Judicial Layout Residents and Site Holders Association (Regd.), GKVK Post, Bangalore - Petitioner @HASH Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore and Others

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

Ram Mohan Reddy, J. - Common questions of law and that of fact arise for decision making, hence with the consent of the learned Counsel the petitions are clubbed together, finally heard and disposed of by this order.

Petitioner, an Association, registered on 4-3-1999 under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, with certificate of registration, Annexure-A, represented by its office bearers has presented this petition, duly authorised by a resolution dated 6-5-2002 Annexure-B, of its Executive Committee, alleging several illegalities perpetuated by the Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society (for short, ''Society'') registered on 11-8-1983 under Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, ''KCS Act'').

2. It is asserted that the object of the Society was to acquire lands under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ''LA Act''), form residential layout and allot house sites to its members, in furtherance of which approached the State Government-respondent 2 herein, who, through its Special Land Acquisition Officer, acquired lands measuring 193 acres comprised in different Survey numbers of Allalasandra, Chikka Bommasandra and Jakkur Plantation. The society, it is said, on being put in possession of the lands, submitted a layout plan to the respondent 1-Bangalore Development Authority (for short, ''BDA'') for its approval/sanction. A resolution dated 16-11-1992 bearing No. 503 of 1992, it is asserted, was passed to approve the layout plan subject to certain conditions and issued three notices dated 1-8-1993, 28-8-1993 and 28-2-1994 to the Society to comply with the said conditions. It is alleged that although the Society neither replied to the notices nor complied with the conditions by paying the necessary charges, nevertheless, formed the layout by laying roads, open spaces for parks, civic amenity sites and the following 2048 residential sites:

� 845 sites of 30 ft. x 40 ft.

� 70 sites of 30 ft. x 45 ft.

� 493 sites of 40 ft. x 60 ft.

� 220 sites of 30 ft. x 50 ft.

� 80 sites of 50 ft. x 80 ft.

� 104 sites of 60 ft. x 90 ft.

� 39 sites of 80 ft. x 120 ft.

� 197 odd sites.

3. Petitioner submits that the Society in its statement of objections in Subramani v. Union of India, reported in ILR 1995 Kar. 3139 stated that sites noticed above were formed after the layout was approved by BDA. The Society, it is further asserted, having specifically held out to its members, before allotment of sites, that the approved layout plan provides for 11 parks and 5 civic amenity sites, on such representation of members of the Society applied for and obtained allotment of sites in the layout, majority of whom have put up construction and are residing therein.

4. Petitioner''s representations - ''C'', ''C-1'' to ''C-3'' addressed to the respondents to furnish copy of the approved plan of the layout in question, BDA, it is said, responded by communication dated 17-6-2002, -''D'', while in the General Body meeting held on 29-9-2002, -''E'', the Society stated that 49% of 193 acres utilised for formation of the layout is reserved for roads, underground drainage, temple, parks and playgrounds. Petitioner''s representation -''F'' demanding the Society to disclose the details of allotment of 2048 sites, it is said, was responded by reply -''G''. The Association by letter dated 28-8-2000 Annexure-H, sought permission of the Society to install Gouri and Ganesha idols to celebrate Ganesha Festival in a specifically mentioned civic amenity site. Annexure-J, it is claimed, is the legal notice by two members of the Society served on all the respondents and Authorities. The copy of statement of objections filed by the Society in W.P. No. 11211 of 1995 is - ''K'', while two sale deeds -�L� and ''M� executed by the Society specifically covenant that the layout plan is approved by the BDA in its Resolution No. 503 of 1992, dated 16-11-1992.

5. Petition is filed calling in question the action of the Society and its office bearers in forming sites in the area earmarked for Temple and those for civic amenities in the draft plan submitted to the BDA for approval of the layout, known as "Layout" and for the following reliefs:

� Direct the first respondent to produce before this Hon''ble Court the layout plan of the judicial layout approved in favour of the 4th respondent-Society by its Resolution No. 503/92, dated 16-11-1992;

� Declare all the actions of the 4th respondent-society and anyone claiming under it, deviating from the approved layout plan sanctioned by the first respondent bearing Resolution No. 503/92, dated 16-11-1992, insofar as they altered the nature of the parks, civic amenity sites and other open spaces specified therein, as illegal, void and inoperative;

� Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the first respondent to take registered relinquishment deed from the 4th respondent-society transferring all the parks, civic amenity sites and other open spaces as specified in the layout plan sanctioned by it as per Resolution No. 503/92, dated 16-11-1992 and handover possession of the same to the 3rd respondent herein, in the interest of justice and equity;

� Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to forthwith take all necessary steps to preserve, protect and maintain the parks, civic amenity sites and other open spaces in the Judicial Layout, Bellary Road, GKVK Post, Bangalore-560 065, in the interest of justice and equity; and

� Grant such other relief this Hon''ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of this case, including an order as to costs, in the interest of justice and equity.

6. A Co-ordinate Division Bench by order dated 22-1-2003 observed thus:

"Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that despite prohibition to change the character and nature of the open space land, the respondents have started forming sites in the open space land measuring 195'' x 200'' reserved for temple.

Issue notice to respondents 1, 3 and 4, returnable in two weeks. Learned Government Advocate to take notice for respondent 2.

In the meanwhile respondent 4-society not to change the character of the land described in I.A. No. 1 of 2003."

7. The schedule to IA No. 1 of 2003 reads thus:

Open space measuring 195'' x 200'' and bounded by:

in the Karnataka Judicial Employees House Building Layout, Bangalore-560 065.

8. On 18-6-2003, the following order was passed:

"Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that despite the order dated 22-1-2003 the civic amenity sites are being sold by the 4th respondent-Society and in this way it is changing the character. The petitioners are directed to file the details of such sites, which have been sold in violation.

2. Respondents 3 and 4 are served, but not appeared despite service. Learning Standing Counsel for the BDA, and the learned Government Advocate are present, but no counter has been filed.

3. It is necessary to ascertain the facts. Therefore, respondent 4-Society is directed to submit a copy of the map filed to BDA, to this Court and a list of transfer of civic amenity sites, if any, within one month. Respondent 1-BDA, shall also submit its report within two months.

4. The interim order dated 22-1-2003 shall continue and in addition it is also made clear that during the pendency of this petition, the Society shall not transfer any civic amenity sites as shown in plan submitted to BDA, until further orders. In the meanwhile the respondents can file their counter. Put up after two months."

9. On 18-7-2003, the Society filed a memo producing additional documents as directed on 18-6-2003. The Society in its memo stated that it had filed the following documents:

(1) Layout plan approved by City Municipal Council, Yelahanka as per Resolution No. 24, dated 22-5-1996 not forthcoming from records.

(2) The letter of 4th respondent handing over the layout to CMC with copy of relinquishment deed along with CA sites parks etc., as per layout plan.

(3) Letter of City Municipal Council, Yelahanka, dated 23-1-2003 for having taken over the entire layout with CA sites, playgrounds, parks, drainages, water supply lines and all other connected civic amenities.

10. Society, in addition, stated that the layout falls within the jurisdiction of the City Municipal Council, Yelahanka (for short, ''CMC'') as per Government notification and though there was correspondence with the BDA regarding approval of plan etc., as per resolution of the BDA it ceased to have jurisdiction over the area, hence no further steps were taken to obtain sanction from BDA. Developmental charges as per law, it is said, is paid to CMC, Yelahanka as per their demand which is about Rs. 36 lakhs.

11. BDA filed its Statement of objections on 24-5-2004 reiterating the prayers in the memorandum of writ petition. BDA stated that the society made an application dated 6-11-1992 for approval of the layout plan as per the old norms i.e., 65% sital area and 35% towards CA and roads and permit them to execute the civil works, whence BDA by letter dated 28-11-1992 informed the society that in the resolution dated 16-11-1992 vide Subject No. 503 of 1992, resolved to approve the layout for 156 acres and 26% guntas subject to the following conditions:

(1) To furnish possession certificate from Revenue Department before issue of intimation, communicating layout charges.

(2) To furnish NOC from KEB and BWSSB Authorities before issue of work order.

(3) To remit contribution of Rs. 2 Lakhs per acre towards Cauvery Water Supply Scheme as per revised rates.

(4) To furnish NOC from Co-operation Department before release of sites.

(5) To entrust the civil works to the society itself under the supervision of BDA.

(6) To pay ring road surcharges at Rs. one lakh per acre as per the Authority resolution and

(7) Other usual terms and conditions.

12. In addition it stated since the Society did not comply with the conditions, hence by letters dated 8-12-1993 and 24-2-1994 called upon the Society to comply with the conditions, which was responded to by reply dated 22-3-1994 stating that Items 2 and 4 of the conditions need not be submitted for the time being while Items 3 and 5, the Society filed WP Nos. 39338 to 39341 of 1992 in which the Court granted stay of the demand. As regards, Item 1, the Society sought 30 days time to submit the possession certificate.

13. BDA issued final notice dated 26-5-1994, to furnish particulars sought for, failing which the Society would be liable for delay in approval of the layout plan. The Society on 1-6-1994 sought time to furnish the particulars relating to Item 1 until the Government handed over possession of 17 acres 18 guntas of land to it.

14. By another letter dated 18-3-1996, it is stated that the society requested for release of the approved layout plan and in the meanwhile as there was a change in the Government Housing Policy relating to private layout wherein 25% of the sites in the private layout are to be reserved for Economically Weaker Section and Lower Income Group, the BDA called upon the Society to modify the layout plan as per the new Government policy. The Society, it is said, by letter dated 30-4-1996 stated that as it had not taken any financial assistance or subsidy from the Government, hence the applicability of the housing policy would not arise.

15. At paragraph 6 of the statement of objections, it is stated that it issued communication dated 2-4-1997, under Sections 17 and 15(4) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (for short, ''KTCP Act'') and Section 32 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short, ''BDA Act'') and Rule 37 of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965 (for short, ''KPA Rules''), pointing out that the lands in question fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the BDA, hence permission for development under the aforesaid provisions of law when not obtained by the society, directed the society not to carry out the development work. There afterwards BDA having issued notice dated 2-5-1997 fixing the date of hearing on 8-5-1997 calling upon the society to appear before the authorities, nevertheless the Society did not appear.

