Sweta Singh Vs Sri Sai Raghava Developers

W/O VISHAMBHARNATH PANDEY AGED 36 YEARS NO. DT3,BLOCK D, ITTINA SARVA APTS-I, 4^TH MAIN, BEGUR ROAD HONGASANDRAPOST, BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560068.

¶11

2 . JAYASURYA E

¶12

S/O.ETHIRAJULU.V. AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS NO.C 72, BLOCK 6, 3RD FLOOR, CENTRAL SILK BOARD STAFF QUARTERS, MADIWALA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560068

¶13

3 . M GOPAL

¶14

S/O. LATE G. MAHADEVAN AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS NO. D-3, CBS STAFF QUARTERS, LALBAGH WEST GATE, BASAVANGUDI, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560004

¶15

-2-

¶16

4 . BHANUMATHI RAVINDRAN W/O. DR. S.RAVINDRAN, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS NO. 241, 9TH CROSS, 2^ND STAGE, SRIRAMPURA MYSORE, KARNATAKA – 570023

¶17

5 . VIKRAM SIMHA B S S/O. B.N. SAINATH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS NO.28, DHANVI BEHIND NAL LAYOUT JALBHAVAN, JAYANAGAR 4TH T BLOCK, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA – 560041

¶18

6 . SUPRIYA VENKATESH KADEMANI W/O. VENKATESH L. KADEMANI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS NO.80 GURU PRASAD VIVEKANAGAR, WEST, B-BLOCK, K.K. COLONY. BIJAPUR, KARNATAKA – 586101

¶19

7 . VARSHA VINAY NADIGER W/O.VINAY GUDDU NADIGER AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS NO.102, AUGUSTUS, LODHA PARADISE, MAJIWADA, THANE WEST THANE, MAHARASHTRA – 400601

¶20

8 . ARZIA PRAVEEN W/O.KAZI EMAM AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS ALI NO. 91/A. 7^TH BLOCK, 3^RD CROSS, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -560095.

¶21

9 . LEKSHMI B KRISHNAN D/O. K B K NAIR. AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶22

-3-

¶23

NO.102,CAVEREY COMFORTS, VENKATAPURA MAIN ROAD, 1ST BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU SOUTH -560034.

¶24

10 . PUSHPAVATHI K M AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS W/O.SIDHARTHA REDDY. NO.1/10, SEVAGANAPALLI(VILL) AND (POST) HOSUR TALUK KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU -635001.

¶25

11 . N LALITHA W/O.B.K.JAYASIMHA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS MASURI NO. 891, 1ST C MAIN ROAD, BDA LAYOUT, 9TH BLOCK 2ND STAGE NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -560072.

¶26

12 . S VIJAYAKUMAR S/O.G.SRINIVASA MUDALIAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS NO. 454, 40^TH CROSS, 2^ND BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -560010

¶27

13 . RAVI B S/O.BYREGOWDA. AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS #69, NESARA O.B. CHOODAHALLI VILLAGE KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU -560082.

¶28

14 . ARUN NL S/O.H.N.LAKSHMINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶29

-4-

¶30

NAIBHI HOSAMANE, AGALAGANDI POST, KOPPA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR, KARNATAKA -577139.

¶31

15 . SAKTHI DEVI RAMESH W/O.RAMESH PERUMAL AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS NO. 51, SUJISHRI ILLAM, CONCORDE HOMES, KUDLU MAIN ROAD, KUDLU BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -560068.

¶32

16 . V KANAKA DURGA W/O.DR.V.KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RAO NO. 102 FRUIT STREET, SHIVAJINAGAR BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -560001.

¶33

17 . DEEPIKA MANOHARAN W/O.MADHU BABU AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS BHASHYAN , NO. 182, JAY DEEPALLAM, NEAR VINTAGE ELITE APARTMENT, BTM LAYOUT, 1^ST BLOCK, 4^TH STAGE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU,KARNATAKA -560076.

¶34

18 . H A SUJAYA BABU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O.LATE H.N.ATHMARAM NO. 3, 6TH B MAIN ROAD, THYAGARAJA NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -560028

¶35

19 . INDIRA G AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS D/O.LATE GOPAL.

