE-570031 AND ETC.

¶29

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.4 to 8 to register the site in his name and place him in possession of the site bearing No.219 now bifurcated by the developers as 219/A&219/B in the layout formed by the respondent No.4 in Gurukula layout, J.P. Nagar, Kuppalur, Mysore. He has also sought for a writ in

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:37710 WP No. 28564 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.4 to 8 to pay damages and compensation Rs.50,00,000/- as the respondents have willfully disobeyed and disrespected the order of this Court as well as order of the Additional Registrar of Cooperative Society.

¶36

(i) The petitioner claims that he is a member of respondent No.4 and had paid a sum of Rs.21.2 lakhs towards allotment of a site. The petitioner contends that after persuading the respondent No.4, the petitioner was asked to attend a meeting for allotment of site by draw of lots on 27.10.2019. At the said meeting, he was allotted site No.219, which was recorded in a document drawn on a stamp paper. He claims that respondent No.4 collected a sum of Rs.7,20,000/more from him. Nonetheless, the respondent No.4 was refusing to register and hand over possession of the site allotted.

¶37

(ii) The petitioner claims that the respondent No.4 had treated another member in the same way, which resulted in proceedings before the Consumer Disputes Redresal Forum Mysore, which directed respondent No.4 to allot a site but respondent No.4 claimed that there was no site and challenged

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:37710 WP No. 28564 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

the order before the State forum. Likewise, another member was allotted a site and sale deed registered but the site was not traceable and therefore that member had lodged a complaint against the President of respondent No.4. The petitioner claims that there are several complaints against the respondent No.4 and an enquiry is ordered under Section 64 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 1959' for short), which ultimately culminated in an order under Section 29C of the Act, 1959. The society challenged the said order in WP No.19832/2022, which was dismissed.

¶41

(iii) The petitioner claims that long after site No.219 was allotted to him, the respondent No.4 addressed a letter to the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies seeking clarification from him whether the petitioner could be allotted another site. The petitioner is therefore before this Court seeking for a direction to the respondent to conclude the process.

¶42

When this Court pointed out that the writ petition is not maintainable before this Court as respondent Nos.4 to 8 are neither State or instrumentality of State or other authorities and the reliefs sought for as cannot be granted by this Court,

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:37710 WP No. 28564 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

since none of the respondent Nos.4 to 8 owe any statutory duty to the petitioner, the learned counsel persisted and submitted that the petitioner is exposed to continued harassment at the hands of respondent No.4 and therefore this Court should exercise jurisdiction by directing the respondent no.4 to conclude the allotment by executing a sale deed and also placing him in possession.

¶46

The reliefs that are sought for primarily relate to the obligation on the part of the respondent No.4 to register the site in the name of the petitioner and to hand over possession. This flows from the purported allotment of site No.219 made to the petitioner. If the respondent No.4 has defaulted on that, there is a mechanism in law to ensure that the respondent No.4 complies with it, which is not restricted only to Section 118 of the Act, 1959. Therefore, this Court cannot issue any directions to the respondent Nos.4 to 8 to register the sale deed in favour of the petitioner or to hand over possession or to pay damages for the delay in concluding the allotment process.

¶47

7 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:37710 WP No. 28564 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

In that view of the matter, this petition does not merit consideration at the hands of this Court and accordingly, the petition is dismissed . It is open for the petitioner to approach the competent authorities and seek necessary reliefs.

¶51

While parting, this Court has noticed a tendency of Advocates in filing writ petitions before this Court even though they are evidently not maintainable. Advocates being officers of the Court have a responsibility to ensure that cases are not filed in the Court in a rigmarole manner. They are bound to apply their mind to see whether this Court could be approached for the reliefs sought for in the petition. They cannot flood the Court with mischievous/malicious/untenable litigations and if the advocates are more experienced more is the responsibility on them.

¶52

In that view of the matter, though this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition, in order to deter such petitions from being filed in the Court, this Court considers it appropriate to impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- for the loss of judicial time in processing this writ petition for being placed before the Court. Hence, the petitioner is liable to pay cost of

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:37710 WP No. 28564 of 2025

¶54