16. BDA further states that on 26-11-1997 and 8-10-2002, final notices were issued to the Society directing them to discontinue the unauthorised formation of layout and to show cause within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice as to why action should not be taken to stop the unauthorised work by dismantling the layout and restore the land to its original condition. Society by letter dated 18-10-2002 contended that the completion of the formation of the layout was in order to avoid unauthorised occupation of land, encroachment of lands by the land grabbers and formation of revenue sites by builders, in addition to other contentions. It also stated that by Gazette notification of the Government, the lands fell under the territorial jurisdiction of Yelahanka and Byatarayanapura CMC which demanded payment of supervision and development charges by letters dated 19-12-1996 and 27-6-1997, which was complied with. The Society, it is stated, claimed to have obtained transfer of khatha of sites in favour of individual members and paid annual taxes while building plans and licences to construct houses was issued by CMC. Society, it was claimed, though provided civic amenities, drinking water facility, etc., nevertheless did not take any help from the BDA or the Government in this regard.

17. At paragraph 8 it is specifically stated that the BDA did not sanction or approve the layout plan in favour of 4th respondent and that the said society failed to comply with the conditions stipulated in letter dated 28-11-1992 till date.

18. Although the BDA obtained a legal opinion for initiating further steps in the matter after verifying the records, nevertheless, since the petition was filed and the proceedings pending, BDA, claims did not proceed further in the matter.

19. At paragraph 9 it is stated that despite the order dated 18-6-2003 of this Court directing the Society to submit the copy of the layout plan filed to BDA and the list of transfer of CA sites, within one month, so as to enable the BDA to comply with the direction to verify and submit a report within two months, nevertheless, since there was non-compliance by the Society, the BDA stated that it was unable to verify and file the report. In furtherance of the said order, it is stated that several letters addressed to the society to comply with the directions contained in the order dated 18-6-2003 did not fructify except for a letter dated 5-8-2003 of the Society reiterating its earlier statement that since the area falls within the jurisdiction of CMC, Yelahanka, the question of obtaining the approval of layout plan from the BDA did not arise.

20. Petition was opposed by filing statement of objections on 9-7-2004 of respondent 3-City Municipal Council, Yelahanka (for short, ''CMC'') stating that by executing the relinquishment deed dated 17-5-2002, the Society made over to the CMC, roads, parks, playgrounds, drains with water supply, sewerage lines and street lights etc., as the entire layout was formed. It is stated that on the execution of the relinquishment deed and handing over of the areas to the CMC, no changes or alterations are made by the CMC. It is further stated that by Government notification dated 4-10-1995, the CMC was constituted with territorial jurisdiction encompassing the judicial layout and therefore the layout plan was approved on 22-5-1996. According to CMC, the Society had formed the layout before it sought approval of the layout plan which consisted of the following civic amenity sites:

� 5 areas earmarked for parks;

� About 2 acres towards Chikkabommasandra;

� About 2 acres in Allalasandra portion;

� An area 960x40/2 + 20 ft.;

� Areas of about 800 ft. x 30 ft.;

� Portion of about 4 acres by the side of playgrounds;

� About 2 acres for school;

� About 2 acres for playground by the side of the park annexed;

� Area for temple measuring about 80 ft. x 100 ft.;

� Water supply common area measuring about 80 ft. x 60 ft.

21. CMC further submits that under Section 170(1) of Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short, �KMC Act�), it is the statutory duty of the Municipality to accord sanction to the new layouts within its territorial jurisdiction, and since judicial layout was formed before it fell within its jurisdiction, and the land was acquired by the State for the society in accordance with law, CMC did not find any reason to reject the society''s request for sanction of the layout plan, more so, in the light of the decision of the Division Bench in Aircraft Employees'' Co-operative Society v. Bangalore Development Authority and others decided on 20-4-2001, hence passed the resolution Annexure-''R-1'', approving the layout plan with the civic amenity sites as it stood in May 1996.

22. Society filed its statement of objections on 9-7-2004 inter alia stating that the writ petition for the alleged irregularities and illegalities is not maintainable as the Society is registered under the KCS Act, not being a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Society admitted that it is a dispute between itself and its members which can be agitated under Section 70 of the KCS Act and not by way of a writ. It stated that all members of the petitioner-Association and in particular petitioners (b), (j) and (n) are not members of the Society, hence cannot seek redressal of alleged irregularities and illegalities said to have committed by the Society though not committed.

23. The Society further states that it was formed with the object of securing land, forming layout and allotting sites to its members, approached the State to acquire certain lands under the LA Act, to an extent of 193 acres comprised in villages of Allalasandra, Chikkabommasandra and Jakkur Plantation. With that object, it is stated that it negotiated and entered into agreements with the landowners for purchase of 200 acres, at the then prevailing market rate. Government after constitution of Committee called the "Three Man Screening Committee" obtained a report over the genuineness of the Society, where after wards, the Deputy Commissioner issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act to acquire lands measuring 170 acres for and on behalf of the Society, followed by a final notification to acquire 169 acres of land. Society denied that the Government had acquired 193 acres as claimed by the petitioner.

24. It is claimed that out of land to an extend to 156 acres 26 �guntas, 139 acres 08 �guntas possession was delivered to the Society by the Land Acquisition Officer on 13-11-1992, and issued with a Possession Certificate Annexure-''R-1''. As there was litigation in respect of the remaining extent questioning the acquisition before this Court by the owners of the lands namely Papaiah and others and a stay order was in force with respect to 17 acres and 18 guntas, possession of that land was not delivered. On the basis of the extent of land acquired, a tentative layout plan, it is said, was prepared and submitted to the BDA for approval, whence BDA passed a Resolution No. 503/92, dated 16-11-1992 to approve the plan subject to certain conditions. The society claims to have called in question the Circular No. RCS 28/94-95, dated 17-5-1994 of the Government not to register documents unless clearance was obtained from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the release order issued by the BDA in respect of sites formed by Co-operative Societies in WP No. 18447 of 1994 whence a learned Single Judge (G.P. Shivaprakash, J.) by order dated 15-7-1994 Annexure-R-2 quashed the Circular.

25. At paragraph 6 it is stated that since W.P. No. 11144 of 1993 and connected petitions filed by other House Building Societies, were pending relating to the demand for payment towards Cauvery Water Supply Scheme; ring road charges; and surcharges by circular of the BDA, the society was unable to comply with the demand for payment. It is stated that the said Circular was quashed by order dated 20-4-2001 of the Division Bench Annexure-R-3. The writ petition filed by one Sri Papaiah and others questioning the acquisition of their lands was dismissed and the Land Acquisition Officer delivered possession of the remaining 17 acres and 18 guntas under possession certificate dated 2-9-1994 Annexure-''R-4''.

26. In paragraph 8 it is stated that One Subramani along with others filed WP No. 35837 of 1994 and other connected petitions by way of public interest litigation questioning the acquisition of land and Judges of this Court being made members as also allotment of sites made to them by the Society. According to the Society, it did not pursue with the BDA its application for approval of plan though tentatively approved subject to certain conditions by resolution dated 16-11-1992. In addition, it is stated that the demand by the BDA for huge sums of money towards charges mentioned above subject-matter of pending writ petitions which demands were struck down by a Division Bench as illegal while the special leave petition was dismissed, petitioner cannot re-agitate the very same alleged irregularities and illegalities.

27. At paragraph 9 it is stated that Society initially sought acquisition of 240 acres of land thereafter reduced to 200 acres, on obtaining agreements of sale from owners of lands who were paid full value, society initiated correspondence with the Government to acquire the remaining land measuring 45 acres 33� guntas by letter dated 24-2-1993 Annexure-R-5. This extent of land it is stated was found as small pockets inter spread within the large extent of land acquired for the layout. The Special Deputy Commissioner, it is said, on the basis of the letter dated 18-5-1993 of the State Government Annexure-R6 initiated land acquisition proceedings as disclosed in the letter dated 14-7-1993 Annexure-R7.

28. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, it is said, addressed a letter dated 21-8-1993 to the Society Annexure-R8, requesting furnishing of details of lands relating to acquisition proceedings to be initiated along with an application enclosing agreements of sale obtained from landowners. In compliance with the said request, Society is said to have made an application Annexure-R9 seeking acquisition of 39 acres 6� guntas out of 45 acres 33� guntas, as enclosed to the letter dated 30-12-1993 Annexure-R10, and since acquisition proceeding was not initiated, the society addressed a letter dated 13-7-1994 to the Hon''ble Minister Annexure-R11.

29. At paragraph 10, it is asserted that the State Government constituted the Yelahanka Municipality as a City Municipal Council under the ''KM Act'', by Notification No. HUD 439 KLR 95, dated 4-10-1995 Annexure-R12 including within its territorial jurisdiction the entire Villages of Chikkabommasandra, Allalasandra and Jakkur Plantation. The said Yelahanka CMC exercising jurisdiction under the ''KM Act'', while the BDA having no jurisdiction on the said land, directed the society to pay development charges and obtain approval of the layout plan. The society, it is claimed, prepared a comprehensive plan including the unacquired area, forming 2,200 sites of different sizes, parks, civic amenities, playground, stadium, schools, temples, and paid the charges to the Yelahanka CMC pursuant to which by Resolution No. 24, dated 22-5-1996, plan was approved. A copy of which was placed along with the memo dated 18-7-2003 (though such a memo is not traceable in the file). The demand of the Municipal Council, it is said, was met with by payment.

30. At paragraph 11 it is specifically denied that in the plan furnished to the BDA, for formation of 2048 sites, there is an increase in the number of sites to 2200 in the plan furnished to the City Municipal Council. It is asserted that the Resolution No. 503/1992, dated 16-11-1992 of the BDA, it was resolved to agree to approve the layout subject to fulfilment of certain conditions and as the BDA ceased to have territorial jurisdiction, and the CMC, Yelahanka was invested with that jurisdiction, the compliance of the conditions set out by BDA did not arise. The increase in number of sites, it is further stated, is due to the inclusion of 39 acres of land and therefore approval by the CMC, Yelahanka for formation of 2445 sites is within its jurisdiction. It is clarified that the total number of sites in the layout as proposed in the plan submitted to the BDA was 2268 and not 2048.