¶36

-5-

¶37

NO. 235 B, 13TH A CROSS, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, A SECTOR, BENGALURU,KARNATAKA -560064

¶38

20 . MAHESHWARI B R AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS D/O.B.R.SURYANARAYANA REDDY, NO. 203, 2ND FLOOR, CHITRA BLOCK, ASWANISITARA, RAMAKRISHNAPURA, CHANDAPURA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -560081.

¶39

21 . L CHANDA MOHAN AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O.LATE L.BALAVENGAMUNI. PRAZA CLINIC, BRAMHIN STREET, NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, SARJAPURA BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -562125.

¶40

22 . SHASHIDHAR M AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS S/O. MANJUNATHA M. SRI VEERAMAHESHWARAKRUPA 1ST FLOOR, SARASWATHIPURAM, CHITRADURGA, KARNATAKA -577501.

¶41

23 . SHEWTHA M AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS W/O.VIJAYKUMAR K.S. SRI VEERAMAHESHWARAKRUPA 1^ST FLOOR, 1^ST MAIN, SARASWATHIPURAM CHITRADURGA, KARNATAKA -577501.

¶42

24 . R MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O.RAMA REDDY NO.38, SUKRUTHANILAYA,

¶43

-6-

¶44

OPP. SYNDICATE BANK. THILAKNAGAR, ATTIBELE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -562107.

¶45

25 . SUDHAKAR BABU N. AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O. NARAYANAREDDY.M. NO.2/53, NAGAREDDY PALYAM VILLAGE, ANNIYALAM, DENKANIKOTTAI TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU -635107.

¶46

26 . V ANJIREDDY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O.SUBBAREDDY NO.111 TRENDCITYPHASE II, CHITTANAPALLI, NALLURROAD, HOSUR, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT TAMIL NADU -635109.

¶47

27 . SUDHEENDRA M V AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O. VIJAYENDRA. M. NO. 03, 2ND FLOOR, BEHIND STSBAKERY, RAMANA TRADERS BUILDING, THILAK NAGAR, ATTIBELE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -562107.

¶48

28 . KOYA SURESH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O. KOYA BHASKARA RAO NO.PLOT NO.47, SAILAYOUT SARJAPURA ROAD, ATTIBELE BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -562107.

¶49

29 . PURNIMA B R AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS W/O.WILLIAMS T.

¶50

-7-

¶51

NO.4, 4^TH CROSS, CHOWDAIAH BLOCK R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560032

¶52

30 . ACHYUT SAVANUR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O. LAXMAN SAVANUR BANASHANKARI 3RD CROSS, K R LAYOUT, JP NAGAR 6TH PHASE BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -560078.

¶53

31 . P MADHUSUDHAN AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O. LATE MUNIRAMA NAIDU NO. 1-55, BANDARALAPALLE, A RANGAMPET (POST) CHANDRAGIRI(MANDAL) CHITTOR DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH -517102

¶54

32 . RAMESH BAPU KHOT AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O.BAPURAJARAM KHOT CHINNAPPA BUILDING, SADASHIVNAGAR, ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -562107.

¶55

33 . SANGMESH NAIDU MADINENI AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS S/O M. SANKAR NAIDU. NO.14D,CITYLIGHTAPPT, BELLANDUR, BENGALURU,KARNATAKA -560103

¶56

34 . SHILPA S G AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS W/O. LATE VISHWANATH REDDY. SREE VEERABHADRASWAMY NILAYA, BEHIND KEB, SARJAPURA ROAD,

¶57

-8-

¶58

ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TALUK,BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -562107.

¶59

35 . DILIP MAITY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O.LATE MANMATHA NATH MAITY. NO.49/5, VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, SARJAPURA ROAD, THILAK NAGAR, ATTIBELE, ANEKALTALUK, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -562107.

¶60

36 . MADHUSUDHAN MAJI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O.LATE GOBARDHAN MAJI. NO.F4, ANANDANIKETAN BUILDING, MANCHANAHALLI ROAD, BEHIND KUMAR LAYOUT, BHUVANESHWARINAGAR, ATTIBELE, ANEKALTALUK, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -562107.