31. After approval, sites were formed and registered in CMC, Yelahanka and Land Tax was assessed. Sites which were allotted in favour of some of the petitioners who were members of the Society and sale deeds executed in their favour and khat has were made in their names and names included in the Municipal records and not with the BDA, are the statement of the Society. Site owners, it is claimed, have obtained licence and sanctioned plans from CMC, Yelahanka.

32. After inclusion of unacquired lands and subsequent delivery of possession of acquired lands by the Land Acquisition Officer, the layout plan was altered and a comprehensive layout plan was prepared and number of sites was increased and the plan was approved by CMC, Yelahanka for 2268 sites. In the layout plan, land for parks, playground, stadium, civic amenities, educational institution, temple have also been provided, while the Society denies that the open spaces earmarked for the CA Sites have been allotted and construction of residential buildings put up.

33. In its General Body Meeting held on 29-9-2002, the Society stated that 49% of 193 acres reserved for roads, underground drainage, temple etc. was a mistake in the printing which was got corrected in the meeting and was within the knowledge of the petitioner.

34. Society further states that petitioner taking advantage of the temporary permission granted for installing Gowri and Ganesh idols to celebrate Ganesh festival are attempting to build up a case with untenable contentions. They have misinterpreted the letter Annexure-H. The entire area covered by the boundaries mentioned in the letter was not a civic amenity site, while one site measuring about 100 feet x 100 feet was reserved as civic amenity site for temple and the said site is still kept vacant.

35. Further the Society submits that it has provided land for parks, playgrounds etc., and it is for the CMC, Yelahanka to establish the same; an educational institution already exists in the layout and a stadium is to be built and developed by the CMC; it is for the Government to provide or establish public offices and hospitals and that there is a Government Hospital in Chikkabommasandra Village and private Nursing Homes near the layout providing medical facilities; and the Society furnished the letter from the Office of CMC for having taken over possession of the CA sites and informed the Society to deposit remaining difference amount to the CMC Annexure-R13.

36. By letter dated 23-1-1999 of the Government relating to a circular informing the Societies which genuinely require lands, in respect of which sale agreements are entered for formation of layout to provide residential sites to its members, were permitted to hold such lands to form layout without acquisition. Society having obtained final agreements of sale by paying full sale considerations to the owners of lands and taken possession pursuant to the agreements of sale, proceeded with the formation of the layout including those lands as indicated in the comprehensive plan prepared in respect of the total extent of 193 acres, of which approval for 2268 sites included in the unacquired lands was approved by the CMC. It is further stated the Society entered into compromise with landowners who filed suits against the Society as the said lands were not acquired even though they had agreed to sell and delivered possession.

37. The Society prays for dismissal of the writ petition as it has not committed any irregularity or illegality which has seriously jeopardised the rights of the residents in the layout and as the Society has already handed over the entire layout to CMC, issue of directions do not arise. It is further stated that BDA has no jurisdiction over the area in question as it falls within the Yelahanka CMC limits as per Government notification and plan has been approved by the said CMC and the earlier tentative approval granted by BDA is irrelevant.

38. The additional statement of objections by way of counter-affidavit sworn by Sri C. Shivalingaiah, President of the Society, it is stated that after the Society prepared the Comprehensive Layout Plan and submitted it to the CMC for approval, inclusive of 17 acres 18 guntas of land of which possession was given in September 1994, and lands of which agreement of sale was entered into, falling within the layout area in respect of which consent was extended by the landowners for development. CMC demanded layout charges at 9% and betterment charges at Rs. 25/- per sq. mtrs. for unacquired lands measuring 36 acres and 15� guntas, excluding the area of 14 acres covered by road, approved the layout plan for 14 acres and 15� guntas. The total extent for which the layout plan was approved is an area of 193 acres and 2� guntas as per resolution dated 22-5-1996. He further submits that there is no plan approved by the BDA but it is approved by the CMC, Yelahanka. Some of the petitioners in this petition having approached CMC obtained transfer of Khata and obtained licence with sanction of the building plan for construction in their sites which facts have been suppressed. The deponent further submits that the approval from the CMC is for 2268 sites of different dimensions and it is a false statement that sanction is for 2048 sites. Provision is made for parks in five areas; water tank for supplying water for the entire layout; playground; school and for construction of a temple in an area of 80 ft. x 100 ft. All the areas of civic amenities are handed over to the CMC and entire layout transferred to the CMC, Yelahanka by executing a relinquishment deed. He further denies that the civic amenity sites are converted into regular sites and sold to private persons. A site measuring 80 ft. x 100 ft. earmarked for the temple is shown in the layout plan approved by the CMC as a civic amenity site handed over the CMC. It is further stated during the year 1990 in the society elections, the petitioner unsuccessfully contested against the deponent and to wreck vengeance against the officer bearers have filed the writ petition making false allegations.

39. On 19-11-2004 the following order was passed:

"By order dated 9-7-2004, this Court had directed the 3rd respondent-CMC and the 4th respondent-Society to produce the certified copy of the land sanctioned by the CMC which the learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent-Society submits is complied with by filing the same along with an application.

The photostat copy of the plan, produced, is not legible and we are unable to identify the area demarcated as civic amenity sites. The 4th respondent is directed to produce the plan which is legible and in which the civic amenity sites are identifiable.

The 4th respondent shall also make available a copy of the said plan to the 1st respondent-BDA who shall, keeping in mind the Comprehensive Development Plan of the said area and Zonal Regulations, file a statement as to the areas notified as public, semi public residential, park etc.

The registry is directed to place on record the original file in WP No. 35837 of 1994 along with connected writ petitions disposed off on 12th October, 1995.

Call on 10-12-2004."

40. In compliance with the said directions, BDA filed its statement on 16-12-2004 stating that it prepared an enlarged version of the comprehensive Development Plan Annexure-R4 (not found in the pleadings), attempted to locate the area falling within the layout plan approved by CMC, Byatarayanapura in favour of the Society by marking the parks as Exs. P. 1 to P. 10, while the CDP describes these areas as residential zone. Similarly the area reserved for civic amenity marked as CA while two portions in the vicinity of Ex. P. 4 are said to fall in the residential zone. Another CA site adjacent to Jakkur Plantation and abutting the railway line to its West shown as CA is described as Transportation Zone in that CDP, while the extreme North portion of Jakkur Plantation in which the land of the Society is situated and shown for residential purpose in the layout plan, in fact is reserved fora park in the CDP.

41. On 11-3-2005 respondent 3-CMC filed an additional statement stating that the Commissioner of CMC assisted by the Engineering Section and Revenue Section of Municipality surveyed and inspected the judicial employees'' layout at Allalasandra and noticed the following factual position of the layout within the municipal limits:

� 1 acre 26 guntas between Sy. Nos. 65 and 94 earmarked for playground and park in the plan is fully covered by fencing with a gate by a private party claiming to be his land.

� 1 acre 15 guntas in Sy. No. 14/1 earmarked for school is claimed by a private party.

� 16636 sq. ft. is earmarked for burial ground.

� 1070 ft. x 111 ft. towards south of the layout is marked for park.

� 85 ft. x 87 ft. area pump house.

� 425 ft. x 270 ft. for school and playground and park.

� 142 ft. x 61 ft. water tank.

� .860 ft. x 65 ft. as park and water tank.

� Leaving apart the roads and drainages.

42. The CMC further states that Allalasandra and adjoining villages were included in CMC, Yelahanka Municipal limits by Gazette notification dated 22-8-1995. The layout was formed before the area came into Municipal limits and the society submitted a layout plan for approval and for transfer of khata of the sites in favour of the members and also sanction of building plans. CMC on 22-5-1996 resolved to transfer the khata and sanction building plans on compliance with the Municipal rules and procedure and on the same day the in charge Commissioner affixed the seal and signature to the plan submitted by the Society. Further on 17-5-2002, the Society executed a registered relinquishment deed handing over the area of road, drainage, civic amenity sites etc. Annexure-R-3B without annexing a plan to the deed and presumed to be accepted as of May 1996 which the Municipality accepted by its letter dated 23-1-2003. The CA site measuring about 2.22 acres is said to be under private control and the park fenced with compound wall and a big gate by a private party as found at the time of survey. CA school property measuring about 1.04 acres is land of Sri Shankarappa who had sold this land to Somaiah in turn he had sold it to Sri Jayprakash of V.V. Puram as informed by the villagers during the inspection. In respect of the other sites, Municipality has measured and prepared sketches Annexure-R-3C series.

43. The CMC further submits that the Society is due Rs. 47,04,568/- towards development and supervision charges in respect of the layout to the Municipality.

44. On 6-1-2006 (found in CCC No. 87 of 2004 connected with W.P. No. 40994 of 2002 order sheet) the following order was passed:

"Sri V. Lakshminarayan, learned Counsel for the 4th respondent submits that the Annexure-R2 to the affidavit dated 20-10-2005, particularises the details of the 250 sites, identified by the Society, from out of the 404 sites, said to be located in the civic amenity area, in the report of the Bangalore Development Authority. According to the learned Counsel, the aforesaid 250 sites fall within the areas reserved for civic amenities. The learned Counsel requests that a direction be issued to the BDA to conduct a joint inspection to identify the remaining 154 sites, as the Society is unable to do so on the basis of the plan submitted by the BDA along with the report.

Sri C.B. Srinivasan, learned Standing Counsel for BDA has no objections for a joint inspection and to identify the balance 154 sites, with reference to the report submitted.

Recording the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties, the BDA is directed to conduct a joint inspect after issuing notices to the 1st petitioner and the 4th respondent-Society fixing the date/s and time for inspection and identify the remaining 154 sites. The 4th respondent is thereafter permitted to file an additional affidavit in respect of the said sites.

Sri Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner points out to the photocopies of the encumbrance certificates, to contend that more than 13 sites are conveyed by the present office bearers after the interim order was passed in this case, which is contrary to the submission of Sri V. Lakshminarayan, learned Counsel for the 4th respondent recorded in the order sheet dated 8-7-2005. Sri V. Lakshminarayan seeks time to secure instructions as to whether all the said sites fall within the area earmarked for civic amenity etc., or elsewhere.

Having regard to the fact that the 4th respondent has identified 250 sites falling within the area reserved for civic amenity etc., reference to which is made in the Annexure-R2 to the statement of objections dated 20-10-2005, it is necessary that the nature of the said sites should be preserved without effecting any change and hence, we direct that no construction or further construction shall be put up on the said 250 sites. But at the same time, it does not mean that construction could be made or proceeded within such of those sites which have so far not been identified by the Society as falling within area reserved for civic amenity etc., though as a matter of fact they are in the said area. It is useful to extract the order dated 9-7-2004, which reads thus:

"It is also made clear that any construction made on any civic amenity site, as per the map, here onwards would be at the risk and responsibility of the person making such construction."

In our considered view, the aforesaid order would take care of such of those sites which have not been so far identified by the 4th respondent-Society as falling within the areas reserved for civic amenities, parks etc.

We further direct the 4th respondent-Society to communicate this order to all its members.

List on 3rd February, 2006.

Let a copy of this order be made available to the learned Counsel for 1st petitioner, 4th respondent-Society as well as learned Standing Counsel for BDA."

45. In compliance with the order dated 6-1-2006, BDA states that it conducted the Joint Survey along with the petitioner and the Society on 4-2-2006 and prepared a joint Inspection Report identifying 404 sites and the Plan. As per the joint inspection report, 154 sites are identified along with the 250 sites formed by the society, as falling within the civic amenity area. Details of the site numbers vacant or built up, it is said, is enclosed as Annexure-A and the area reserved for parks/open spaces and civic amenity sites in the draft layout submitted by the Society during 1992 as Annexure-B in the report submitted by the BDA, while roads have been tarred and electric facilities provided to the layout.

46. Society filed its statement of objections to the report submitted by BDA in compliance with the order stating that at the time of survey, Secretary of the Society Sri Suresh Kumar S. (who is under suspension for misconduct), 1st petitioner and officers of the BDA were present with a copy of the plan produced by the petitioners which is said to be a draft plan submitted by the Society to the BDA without signature and seal of the Society, whence the Secretary objected to identify any CA site as per the said plan, nevertheless officials of the BDA continued their survey and marked the areas reserved for future development sites as CA sites and prepared report stating that there are the 404 sites. The plan was not prepared or finalised on the spot at the time of inspection and is not signed by the Secretary of the Society is the objection. It is alleged that the plan submitted by BDA to the Court is as per instruction of the petitioner and prepared in the office of the BDA. The draft plan, it is stated, submitted for approval to BDA on 6-11-1992 is as per the old norms on the basis of 65% sital area and 35% CA, park and road area and same had been agreed to be sanctioned by BDA as per its resolution dated 16-11-1992 on compliance of certain conditions. Hence, it is stated BDA or the petitioners cannot contend that the Society is required to leave more than 35% as CA, park and road area.

47. The further objections are that the BDA in its statement of objections Annexure-R1, stated that since the area is surrounded by GKVK (UAS) Campus with garden and forest area of about 4000 acres situated on 3 sides of this layout and about 40-50 acres of medicinal plantation maintained by the Central Government, some open space required to be left is reduced in the formation of the layout as it will not affect greenery or ecology in the area. It is submitted that some of the members of the petitioner-society have obtained allotment of sites from the Society in area shown as CA and park area and have constructed houses thereon obtaining plan and licence from the CMC, hence, it is not open for the petitioners to question the authority of Society in obtaining the approved plan from CMC. 83 structures/constructions being illegal or unauthorised construction in the layout, it is stated, are incorrect as they have been duly authorised by the CMC.

48. This Court on 22-12-2006 (in CCC No. 87 of 2004) passed the following order:

"The learned Senior Counsel representing the parties submit that they would have a joint inspection of the areas as mentioned in the application to be earmarked for civic amenities and report on 12th January, 2007.

It is hoped that the learned Senior Counsel would bring about an amicable resolution to the vexed dispute by the next date of hearing.

Liston 12th January, 2007."

49. In compliance with that order, petitioner on 19-1-2007 filed an inspection report after a survey was conducted on 5-1-2007 and 18-1-2007 in respect of certain lands mentioned in the LAs. filed by the Society which reads thus:

"1. The temple site earmarked as one in the map submitted by the BDA was inspected. The said site measures 80'' x 100''.

2. The area earmarked as 1203 is not in existence.

3. The park area earmarked as III was also measured. The said area measures 424 ft. x 267 ft. While the said measurements were being taken one Muninarayanappa, S/o. Muniswamappa gave a statement that he is the owner of 0.29 guntas of land in the said area. He stated that he is the owner of the said land and it was seen that several thatched roof huts were built on the said land. He has also produced encumbrance for the same. Sri Muninarayanappa is in possession of 0.28 guntas.

4. Insofar as the area earmarked as IIIA is concerned, the measurement was taken and it is found that the area measures 968'' x 102'' + 11/2 (54692 sq. ft.)

5. IIIB: Area bearing No. IIIB was also measured. The said area measures about 40'' + 37/2 x 200''; 37 + 32/2 x 200''; 32 + 29/2 x 200''; 24 + 29/2 x 200''; and 24 + 19/2 x 133'' (28860 sq. ft.).

6. IIIC: Railway Marginal Land: The area earmarked as IIIC, was also measured. The said area measures 10.10'' + 4/2 x 409''. At one end the area measures 4 ft. in width and at the other end the same measures about 14 ft. (2863 sq. ft.).

7. Insofar as area earmarked as HID in the map submitted by the society the area was measured and the same measures 76 + 76 + 72/3 x 898''. In the said area storm water drain measuring 300'' x 15'' has been constructed. The said storm water drain has not been fully constructed. At northern end of the area there is a burial ground and there are six tombs. Besides six tombs there is a structure constructed by the City Municipal Council and the same is not in use. About 10 ft. depth drain exits (67050 sq. ft.) through out abutting the GKVK Compound.

8. VA: The area earmarked as VA belongs to the brother of Sri Javaji Sreenivasalu, Advocate, Javaji Sreenivasalu was also present at the time of taking measurement and he has given a statement that the said land belongs to his brother. He is ready and willing to show the registered sale deeds in that behalf. Hence no measurement was taken. The members of the society did not dispute this fact.

9. VB: The area earmarked as VB measures 16 + 12''/2 x 111''. The said area includes footpath and transformer. (1554 sq. ft.)

10. VC: The said site is vacant measuring 31'' x 60'' (1860 sq. ft.).

11. Subsequently, the area measuring VD as shown in the map submitted by the society was inspected. The respondent 4-Society contends that the said area measures 50'' x 60 ft. However, on actual measurements, the said area measures only 39 ft. x 26 ft. (1045 sq. ft.).

12. Area earmarked as VE is not in existence and hence not inspected.

13. The area earmarked at VF at para 7 was also inspected. The area measures 36'' + 4 + 10 + 14/4 x 160 ft. (2560 sq. ft.)

14. At para 8 of the I.A. submitted by the respondent 4-Society, the Society has shown in the map that it would keep open six sites. On inspection it was found that there are only five sites each measuring 30'' x 40''. It is submitted that in the BDA report there are about 38 sites carved out in the said CA area, out of which the respondent 4-society has consented to relinquish only five sites.

15. At para 9 of the I.A. submitted by the respondent 4-society, the society has consented to relinquish about 32,200 sq. ft. (Burial ground). It is submitted that the said burial ground is not available for the benefit of the residents of the judicial layout and the same is not acquired. The said burial ground is only used by Allalasandra people for cremation.

16. The measurements were conducted in the presence of the petitioners as well as the members of the society. All the areas earmarked above are carved out of the Map produced by the society and is not in accordance with the BDA Map."

50. Sri C. Shivalingaiah, President of the Society filed an affidavit on 22-2-2007 in pursuance of the order dated 2-2-2007 in CCC No. 87 of 2004 which reads:

"Sri Venkata Reddy, learned Counsel for some of the contemnors had made a statement before this Court during one of the dates of hearing, under instructions of his client, that the Society would expend sufficient monies towards providing basic amenities such as construction of a Post Office, Library, Milk booth, a shelter for HOPCOMS, a Police Station, Temple and similar such amenities in the judicial layout. The said submission is not a part of the records. Hence, the same is recorded today, to which the learned Counsel has no objection. Learned Counsel submits that he would have a responsible Officer of the Society to ensure filing of an affidavit, undertaking in that regard, after a resolution is passed by the Society. List on 23-2-2007 before which time the Society shall file the affidavit.

Sri Keshava Reddy, learned AGA is permitted to have an inspection of the records of this proceeding as well as the earlier proceedings which have reached a finality and are placed along with these records.

List for evidence on 23-2-2007."

51. The affidavit filed on 22-2-2007 by C. Shivalingaiah reads thus:

"I C. Shivalingaiah, S/o. Late Sri Channegowda, aged about 66 years, President, Karnataka Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society, Bangalore-560 001, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:

(1) I submit that in pursuance of the order passed by this Hon''ble Court on 2-2-2007 in the above matters, the Board Meeting of the Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operative Societies Limited, was held on 13-2-2007 for considering the submission made on behalf of the society by our Advocate Sri S.K. Venkata Reddy before this Hon''ble Court for providing amenities, that was placed on record by passing an order by this Hon''ble Court and or filing affidavit of a responsible officer of the society to ensure the same. The subject was placed before the Board meeting with the copy of the order in Subject No. 4 of the agenda for consideration and to pass a resolution in respect of the same.

(2) I submit it was unanimously resolved by the Board of Management of the 4th respondent in the writ petition in subject No. 4 to construct a building consisting of ground floor and 1st floor in the vacant land adjacent to the existing society building. Being the centre of the layout to provide HOPCOMS, Milk Booth, Police Station and Post Office in the ground floor and library, in the 1st floor as per the plan got prepared through the Civil Engineer. The copy of the plan is produced as Annexure-A to this affidavit. It is decided to construct the said building providing all facilities in one place under a common roof by the societies funds and mobilising funds from other sources. It was also resolved and decided to correspond with the concerned departments for providing the said facilities in the building proposed to be constructed and to request them to co-operate and co-ordinate with us in establishing the said services in the building.