¶61

37 . K B SIDDAGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O. BYRAPPA TARABANAHALLI, NEAR CHURCH, CHICKBANAVARA POST, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -560090.

¶62

38 . JAYAMAHESWARIA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS W/O.K.S.ASHOK KUMAR NO.62/35, EAST SENGUNTHAR STREET, VANGARAMPETTAI, PAPANASAM, THANJAVUR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU-614205.

¶63

39 . PRASHANTH DEVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O.DEVARAJAPPA BHEEMAIAH

¶64

-9-

¶65

NO. E 18, 3RD CROSS, OPP.OLDMARAMMA TEMPLE, K.G. NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -560019.

¶66

40 . G MALATHI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS W/O. G. SRINIVAS NO.661,BLOCK-45, CPWD QUARTERS, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -560102 41 . LAVANYAKANCHI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS W/O. UMASHANKAR KANCHI FLAT NO. 104, AUGUSTUS, LODHA PARADISE, MAJIWADA HIGHWAY, THANE WEST, MAHARASHTRA – 400601. 42 . LOGANATHAN SARAVANAN S/O.LATE M.D.SARAVANAN AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS #46/86, SHANMUGANARSTREET, TIRUPATTUR, VELORE DISTRICT, TAMILNADU – 632001 43 . KOMATHI. S. AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS W/O.S.SURESH. 454, 40TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA – 560010. 44 . KRISHNA PRASAD DAS AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O.LATEMANORANJAN DAS. 1532/2, SARJAPURA,

¶67

-10-

¶68

OPP. IBP PETROL BUNK, SARJAPURA ROAD ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA – 562125.

¶69

45 . SUBIR KUMAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O.YADUNANDAN PRASAD. G-04, VANDANA CORAL, ANUGRAHA LAYOUT, NEAR MITRA SUPERMARKET, BELLAKAHALLI, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA – 560076.

¶70

46 . CHAYADEVI N W/O. NAGESH RAO T. R. AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS THADIGOL VILLAGE, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA – 563135.

¶71

47 . R SUMAN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O. RAVICHANDRAN. 93/94, SAI LAYOUT, JIGALA CROSS, ATTIBELE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA – 562107.

¶72

48 . KANNAN ARUMUGAM S/O. L.A. ARUMUGAM. AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 48, KAVINAYAAGAM, CONCORDE HOMES, KUDLUMAIN ROAD, KUDLU, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA – 560068.

¶73

49 . KALAIVANI SARAVANAN W/O.KANNAN ARUMUGAM AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 48, KAVINAYA AGAM, CONCORDE HOMES,

¶74

-11-

¶75

KUDLUMAIN ROAD, KUDLU, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA – 560068

¶76

50 . MEGHA W/O.PRAVIN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS G-15,D-BLOCK, SLS SPRINGS, SOMASUNDARAPALYA, HSRSEC-2 BENGALURU, KARNATAKA – 560102.

¶77

51 . MANJUNATH M S/O MARIYAPPA B AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 67, 3RD CROSS, RAJATHADRI LAYOUT KOTHANUR DINNE, BENGALURU KARNATAKA-560076. SL.NO. 1 TO 51 ARE REP BY THEIR GPA HOLDER MR. B. RAVI S/O BYREGOWDA ...PETITIONERS

¶78

(BY MR. P S RAJGOPAL., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W MR K PUTTEGOWDA., ADVOCATE )

¶79

AND

¶80

1 . SRI SAI RAGHAVA DEVELOPERS NO.19, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 15TH CROSS, LAKKASANDRA, BENGALURU-560030. IT’S A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, SRI. G. SURESH KUMAR.

¶81

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560009.

¶82

3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION,

¶83

-12-

¶84

BENGALURU-560009.

¶85

4 . M/S TERRACON PROJECTS, NEAR ATTIBELE SCHOOL, JIGALA ROAD, ATTIBELE, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562107.

¶86

REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI S V BABU S/O. LATE RAMABADRASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.927, 18^TH A MAIN 5^TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010.

¶87

5 . SMT. MOTAMMA W/O. LATE PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS

¶88

6 . SMT. CHANNAMMA D/O. LATE PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶89

7 . SRI. ANJINAPPA S/O. LATE PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶90

8 . SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA D/O. LATE PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶91

9 . SRI. MANJUNATH S/O. LATE PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶92

10 . SRI. SRINIVAS S/O. LATE PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.

¶93

-13-

¶94

RESPONDENT NOS. 5 TO 10 PRESENTLY R/A JAMBAVA NAGAR HOSUR BAGILUANEKAL TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562106.

¶95

11 . SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O. PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS PRESENTLY R/A JAMBAVA NAGAR HOSUR BAGILU, ANEKAL TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562106.

¶96

12 . SRI. ANANDAPPA S/O. MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEAERS PRESENTLY R/A JAMBAVA NAGAR HOSUR BAGILU, ANEKAL TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562106.

¶97

13 . SRI. SHAMANNA

¶98

S/O. MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEAERS PRESENTLY R/A JAMBAVA NAGAR HOSUR BAGILU, ANEKAL TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562106.

¶99

14 . SRI. SRINIVAS S/O. MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEAERS PRESENTLY R/A JAMBAVA NAGAR HOSUR BAGILU, ANEKAL TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562106.

¶100

15 . SRI. RAMESH S/O. YALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEAERS PRESENTLY R/A JAMBAVA NAGAR HOSUR BAGILU, ANEKAL TOWN

¶101

-14-

¶102

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562106

¶103

16 . SRI. YELLAPPA S/O.VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEAERS PRESENTLY R/A JAMBAVA NAGAR HOSUR BAGILU, ANEKAL TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562106

¶104

17 . SRI. NARAYANAPPA S/O. LATE NAGAPPA PRESENTLY R/A JAMBAVA NAGAR HOSUR BAGILU, ANEKAL TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562106

¶105

18 . SRI. LAKSHMANA S/O. LATE NAGAPPA R/A SHAMSUNDAR BUILDING ATTIBELE, ANEKAL ROAD BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562106.

¶106

19 . SRI. CHANDRAPPA S/O. LATE NAGAPPA R/A SHAMSUNDAR BUILDING ATTIBELE, ANEKAL ROAD BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562106.

¶107

20 . SMT. KOTHA KRISHNA KUMARI W/O. K NAGA MALLESWARA RAO R/O KODIHALLI EXTENSION H A L II STAGE BENGALURU-560008.

¶108

21 . SRI. A. SATHYANARAYANA S/O TATHAIAH R/A NO.1227 4TH CROSS HAL 3RD STAGE NEW THIPPASANDRA BENGALURU-560075.

¶109

-15-

¶110

22 . SRI. KIRAN KUMAR S/O. N. M. VEERA JANENDRA (RETD. C E) R/A NO.581 12TH A MAIN J P NAGAR 2ND PHASE BENGALURU-560078.

¶111

23 . SRI. MUNISWAMAPPA S/O. VENKATARAMAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS PRESENTLY R/A JAMBAVA NAGAR HOSUR BAGILU, ANEKAL TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562106

¶112

…RESPONDENTS

¶113

(BY MR SRIRANGA S, ADVOCATE FOR R1 MR VIJAY V BAJENTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3 MR PUNEETH K, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6)

¶114

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 20.11.20 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP 14163/2013 AT ANNEXURE-H AS IT WAS OBTAINED BY PLAYING FRAUD ON THIS HONBLE COURT AND ALSO BECAUSE IT IS NOT BINDING ON THE PARTIES AND DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO NOT INTERFACE WITH THEIR COLLECTIVE PEACEFUL POSSESSION OF LAND MEASURING 2 ACRES 25 GUNTAS, ORIGINALLY IDENTIFIED AS SURVEY NO. 173, NOW RE NUMBERED AS SURVEY NO. 214, SITUATED IN IDNLABELE VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK AND ETC.