(3) I submit the society has also resolved to reserve and provide the area measuring 84 feet x 134 feet in Site No. 859/B-l for construction of the temple and further resolved that the society would undertake to construct the temple from out of its own funds and funds mobilised by donations from devotees and philanthropists. A plan has been got prepared and annexed to the affidavits Annexure-B. Already an application was filed by the society on 17-11-2006 earmarking certain sites for civic amenities.

(4) I submit the resolution passed by the Board of Management of the 4th respondent is produced as Annexure-C to this affidavit.

(5) I submit the Board of Management has passed the resolution authorising me to file this affidavit by giving an undertaking to provide the facilities as described above and as per the resolution by constructing a complex and the temple as per the plan annexed to this affidavit.

(6) I swear that this is my name and signature and the contents of this affidavit are true and correct."

52. Sri S.D. Venkataramaiah, one of the petitioners has filed an affidavit in response to the IA filed by the Society for consideration of settlement on 17-11-2006 wherein the Society has shown certain area in the judicial layout as available for public purpose. It is stated in the affidavit that a joint inspection was made by the Senior Counsel along with the petitioners and the Society members. Area shown in the IA filed by the Society is not in accordance with the actual area as observed by the Senior Counsel and hence the same was not acceptable to the petitioner. Affidavit filed by the President of the Society on 22-2-2007 in compliance with the Court order stated that area initially left for temple was measuring 195 ft. x 200 ft. and out of which now the Society has made available only 130 ft. x 84 ft. and area left for parks etc. is not sufficient for a population of 2500 site owners. An area of 60 ft. x 31 ft. as shown available for public purpose is not additional area.

53. Having regard to the nature of controversy brought before Court and the efforts of the learned Senior Counsel to reduce the shortfall in the area reserved for civic amenity and open spaces in the layout formed by the Society, although, without a sanction of the layout plan, it is useful to notice the orders passed and directions issued over an extended period of time which are extracted herein below.

54. This Court on 2-3-2007 passed the following order:

"Learned Counsel for the petitioner files an affidavit dated 2-3-2007 of one S.D. Venkataramaiah, one of the petitioners, by way of a counter to the I. A. dated 17-11-2006 filed by the 4th respondent. The same is taken on record.

Sri Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel for one of the contemnors submits that the writ petition be heard on its maintainability. We are not impressed by this submission. The maintainability of the writ petition will be heard along with the merit of the petition. The trial in the contempt case is yet to commence. Moreover, the volume of orders passed in this petition and the contempt petition only disclose the extent of leeway extended to the Society and the contemnors, to place relevant material before this Court. It is true that the Society and the contemnors have evinced interest, at the instance of this Court, to bring about a resolution. Nevertheless, the tenor of the objections filed by the writ petitioners, discloses that a plausible resolution is like a mirage in a desert.

On a perusal of the order sheet maintained in the writ petition and the contempt petition, what is noticeable is the fact that C. Shivalingaiah, President of the Society made a statement, as recorded in the order dated 19-8-2004 that a plan was submitted to the BDA before it was transferred to the jurisdictional City Municipal Council, Yelahanka, and this Court by order dated 17-12-2004 directed him to furnish the said plan submitted by the BDA for its approval, at the earliest point of time, which is not complied with till date.

It is the allegation of the petitioners that in every sale deed executed by the Society, contains a covenant that the site allotted/conveyed was pursuant to the sanction of a layout plan by the BDA. Thus, the said plan assumes great importance in order to decide the controversy brought before this Court. We say so because, admittedly the plan earmarked areas for civic amenity, open spaces, playgrounds, parks, etc. The particulars and identity of the said areas in the layout must be with reference to the BDA plan, which unfortunately is not forthcoming. The Society and more particularly, C. Shivalingaiah, President has evaded the production of the said plan. It is not as if the Society did not deliberate in any of its meetings over the layout to be formed in the land acquired for the Society. It is not as if the Society did not earmark specific areas for residential, commercial, playgrounds, parks, temples, schools, etc. It is not as if the Society, without any basis, went about its business of allotting sites to its members. Strangely, though not these facts are strongly guarded secrets.

In this view of the matter, we are left with no other option but to direct the Society to place before this Court all and every relevant material relating to the resolutions passed by the Society from its inception as well as the audited statement of accounts which might throw some light in the direction of deciding the questions that arise for consideration. We are aware of the past litigation, the pleadings of which are apart of this petition disclosing affidavits of C. Shivalingaiah, President furnishing sketchy details of the percentages of land earmarked for open spaces, amenities, roads, etc. and the fact that those calculations are based upon a sanction of a layout plan by the BDA. It has been the endeavour of the petitioners to point out to the statement of the President of the Society, at every stage, in each and every proceedings to point out the percentages of land set apart for civic amenities, etc.

It is no doubt true that the Bangalore Development Authority, at the instance of this Court filed a report detailing the total number of residential sites that fall within the civic amenity areas, playgrounds, parks, etc., earmarked and delineated in the plan submitted by the Society. This report is yet to be considered and ordered. Thus, looking at it from any angle, the answer to the questions lies in the plan submitted by the Society to the BDA.

We are therefore constrained to direct the Society to place before this Court before the next date of hearing all and every material recording the resolutions passed from the inception of the Society, till yesterday.

Sri Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Counsel seeks a week''s accommodation to commence the trial. List on 16-3-2007 for evidence and for the Society to comply with this order.

Let a copy of this order be made available to both the parties."

55. In pursuance of the show-cause notice, the Society filed a memo stating that Supreme Court passed an order of interim stay of order dated 2-3-2007 until further orders in SLP to Appeal (Civil) No. 5057 of 2007.

56. On 10-8-2007, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the Committee of Management of the Society is superseded by an order of the State Government appointing an administrator under the �KCS Act�, hence, the Court directed the State to place the order of supersession and appointment of administrator to the Society.

57. Government Advocate filed a memo on 17-8-2007 producing the order dated 8-8-2007 of the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies (I and M), Bangalore superseding the Committee of Management of the Society, in compliance with the order dated 10-8-2007.

58. This Court on 23-11-2007 passed the following order:

"Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners.

The learned Counsel for respondents/society seeks a week''s accommodation to explore the possibility of bringing about a resolution to the controversy.

In the light of the report of the BDA dated 17-2-2006, indicating that there are 404 sites formed in the open sites formed in the open spaces as shown in the layout plan submitted to the BDA by the society, the respondent is directed to furnish to the Court, by the next date of hearing, the names and addresses of the allottees and subsequent owners of the said sites.

Post on 7th December, 2007."

59. In compliance with this order, the Society on 4-1-2008 filed memo along with the copy of the list of names and addresses of allottees of 404 sites, whence this Court passed the following order:

"In compliance with the order dated 23-11-2007, Sri Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Counsel for the 4th respondent-Society submits that on 30-11-2007, a letter was addressed to the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka to furnish the encumbrance certificates in respect of 404 sites formed in the open spaces as shown in the layout plan submitted by the BDA by the Society and as indicated by the BDA in its report dated 17-2-2006, so as to ascertain the names and addresses of the persons registered as owners of the sites in question under instruments of transfer, to which the Sub-Registrar has indicated that the Encumbrance Certificates would be issued provided Rs. 68,000/- is paid as fee. According to the learned Counsel, the Administrator of the Society is not in a position to pay the said sum of money and secure the Encumbrance Certificates. Learned Counsel further submits that the Administrator is currently holding charge of Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Circle-I and hardly finds time to administer the Society and that the State be directed to ensure that the Administrator functions full time, to assist the Court in this proceeding.

Having regard to the fact that the petition is a public interest litigation espousing the cause of not only the members of the Society but the citizens at large and keeping in mind the nature of complaint brought before this Court, we think it appropriate to direct the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka to furnish to the 2nd respondent the Encumbrance Certificates in respect of the 404 sites, without insisting with the payment of fee and the State, through its Government Advocate, is directed to place before Court the said Encumbrance Certificates. It is made clear that the Sub-Registrar shall furnish the names and addresses of the Transferor and Transferee as disclosed in the instruments of transfer, in each of the Encumbrance Certificates. The State is further directed to ensure that the Administrator of the Society functions full time in the administration of the 4th respondent-Society so as to assist the Court in the proceedings in this petition.

State to place on record the Encumbrance Certificates within four weeks. Learned Counsel for the 4th respondent files a memo dated 4-1-2008 enclosing a copy of the letter dated 30-11-2007 addressed to the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka and the names and addresses of the allottees of the 404 sites as found in the registers of the Society. The same is taken on record. List on 8-2-2008. Let a copy of this order be made available to the learned Government Advocate."

60. Further on 8-2-2008, the Additional Government Advocate submitted that the encumbrance certificates are made available and a list would be prepared and filed. Society also filed a memo setting out certain proposal for settlement which was unacceptable to the petitioner-Association as stated in the order dated 28-3-2008. The order sheet discloses that the appointment of administrator the 4th respondent-society was quashed by order dated 26-3-2008 of a learned Single Judge.

61. On 17-6-2008, the Society filed a Memo along with copy of the order dated 21-4-2008 in SLP to Appeal (Civil) No. 5057 of 2007 wherein the order challenged was dismissed with liberty to make an application before the Division Bench of the High Court on the question of maintainability of the writ petition.

62. Pursuant to the resolution dated 3-7-2008, Society filed a memo dated 4-9-2008 along with an affidavit of even date placing on record the layout map Annexure-R4(4) (not found in the pleadings) demarcating areas coloured in Maroon and purple, available for being deployed as civic amenity sites and areas coloured yellow, being sites allotted to one Sri Ramakrishnappa and others, of which the Registrar of Societies has passed an order to take action to invalidate the sale deeds, who is said to be negotiating with the society to settle the issue. Accordingly, 39% of the extent of 184 acres comprised in the layout constitutes roads, civic amenities, parks, open spaces; although only 35% was contemplated by the Society at the earliest point of time when the layout plan was placed before the BDA for approval. BDA while imposing conditions to approve the layout plan, directed that an extent of 35% of the land be left out for roads, civic amenities and other open spaces.

63. On 5-9-2008, the respondent-Society was directed to place on record the exact dimensions, boundaries and the schedules of each of the areas demarcated with the colours purple, pink, maroon and yellow in the plan Annexure-R4(4) to the memo, in addition an affidavit as to whether the aforesaid areas are freehold or otherwise.

64. Additional affidavit of the society dated 3-10-2008 is filed along with enclosures in compliance with the order dated 5-9-2008.

65. An affidavit is filed by the petitioner on 5-12-2008, as objections to the additional affidavit filed by the Society on 3-10-2008, stating that the compromise proposal put forth is not accurate and does not inspire confidence, while the detailed description of total extent of undisputed land available is more than 3 acres and 27 guntas. The list of RTC Extracts and; letters, representation addressed to the President of Association at Janaspandana Karyakrama in Judicial Layout in reply to 20 points grievances of the residents is also furnished along with the affidavit.

66. A counter-affidavit is filed on 5-1-2009 by the Society by way of rejoinder to the affidavit filed by the petitioner enclosing copy of the proceedings of the Society held on 3-8-2008 as a Souharda Spandana Sabhe Annexure-R4(12); copy of RTC extract for the year 2008-2009 in respect of Sy. No. 94/3 is filed as Annexure-R4(13); and copy of the letter dated 30-7-2008 that the Society had submitted to the Tahsildar on 6-8-2008 for correction as Annexure-R4(14). While Annexure-R4(15) is a copy of the letter of the Tahsildar addressed to the Assistant Commissioner. Annexures-R16 to R18 are said to be the RTC Extracts of Sy. No. 4 marked as Exs. P1-P2, 104-3A-1, 104-3A-2, 14(5) and 14(6).

67. Memo filed by representatives of the petitioner when considered the following the order was passed on 17-4-2009:

"The property in question, when acquired, fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the then Bangalore Development Authority and thereafter within the local authority known as City Municipal Council, Yelahanka-respondent 3. It appears, by a notification, the area comprised within the City Municipal Council, Yelahanka, has since merged with the Bangalore City Corporation, presently known as Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. Therefore, there is a need to substitute the third respondent as Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. The petitioners are permitted to carry out the amendment to the cause-title, by substituting the third respondent to that of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, by its Commissioner.

The registry is directed to issue hand summons to the petitioners for service of notice of the petition on the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, returnable by 24-4-2009. Steps to be taken forthwith.

The fourth respondent is directed to prepare and file a map encompassing an area of 156 acres and 26% guntas of land acquired for the Society by the State, incorporating the areas earmarked for civic amenities, open spaces etc., and sites.

The State Government to secure and place before the Court, from the Special Land Acquisition Officer the material particulars of acquisition of the land measuring 156 acres and 26% guntas together with the map and the records relating to handing over possession of the said lands to the Society, on or before 24-4-2009.

List this matter on 24-4-2009."

68. In compliance with the order dated 17-4-2009, the respondent-Society filed a memo (not found in the record) dated 24-4-2009 enclosing a layout map in respect of 156 acres and 24 guntas and the unacquired portion of land demarcated in green colour over which sites are formed. It is pointed out that the CA and park area represents 4.82%, while roads 33.65%. The areas earmarked for CA and parks are coloured crimson, and the open space in purple, under the nomenclature ''acquired/vacant'', in the abstract.

69. By order dated 24-4-2009, the Court directed BBMP Commissioner to make a spot inspection of the CA, park and open areas earmarked in the map and file a report over:

(a) Location;

(b) Measurements;

(c) The condition and availability of the said areas.

70. Vide Court order dated 17-4-2009, the Government Advocate produced and placed before the Court, three files with index and pagination, relating to acquisition of the land.

71. BBMP has filed a memo dated 22-7-2009 enclosing a report with Annexure pursuant to a survey conducted by its Engineering Department in compliance with the order dated 24-4-2009.

72. Society has filed a reply to the report of BBMP which reads thus:

"Reply of the respondent 4 to the report of the Commissioner for Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike dated 28-7-2009:

The respondent 4 begs to submit as follows:

1. This Hon''ble Court by its order dated 5-9-2008 directed Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike to measure and identify the open areas, parks and CA Sites as demarcated in the plan submitted by this respondent along with the interim application and to file a report of the same. In compliance with the said order the Commissioner for the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike has submitted a report of the lands held by this respondent, showing the dimensions, boundaries and the schedule of each of the areas demarcated in different colours.

2. It is humbly submitted that at the outset it is to be brought to the notice of this Hon''ble Court that only insofar as the lands shown in the Schedule at SI. Nos. VI-XVII (excluding lands at SI. Nos. I to V) is being demarcated as areas to be utilised for the purposes of civic amenities at the first instance by this respondent. This respondent had demarcated 8.21% acres of land to be used for the purposes of civic amenities. According to the above report filed by the Commissioner of the BBMP, 8.15% acres of land is reading available with this respondent-Society for the purpose of handing it over to the BBMP to be developed as C.A. Sites.

3. This respondent may be permitted to submit a reply upon each of the items mentioned in the schedule as hereunder:

I. Land shown at SI. No. I, as vacant land in Sy. No. 94/3(P) measuring 0.37 acres (40293 sq. ft.):

This land was not shown as reserved for the purpose of utilisation as a CA area by this respondent in the plan submitted to this Hon''ble Court. Out of 37 guntas of land that was acquired for the purpose of Society, there are certain encroachments in about 15-17 guntas of land. Even as on today about 20 guntas of land is vacant and this respondent most humbly submits that the said land measuring 24 guntas in Sy. No. 94/3(P) can be immediately handed over to the BBMP to be developed as CA area.

II. Land shown at SI. No. II, Site No. 2013(C) measuring 0.05 acres (5482 sq. ft.):

This site was not shown as reserved for the purpose of utilisation as a CA Area in the plan submitted to this Hon''ble Court by this respondent. This site has already been allotted to a member of the respondent-Society.

III. Land shown at SI. No. III, Site No. 2072(A) measuring 0.16� acres (18326 sq. ft.): (20957 sq. ft. by BBMP):

These sites were not shown as reserved for the purpose of utilisation as a CA Area in the plan submitted to this Hon''ble Court by this respondent. These sites are formed in an acquired land and the possession is with the respondent-Society and hence the said sites 0.16� acres (18326 sq. ft.) can be immediately handed over to the BBMP to be developed as CA Area. The Encumbrance Certificate of these sites has already been filed before this Hon''ble Court.

IV. Land shown at SI. No. IV, as old pump house near railway track measuring 0.15� acres (16896 sq. ft.):

This land was not shown as reserved for the purpose of utilisation as a CA Area by this respondent. The Old Pump House which is connected to the bore well belongs to the respondent-Society and can be handed over to the BBMP to be used for the purpose of civic amenity.

V. Land shown at SI. No. V, as Sy. No. 4(P) of Jakkur Plantation Vacant Land measuring 1.15 acres (59884 sq. ft.): (55641 sq. ft. By BBMP):

This land was not shown as reserved for the purpose of utilisation as a CA Area by this respondent. This land is reserved by the respondent-Society for the purpose of formation of sites. The details of this land are as shown below:

(a) The land measuring 2 acres in Sy. No. 4 of the former Jakkur Plantation Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore had been acquired by the State Government, for the benefit of the respondent-Society vide preliminary notification dated 11-2-1988 and final Notification bearing No. R.D/156/AQB/84, dated 24-2-1994. True copy of final notification dated 24-2-1994 is produced herewith and marked as Document No. 1.

(b) In LAC No. 903/1988-89 the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed a general award of Rs. 1,96,800/- along with interest. True copy of general award dated 11-12-1990 is produced herewith and marked as Document 2.

(c) The respondent-Society had filed W.P. No. 1600 of 1994 praying to direct the respondents to deliver possession of certain lands which included the above stated 2 acres of land of Jakkur Plantation Villages, which was allowed by order dated 10-2-1994 by this Hon''ble Court with a direction to the respondents therein to handover possession of the lands to the Society within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. True copy of the order dated 10-2-1994 in W.P. No. 1600 of 1994 is produced herewith and marked as Document 3.

(d) By an Official Memorandum bearing No. LAQ (9) SR 12/87-88, dated 2-9-1994, the Special Land Acquisition Officer handed over possession of the lands mentions therein including the lands measuring 2 acres as stated above to the respondent-Society. Out of the 2 acres mentioned above, a part of the land has been utilised for the formation of the Road by this respondent and the remaining measuring 1 acre 15 guntas is still in lawful possession of this respondent. True copy of the Official Memorandum 2-9-1994 is produced herewith and marked as Document 4.

(e) The previous owner of the said land, one J.M. Krishnappa had questioned the aforesaid acquisition proceedings by filing W.P. No. 7084 of 1989 before this Hon''ble Court and the same has been dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 13-11-1992 with observation as under:

"However, a memo has been filed stating that an understanding has been arrived at between the petitioner and 4th respondent and his contentions to be kept open. There cannot be any conditional undertaking. This is made known to the Counsel."

Counsel submitted that he will withdraw it unconditionally. Statement recorded. Memo rejected.

Writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

True copy of the order dated 13-11-1992 in W.P. No. 7084 of 1989 is produced herewith and marked as Document 5.

(f) As there was dispute with regard to the title claimed by the said J.M. Krishnappa, the award amount was deposited at the Civil Court under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for determination of the rightful owner to pay the compensation. Thereafter on the claim statement filed by J.M. Krishnappa and proving his title, the Hon''ble Court in L.A.C. No. 221 of 1999 by its order dated 31-7-2004 held that J.M. Krishnappa is entitled for compensation awarded and also for interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the compensation awarded of Rs. 1,96,800/- for one year and thereafter at 15% which has been paid by this respondent. True copy of the award in L.A.C. No. 221 of 1999 is produced herewith and marked as Document 6.

(g) Since interest awarded by the Civil Court was not paid by this respondent- J.M. Krishnappa has filed an execution petition in Ex. No. 1 of 2005 in order to avail interest upon the compensation amount awarded and the same has been deposited to the Court by this respondent. Memorandum of execution petition in Ex. No. 1 of 2005 is produced herewith and marked as Document 7.