¶115

IN W.P. NO.15309/2024

¶116

BETWEEN

¶117

M/S SRI SAI RAGHAVA DEVELOPERS REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT NO.19, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 15TH CROSS, LAKKASANDRA, BENGALURU-560 030 REP. BY ITS PARTNER

¶118

-16-

¶119

SRI G. SURESH KUMAR ...PETITIONERS

¶120

(BY SMT. SUSHEELA S., SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHIVARAJU M.K., ADVOCATE) AND

¶121

1 . THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND IGP STATE OF KARNATAKA, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002

¶122

2 . THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BENGALURU CITY, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶123

3 . THE SUPERINTENDING POLICE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU – 560052

¶124

4 . THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ATTIBELE POLICE STATION, ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TALUK-562106

¶125

5 . M/S. TERRACON PROJECTS, REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT NEAR ATTIBELE SCHOOL, JIGALA, ATTIBELE, BENGALURU - 562 107 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, S. V.BABU, S/O. LATE RAMABADRA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO. 927, 18TH 'A' MAIN, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶126

6 . SWETHA SINGH

¶127

W/O VISHAMBHAR NATH PANDEY #DT3, BLOCK D, ITTINS SARVA APTS-1

¶128

-17-

¶129

4^TH MAIN, BEGUR ROAD, HONGASANDRA POST BOMMANAHALLI BENGALURU-560068. REP. BY THEIR GPA HOLDER DR.R.NO.SINGH

¶130

7 . VIKRAM SIMHA B S S/O. B.N. SAINATH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS NO.28, DHANVI BEHIND NAL LAYOUT JALBHAVAN, JAYANAGAR 4TH T BLOCK, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA – 560041

¶131

8 . RAVI B S/O BYREGOWDA NO.35, 2^ND MAIN, PP LAYOUT KATHRIGUPPE WATER TANK BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE BENGALURU-560085.

¶132

9 . V KANAKA DURGA W/O.DR.V.KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RAO NO. 102 FRUIT STREET, SHIVAJINAGAR BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -560001.

¶133

MAHESHWARI B R D/O.B.R.SURYANARAYANA REDDY, NO. 203, 2ND FLOOR, CHITRA BLOCK, ASWANISITARA, RAMAKRISHNAPURA, CHANDAPURA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -560081.

¶134

ABSHISHEKA N

¶135

S/O NARASIMHA REDDY M NO.2/18, VARADHAREDDY PALYAM VILLAGE KENDIGANAPALLI, DENKANIKOTTA TALUK

¶136

-18-

¶137

KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT TAMILNADU -635107.

¶138

G MALATHI W/O. G. SRINIVAS NO.661,BLOCK-45, CPWD QUARTERS, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -560102.

¶139

SUDHEENDRA M V S/O. VIJENDRA. M. NO. 03, 2ND FLOOR, BEHIND STS BAKERY, RAMANA TRADERS BUILDING, THILAK NAGAR, ATTIBELE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -562107.

¶140

MANJUNATH M S/O MARIYAPPA B AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 67, 3RD CROSS, RAJATHADRI LAYOUT KOTHANUR DINNE, BENGALURU KARNATAKA-560076.

¶141

…RESPONDENTS

¶142

(BY SRI ARUNA G.S, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4 SRI S. BASAVARAJ, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. TRIVIKRAM S. ADVOCATE FOR R5 SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR L., ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R14)

¶143

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 TO 4 TO GIVE AND GRANT POLICE PROTECTION TO THE PETITIONER AGAINST THE R5 AND ITS HENCHMEN, WHO ARE MAKING ILLEGAL AND FRANTIC ATTEMPS TO MEDDLE WITH THE PEACEFUL POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE PETITIONER OVER THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION I.E. ALL THAT PIECE AND PARCEL OF THE CONVERTED LAND BEARING SY. NO. 214, MEASURING 2 ACRES 25 GUNTAS SITUATED AT INDLABELE VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, TILL THREAT

¶144

-19-

¶145

PERSIST AND ETC.

¶146

THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 01.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, R.DEVDAS. J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶147

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶148

CAV COMMON ORDER

¶149

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS)

¶150

Writ Petition No.15309/2024 is filed by M/s.Sri Sai Raghava Developers against M/s.Terracon Projects and others with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents No.1 to 4 - police to give protection to the petitioner against respondent No.5 – M/s. Terracon Projects and its henchmen, protecting the petitioner from illegal attempts of interference in respect of the petition schedule property viz., land bearing Sy.No.214 of Indlabele village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District, measuring in all 2 acres 25 guntas of converted land. After the said writ petition was filed, some of the respondents, along with many others who claimed to have purchased

¶151

-20-

¶152

individual residential sites formed in the petition schedule property, filed W.P.No.32509/2024 with a prayer to review/recall the order dated 20.11.2020 passed in W.P.No.14163/2013, on the ground that the same is not binding on them. The petitioners have also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing M/s.Sai Raghava Developers and the legal heirs of the original grantee, not to interfere with the collective peaceful possession of the petition schedule property, enjoyed at the hands of the writ petitioners. Therefore, since the subject matter of both the writ petitions arise out of the petition schedule property, the matters were clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶153

Undisputed facts leading to the two writ petitions are that 2 acres and 25 guntas of land in Sy.No.173 of Indlabele Village was granted to Sri Venkataramanappa under the provisions of the Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888, in the year 1936-37. The said land was renumbered as Sy.No.214,

¶154

-21-

¶155

after phodi and dhurasth. The said Sri Venkataramanappa sold 1 acre of land in favour of Sri Shukoor Sab under registered Sale Deed dated 20.04.1966. Sri Shukoor Sab sold it in favour of Sri Nagappa. Sri Nagappa got the land converted to non-agricultural purposes on 25.06.1994. It is interesting to notice that the other extent of 1 acre 25 guntas which were retained by Sri Venkataramanappa were also converted on the same day i.e., 25.06.1994. The legal representatives of Sri Venkataramanappa sold 1 acre 25 guntas in favour of Sri Sai Raghava Developers, through a Power of Attorney holder. Sri Papanna and Sri Narayanaswamy, legal heirs of Sri Venkataramanappa initiated proceedings under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short ‘the Act’), seeking a declaration that the sale deeds executed in favour of Sri Shukoor Sab and Sri Sai Raghava Developers are null and void and accordingly sought for resumption and restoration of lands in favour of the

¶156

-22-

¶157

legal heirs of Sri Venkataramanappa. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the petition and directed resumption and restoration of lands in favour of the legal heirs of Sri Venkataramanappa. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed by Sri Sai Raghava Developers. Aggrieved, M/s.Sri Sai Raghava Developers filed W.P.No.14163/2013. In the meanwhile, the legal heirs of Sri Venkataramanappa sought for permission to sell the property and the State Government issued directions to the Deputy Commissioner, granting permission to sell the property in favour of Sri S.V.Babu on 17.05.2013. On the Strength of the permission accorded by the Government, in terms of Section 4(2) of the Act, the legal heirs of Sri Venkataramanappa sold the petition schedule property in favour of M/s.Terracon Projects, Proprietory concern of Sri S.V.Babu, under registered sale deed dated 21.06.2013, during the pendency of W.P.No.14163/2013. On 20.11.2020, W.P.No.14163/2013 was allowed while setting

¶158

-23-

¶159

aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner.

¶160

M/s. Terracon Projects challenged the order in W.A.No.612/2021 and the same was dismissed on 24.09.2021. M/s.Terracon Projects filed Special Leave Petition (C) No.10517/2022 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed, without issuing leave, on 24.02.2023. However, M/s.Terracon Projects filed a review petition in Diary No.51362/2023 and the review petition was also dismissed on 03.04.2024. It is pointed out that the petitioners in W.P.No.32509/2024 (house site owners) also filed an SLP in Diary No.23838/2024 and the same was dismissed on 22.07.2024.

¶161

It is in this background that Sai Raghava Developers are before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents No.1 to 4 – police to provide protection, to enable the developers to form a layout. On the other hand, the petitioners in the other writ petition are contending that

¶162

-24-

¶163

they have purchased residential sites at the hands of M/s. Terracon Projects. It is contended that there are 51 petitioners in W.P.No.32509/2024, who are in lawful possession of individual residential sites purchased under registered sale deeds, which have been produced at AnnexureG to G53. It is contended that the local authority – Village Panchayat has issued katha certificates in favour of the individual site owners. It is therefore contended that the prayer made by Sai Raghava Developers, for police protection, should not be granted.