(h) The owner J.M. Krishnappa has withdrawn the amount by filing a memo regarding satisfaction of the award amount in full as per memo dated 12-6-2008. True copy of memo dated 12-6-2008 is produced herewith and marked as Document 8. Thereafter the Cheque bearing No. 79249, dated 10-7-2008 for Rs. 1,37,895/- was issued in favour of J.M. Krishnappa by the Registrar, City Civil Court, Bangalore which was received by him. True copy of the order sheet showing endorsement dated 10-7-2008 is produced herewith and marked as Document 9.

(i) Pursuant to the acquisition proceedings, the Revenue Records in respect of the suit schedule property was transferred into the name of the defendant-Society vide MR No. 8/1992-93, after due publication following the procedure contemplated in law. True copy of the Revenue Record showing the name of the respondent-Society is produced herewith and marked as Document 10.

(j) Though this respondent is the owner in possession of the said land as per the acquisition proceedings and as per the entries relevant columns of the Revenue Records, the said J.M. Krishnappa has now filed a suit in O.S. No. 3124 of 2009 claiming that he is in possession of the said land and he has also set up one person to put up a Dhabha by name Uday Huts and also to file a suit in O.S. No. 2873 of 2009 before the City Civil Court at Bangalore.

VI. Land shown at SI. No. VI as CA near 60'' road towards South measuring 1.15� acres (59944 sq. ft.): (60026 sq. ft. by BBMP):

This site is shown as a park and the same is readily available to be handed over to the BBMP.

VII. Land shown at SI. No. VII as CA near 60'' towards North measuring 0.028� acres (30764 sq. ft.) (30664 sq. ft. by BBMP):

The pump house is constructed by the respondent-Society which is being used for the purpose of supply of water to the residents of the judicial layout. The remaining area is park area and the same is readily available to be handed over to the BBMP.

VIII. Land shown at SI. No. VIII, as water tank, measuring 0.0714 acres (8369 sq. ft.): (8013 sq. ft. by BBMP):

The Water Tank is constructed by the respondent-Society which is being used for the purpose of supply of water to the residents of the judicial layout. The said area is already being used for the purpose of civic amenity and the same is readily available to be handed over to the BBMP.

IX. Land shown at SI. No. IX as society building, measuring 0.03� acres (3798 sq. ft.): (3782 sq. ft. by BBMP):

The vacant area behind the building belonging to this respondent has been demarcated and shown in the affidavit already filed that it would be used for the purpose of Library, Post Office and other civic amenity purposes.

X. Land shown at SI. No. IX as near C.I.M.A.P., measuring O.O1� acres (643 sq. ft.): (490 sq. ft. by BBMP):

This is a very small extent of land and needs to be ignored.

XI. Land shown at SI. No. XI, as playground, measuring 2.24� acres (1,13,900 sq. ft.): (112173 sq. ft. by BBMP):

The entire extent of land is in Sy. Nos. 93 and 104/3A-1 which are acquired lands. The sheds which shown over the said land in the report file by the BBMP is in a small portion of the area and the respondent-Society is taking necessary action to get the same cleared.

XII. Land shown at SI. No. XII, as Sri Muneshwara Temple, measuring 0.02� acres (2459 sq. ft.) (2460 sq. ft. by BBMP):

This land has Sri Muneshwara Temple constructed upon it and the same can be handed over immediately to the BBMP.

XIII. Land shown at SI. No. XIII as proposed Temple, measuring 0.08� acres (9315 sq. ft.):

This land is vacant and the possession is with the respondent-Society, which was to be used for a proposed temple. The Board which was present at the time of Inspection by the Authorities of the BBMP mentioning as Muneshwara Temple has been removed and the said land can be immediately handed over to the BBMP.

XIV. Land shown at SI. No. XIV, as CA adjacent Site No. 91 measuring 0.05� acres (5759 sq. ft.) (2880 sq. ft. by BBMP):

This is a vacant land in possession of the respondent-Society and the same can be immediately handed over to the BBMP.

XV. Land shown at SI. No. XV, as park adjoining GKVK compound West, measuring 1.26� acres (72462 sq. ft.):

The water tank shown to be present in the said land belongs to the respondent-Society. The area is no longer is being used for the purpose of burials, as per the order dated 4-9-2000 of this Hon''ble Court in W.P. No. 18060 of 2000. The toilets shown in the said land on the Northern edge are unauthorised constructions and the same would immediately be removed. This land was formed out of Sy. Nos. 39,41 and 42 of Chikkabommasandra Village. The area is now shown as Raja Kaluve in the sketch and the report prepared by the BBMP. Actually this land is ''B'' kharab land measuring 0.12 gunta in Sy. No. 41/1 and 0.05 gunta in Sy. No. 41/2 and 0.15 gunta in Sy. No. 42. This ''B'' kharab land was included in the land acquisition proceedings and Compensation was awarded at Rs. 2,952/ - for 0.12 gunta in Sy. No. 41/1, Rs. 1,230/- for 0.05 gunta in Sy. No. 41/2 and Rs. 3,690/- for 0.15 gunta in Sy. No. 42, which was deposited by this respondent-Society which is evidenced in the award dated 13-3-1991. Copy of the award dated 13-3-1991 is produced herewith and marked a Document 11. Copy of the sketch in Akar Bund showing the above mentioned extent of land as ''B'' kharab land is produced herewith and marked as Document 12. Hence it is evident that there is no Raja Kaluve in the said land and what is shown as Raja Kaluve is merely ''B'' kharab land which is already been acquired for the purpose of the respondent-Society after the compensation amount is deposited by the respondent-Society. Copy of order dated 4-9-2000 in WP No. 18060 of 2000 is produced as Document 13.

The above said land is vacant and earmarked for the purpose of park.

XVI. Land shown at SI. No. XVI, as CA near burial ground, measuring O.8� acres (9303 sq. ft.) (shown as 0.05� acres and 5999 sq. ft. in the Schedule):

This land can be used for the purpose of civic amenity and can be handed over immediately to the BBMP as it is vacant.

XVII. Land shown at SI. No. XVII, as burial ground, measuring 0.29� acres (32470 sq. ft.): (15785 sq. ft. by BBMP):

This is an acquired land and compound has been constructed around this land by this respondent."

73. This Court on 7-8-2009 in CCC No. 87 of 2004 passed the following order:

"In response to the report dated 22-7-2009 of the Commissioner, Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, the respondent-Society has filed a reply dated 6-8-2009. The same is taken on record. Learned Counsel for the parties contend that the vacant space at Items 1 to 17 as mentioned in the report dated 22-7-2009 could be handed over to the Bangalore City Corporation for maintenance. In respect of the plot shown at Sketch No. 1, it is pointed out that there are large number of small tenements at the hind portion and that, if that portion is segregated and provided with a corridor for ingress and egress to and from that place to the main road, a large extent of open space could be salvaged and used as a park, while the Society to take steps to ensure that the unauthorised occupants are evicted from the tenements and thereafter hand over the said property to the Corporation for development as a park. The sketch at SI. No. 1 does not indicate the exact measurements of the areas that require to be segregated for the formation of the corridor. Learned Counsel for the Corporation submits that the Engineers would make a further inquiry and file a better sketch mentioning the details with specificity. Learned Counsel for the Corporation also submits that a plan of action would be placed before this Court over the utilisation of the open spaces at SI. Nos. 1 to 17 if granted sometime.

Sri A.K. Bhat, learned Counsel for some of petitioners points out to the memo of additional documents filed on 4-1-2008 by the Society to contend that few of the sites in respect of which sale deeds had been executed after the interim order was granted were cancelled in order to purge contempt in addition to other vacant sites which have not been allotted are indicated in the list. Learned Government Counsel is directed to ascertain the status of these sites as reflected in the Encumbrance Certificates.

Learned Counsel for the respondent-Society submits that after making necessary verification over the vacant sites, as indicated in the memo dated 4-1-2008 and on instructions, would make his say on the next date of hearing.

List on 14-8-2009."

74. In pursuance of the order, Misc. W. No. 9232 of 2009 was filed for correction of order dated 7-8-2009, which was corrected vide order dated 9-10-2009 which is extracted under:

"This application is by the respondent-Society to correct the order dated 7-8-2009 insofar as it relates to recording of the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties over vacant space at Items 1 to 17 as mentioned in the report dated 22-7-2009 that could be handed over to the Bangalore City Corporation to read as excluding Items 2 and 5. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, it is stated that Item 2 property was allotted on 27-9-2002 followed by conveyance under a registered Sale Deed No. 1042 of 2002-03 to one of the members of the Society. As regards Item 5 in the report, it is contended that the persons claiming to be occupants have instituted O.S. Nos. 2873 and 3124 of 2009 pending on the file of the learned City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH-6) and CCH-16 respectively and have obtained interim orders on 7-4-2009 and 16-5-2009 respectively, and therefore, it is not possible to hand over the said premises. Accepting the statements made in the application, and as advanced by their learned Senior Counsel, the respondent-Society cannot hand over possession of Item 2 in the report dated 22-7-2009 of the Bangalore City Corporation. Insofar as Item 5 is concerned, apparently possession cannot be handed over as on date in view of the interim orders passed by the Civil Court.

Keeping in mind the nature of controversy brought before Court in the form of public interest litigation, the Civil Courts are directed to hear the suits out of turn and dispose of the same in any event, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The application is ordered accordingly."

75. On 13-11-2009, the petitioner filed a memo which reads thus:

"The petitioners/complaints in the above matter seeks permission of this Hon''ble Court to produce the status of 404 sites formed in parks/CA areas i.e. number of vacant sites available, number of sites sold in violation of the interim order and sites in which cancellation deeds were obtained by the Society to purge contempt of Court as undertaken."

Petitioner has also produced the list of 404 sites formed in parks/CA areas on the basis of plan submitted by the Housing Society to BDA, Bangalore along with the memo filed.

76. Order dated 13-11-2009 reads thus:

"The memo dated 13-11-2009 filed by the petitioners is taken on record.

The respondents to have their say over the said memo.