¶164

Learned Senior Counsel Smt. S.Susheela, appearing for Sri Sai Raghava Developers submitted that Terracon Projects filed the Writ Appeal in the year 2021, raising a challenge to the orders passed in the writ petition and raised all contentions, including the fact that it purchased the petition schedule property after obtaining prior sanction, in compliance of Section 4(2) of the Act. However, the Division Bench of this Court did not accept such contentions, since

¶165

-25-

¶166

admittedly the lands were purchased during the pendency of the writ petition. The SLP filed at the hands of Terracon Projects was also dismissed by the Apex Court. Such being the position, there should be no impediment for this Court to direct respondents No.1 to 4 to provide police protection.

¶167

Learned Senior Counsel Smt. S.Susheela, submitted that even before the first proceedings were initiated at the hands of Sri Papanna and Sri Narayanaswamy in the year 2004, seeking resumption and restoration, admittedly the lands were converted to non-agricultural purposes in the year 1994. It is submitted that a Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Sri Munnaiah And Others /vs./ The Deputy Commissioner and Others - 2021 SCC OnLine KAR 14869, has held that if the granted lands are converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes, the provisions of the PTCL Act will not be attracted. It is submitted that Terracon Projects were aware of the fact the lands were converted in the year 1994 and Sri Sai Raghava Developers had purchased

¶168

-26-

¶169

converted lands and the writ petition filed by Sri Sai Raghava Developers was pending consideration before this Court. Under such circumstances, when this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court have rejected such contention raised at the hands of Terracon Projects, the subsequent purchasers of individual sites have been set up to file one more writ petition seeking to re-open the decided issues. It is submitted that the subsequent purchasers will have no say in the matters arising out of the PTCL Act.

¶170

Learned Senior Counsel submits that under similar circumstances, a Division Bench of the this Court, in the case of Mr.Umar Khatri /vs./ Mr.Bettaiah and others in W.A. No.88/2020, dated 13.09.2022, noticed such contention that during the pendency of the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, the legal heirs of the original grantee obtained permission from the State Government and sold the property in favour of respondent No.1 therein. The Division Bench therefore held that the lands were purchased pendente lite

¶171

-27-

¶172

and by law a purchaser pendente lite is bound by the orders passed in the proceedings which were pending consideration as on the date of the transaction. It is submitted that a coordinate bench of this Court, in the case of Mr.H.R.Suresh /vs./ State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.13200/2023 and connected matters, has imposed costs of Rs.10,00,000/- on the State Government for granting permission to sell the restored lands, during the pendency of the writ proceedings. It was held that the root cause of the trauma and damage caused to the prior purchaser is the permission granted by the Government, without verifying the facts and the pendency of the litigation. 8. Reliance is also placed on A.Nawab John and others /vs./ V.N.Subramaniyam - (2012) 7 SCC 738, where it was held, “It is settled legal position that the effect of Section 52 is not to render transfers effected during the pendency of a suit by a party to the suit void; but only to render such transfers subservient to the rights of the parties

¶173

-28-

¶174

to such suit, as may be, eventually, determined in the suit. In other words, the transfer remains valid subject, of course, to the result of the suit. The pendente lite purchaser would be entitled to or suffer the same legal rights and obligations of his vendor as may be eventually determined by the court.”

¶175

That being the position, it is submitted that the claim of the subsequent individual site purchasers to review and recall the orders passed by this Court, which have been confirmed at the hands of the Apex Court, is required to be rejected. For the same reason, since the matter has attained finality, the private respondents are not entitled to cause interference with the peaceful possession of the petition schedule property and therefore appropriate directions should be issued to respondents No.1 t 4 – police to provide protection to the writ petitioner - Sri Sai Raghava Developers.

¶176

Per contra, learned Senior Counsels Sri Vivek Subba Reddy and Sri S.Basavaraj, appearing for the writ petitioners in the connected writ petition No.32509/2024

¶177

-29-

¶178

(individual site owners) and M/s. Terracon Projects, submitted that at no point of time have Sri Sai Raghava Developers questioned the permission granted by the State Government, although they were aware of such permission granted by the Government in the year 2013. Even after Terracon Projects filed the writ appeal, questioning the orders passed in W.P.No.14163/2013, Sri Sai Raghava Developers did not raise a challenge to the permission accorded by the State Government. Moreover, Terracon Projects has proceeded to form a residential layout and has sold individual sites in favour of several purchasers, including the petitioners in W.P.No.32509/2024. Registered sale deeds at Annexures-G to G53, executed and registered between the years 2017 to 2018 have been produced along with the writ petition. Under such admitted circumstances, this Court should not grant the prayer made by Sri Sai Raghava Developers. On the other hand, since admittedly the individual site owners were not impleaded as party respondents in the writ petition filed at the

¶179

-30-

¶180

hands of Sri Sai Raghava Developers or the writ appeal filed by M/s.Terracon Projects, they are entitled to seek review of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.14163/2013.

¶181

Heard the learned Senior Counsels Smt. Susheela,

¶182

Sri Vivek Subba Reddy and the learned Counsel Sri Basavaraj, and perused the petition papers.

¶183

On facts, it is necessary to notice that although it is true that during the pendency of the writ petition filed by Sri Sai Raghava Developers, in W.P.No.14163/2013, by order dated 17.05.2013, permission was granted by the State Government to the legal heirs of Sri Venkataramanappa to sell the petition schedule property in favour of Sri S.V.Babu, Proprietor of M/s. Terracon Projects. No steps were taken by Sri Sai Raghava Developers, to question such permission granted by the Government and in no proceedings declaration is made regarding the validity of the permission granted by the Government. Neither the sale deed dated 21.06.2013 by which M/s. Terracon Projects purchased the petition schedule

¶184

-31-

¶185

property nor the individual sale deeds executed and registered in favour of the petitioners in W.P.No.32509/2024 have been declared void.

¶186

This is probably the reason why the Apex Court, while dismissing the SLP filed by M/s.Terracon Projects in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.10517/2022 dated 24.02.2023 made it clear that the SLP is dismissed in the peculiar circumstances and on the ground of delay and laches only and not on the ground whether the prior permission was necessary or not. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has not decided the issue regarding the subsequent permission granted by the Government in favor of the legal heirs of Sri Venkataramanappa, to sell the property in favour of Sri S.V.Babu. The learned Senior Counsels are therefore right in their submissions that since the validity of the sale permission granted by the Government is not questioned and the subsequent sale deeds, be it the sale deed executed in favour of M/s. Terracon Projects nor the individual sale deeds

¶187

-32-

¶188

executed in favour of the site purchasers have not been declared void by any authority or court, this Court cannot assume that the sale deeds are void. The judgment cited by learned Senior Counsel Smt.S.Susheela in A.Nawab John (supra) reiterates the position that the effect of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, is not to render transfers effected during the pendency of a suit by a party to the suit void. The provision seeks to render such transfers subservient to the rights of the parties to such suit, as may be, eventually, determined in the suit. The Apex Court has declared that the transfers remained valid subject to the result of the suit.

¶189

The situation here is further complicated by the permission granted by the State Government, having regard to the express provisions contained in Section 4(2) of the Act. The issue as to whether the State Government could have accorded permission during the pendency of the writ petition cannot be gone into in these proceedings. On the other hand, while deciding such an issue, the competent court will have to

¶190

-33-

¶191

take into consideration the subsequent developments and third party rights created even before such an action is questioned.

¶192

This Court is also of the considered opinion that the prayer made by the individual site owners in W.P.No.32509/2024 to review and recall the order dated 20.11.2020 in W.P.No.14163/2013, cannot be acceded to. However, all contentions are left open for the writ petitioners in both the petitions and the private respondents to work out their remedy in accordance with law.

¶193

Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed

¶194

of.

¶195

Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.

¶196

Sd/- ( R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶197

KLY CT:JL

Sweta Singh v. Sri Sai Raghava Developers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sweta Singh v. Sri Sai Raghava Developers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.R. Siddaramaiah @ Siddramaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Swetha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Ravikirana Vs the State of Karnataka

A Vijayakumar Vs the State of Karnataka

The Secretary to Government Vs Smt Nagamma

Jeetendra Kumar Rajan Vs the State of Karnataka