The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-Society submitted that the deed of relinquishment was executed on 16-10-2009 and lodged for registration before the Sub-Registrar in compliance with the order dated 9-10-2009. Sri K.V. Narasimhan, learned Counsel for the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (for short, ''BBMP'') submits that possession of the properties in terms of the order dated 9-10-2009 is handed over and the BBMP is presently in possession of the same and in that regard prepared a mahazar dated 12-10-2009. The copies of the relinquishment deed and the mahazar enclosed to the memo filed by the Society is taken on record.

The BBMP to have its say over fencing of properties and plan of action over the development, improvements and maintenance of the vacant spaces on the next date of hearing as directed in order dated 19-10-2009.

Sri Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel for the Society, submits that in terms of the order dated 9-10-2009, notices have been issued to unauthorised occupants of Item 1 property, reference to which is made in the order dated 9-10-2009 and action is taken to evict them. As regards the vacant spaces, reference to which is made in order dated 9-10-2009, the learned Counsel for the Society seeks time to have its say.

List on 15-1-2010."

77. Order dated 22-1-2010 reads thus:

"The extent of land acquired by the State for the beneficiary-Society is said to be physically surveyed by the State and its functionaries at the time of acquisition, as well as during the pendency of this petition followed by a sketch prepared in that regard. Though the Society has placed on record a map showing the extent of land with boundaries, acquired and handed oyer to the Society, we find a need to identify the extents of areas kept vacant and not utilised for any particular purpose. Thus the necessity to secure an Aerial survey of the extent of land acquired, which when superimposed with the map provided by the respondent-society, would disclose clarity over excess vacant land after formation of sites. In that view of the matter, the State Government, in association with the Bangalore Development Authority, is directed to carry out an Aerial survey and furnish a map of the extent of land acquired for the beneficiary Society and thereafter, superimpose it with the map furnished by the respondent-Society and submit a report. The exercise, it is obvious, would take sometime and in that view of the matter, the Counsel for the State and BDA to have their say over the time required for such exercise.

Learned Senior Counsel for the Society seeks time to have his say over the vacant spaces referred to in the order dated 9-10-2009 on the next date of hearing.

List on 28-1-2010.

Let a copy of this order be made available to the learned Counsel for State and the BDA."

78. Respondent-Society files a reply to the memo dated 13-11-2009 of the petitioners where a detailed report of vacant sites though allotted but not registered in the names of the allottees are listed. Site used for sinking a bore well; used by the National Highway Authority for public purpose of NH-7, site for office building of the society and site measuring 7200 sq. ft. handed over to the BBMP as civic amenity site are mentioned. Sites where sale is cancelled by effecting a cancellation deeds and sites where rectification deed executed in view of mistakes later noticed are listed.

79. In the order dated 28-1-2010 the submission of learned Counsel for BBMP is recorded that action over the 14 items of property is on the anvil, while BDA''s submission is that on an enquiry, the process by way of aerie survey (Satellite Imagery) is a cumbersome requiring the permission of the Ministry of Defence and would take considerable time to carry out sue survey in respect of the land acquired for the judicial layout.

80. On 5-3-2010, the Society files an affidavit of its president enclosing the map of the layout indicating:

(a) The areas earmarked as civic amenities and open spaces handed over to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike;

(b) The area demarked as temple site;

(c) Sites which were sold subsequent to the interim orders including the site cancelled for purging the contempt;

(d) The sites which are said to be in dispute in civil proceedings.

81. On 5-3-2010, the Court passed the following order:

"The members of the Karnataka Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society, filed W.P. No. 40994 of 2002, by way of a public interest litigation, calling in question the action of the Society and its office bearers in forming sites in the area earmarked for Temple and those for civic amenities in the draft plan submitted to the Bangalore Development Authority for approval of the layout, known as "Judicial Layout". This Court by order dated 22-1-2003 directed the Society not to change the character of the land described in I.A. No. I of 2003 while recording the submission of the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner that the society was in the process of forming sites in the open space measuring 195'' x 200'' reserved for temple. By order dated 18-6-2003, the Society was directed to submit a copy of the plan filed with the Bangalore Development Authority and a list of transfer of civic amenity sites and the 1st respondent-Bangalore Development Authority to submit a report, while continuing the interim order dated 22-1-2003, and a further direction not to transfer any civic amenity sites as shown in the plan submitted to Bangalore Development Authority, until further orders.

The office bearers of the Society including C. Shivalingaiah, the then President having conveyed certain sites after the interim orders, contempt proceedings were initiated in CCC No. 87 of 2004 in which evidence both oral and documentary were recorded, whence the plan of the layout filed with the Bangalore Development Authority was produced and marked as Ex. P. 82A, disclosing the areas earmarked for open spaces, civic amenities etc., in the layout formed by the Society. In order to purge the contempt, some of the sale deeds were cancelled by execution of cancellation deeds before the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka.

In the writ petition, on the orders of this Court, a joint inspection comprising of the Bangalore Development Authority, one of the petitioners by name Byra Reddy and the then Secretary of the Society by name Suresh Kumar, was conducted at the layout, on 4-2-2006 and a detailed report was filed indicating that 404 (250 + 154) sites were vacant or built up and that Site Nos. 2118/A; 2118/B; 2118/C and 2118 being vacant were earmarked as park in the draft layout plan, submitted by the Society to the Bangalore Development Authority for approval.

On Vishakantegowda, S/o. Nanjuna Gowda, filed Misc. W. No. 1277 of 2010 in W.P. No. 40994 of 2002, to be impleaded as a proper and necessary party to the proceedings, on the premise that he was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the proceedings, the Site No. 2118/E formed in the layout. It was alleged that C. Shivalingaiah had issued a letter of allotment dated 11-10-1999 of the said site in favour of a member by name Smt. Vinoda, who on payment of the amounts towards cost of site, the said C. Shivalingaiah executed a sale deed dated 10-2-2006, conveying the said site and also a letter addressed to the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka to exempt him from appearance, at the time of registration of the conveyance. The Sub-Registrar by name H.P. Ramanjaneya is said to have registered the sale deed as Document No. 13221/05-06. Thereafter the said Vinoda, represented by her power of attorney holder Smt. G.C. Prathiba Kumari is said to have executed and lodged for registration the sale deed conveying the said site, on 17-2-2006, in less than a week of execution of the first deed. The purchaser by name K.M. Somesh is said to have paid Rs. 60,05,000/-as against the allotment value of Rs. 1,59,000/- as recorded in the earlier alleged sale deed. The impleading applicant claimed to have purchased the same property under a registered sale deed dated 24-12-2009 for valuable consideration of Rs. 1,02,00,000/- of which Rs. 80 lakhs is said to be paid in cash in favour of K.M. Somesh.

In the objection statement filed by the Society while denying the claims asserted by the applicant it was contended that the Secretary Suresh Kumar after the joint inspection, whence Site No. 2118 was shown to be civic amenity site in the layout plan, connived with the Sub-Registrar, in manipulating the records to have the same registered as if C. Shivalingaiah had executed the sale deed, and the letter seeking exemption from appearance before the Sub-Registrar. In addition it was contended that there was no member by name Vinoda nor was a Site No. 2118E allotted much less formed in the layout of sites and that Suresh Kumar was the father-in-law of K.M. Somesh. It was also contended that during the year 2006 when illegalities perpetuated by Suresh Kumar came to light a complaint was lodged before the jurisdictional police, who on investigation seized relevant material such as rubber stamps, seals, documents, in addition to the sale deed dated 10-2-2006 registered as Doc. 13221/2005-06 and filed a charge-sheet in C.C. No. 8971 of 2007 before the jurisdictional Magistrate, indicting the said Suresh Kumar, K.M. Somesh, Vinoda for offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Having noted the tenor of the statement of objections and the execution and registration of the Sale Deed No. 13221 of 2005-06, dated 10-2-2006, while the interim orders were in force, this Court directed the State Government - party respondent to secure the presence of the Sub-Registrar by name H.P. Ramanjaneya on the date of hearing. Accordingly the said person is present before Court and is represented by learned Counsel on record and Sri S.P. Shankar, learned Senior Counsel.

To a question of the Court as to how the Sub-Registrar registered the document of sale dated 10-2-2006 conveying a portion of the civic amenity site, and exempted the appearance of C. Shivalingaiah, the then President of the Society, the learned Counsel submits that the letter seeking exemption, was more than sufficient for the satisfaction of the Sub-Registrar for the said purpose under Section 39 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. To yet another question as to whether the Sub-Registrar was questioned in the investigation into the complaint lodged against Suresh Kumar and others over the fabrication of the said documents, leading to registration of the sale deed, learned Counsel submits that the said Sub-Registrar was not questioned though he discharged duties as such from June 2004 to August 2006 at Yelahanka Sub-Registry.

In the surrounding circumstances, prima facie there is material to show that the Sub-Registrar H.P. Ramanjaneya, has committed contempt of Court, and therefore initiate contempt proceedings and issue show-cause notice to H.P. Ramanjaneya, S/o H. Pattabhiramaiah, aged 61 years, No. 426, 8th Main ''D'' Block, Rajajinagar, II Stage, Bangalore-10, asking him to show cause within ten days as to why action should not be taken.

List on 15-3-2010."

82. On 15-3-2010, respondent-Society files an affidavit dated 15-3-2010 of the President of the Society enclosing a map depicting the layout formed in a total extent of 181 acres 39 �guntas (approximately 182 acres) of which 156 acres and 26� guntas of land is subject-matter of acquisition. It is stated in the affidavit that areas are demarcated by different colours and specifically set out in the index therein.

83. On 15-3-2010 the following order was passed:

"Learned Counsel for the 4th respondent-Society files an affidavit dated 15-3-2010 of the President of the Society enclosing a map depicting the layout formed in a total extent of 181.39% (approximately 182 acres), of which 156 acres and 26� guntas of land is subject-matter of acquisition. It is stated in the affidavit that areas are demarcated by different colours and specifically set out in the index therein. The affidavit is taken on record.

Having regard to the fact that in Subramani M. v. Union of India (W.P. No. 35737 of 1994 and connected of petitions), the Society had filed objection statement indicating 2048 sites of different dimensions, as set out therein, were formed in the acquired land, which fact was accepted by a Co-ordinate Bench, as animated in its judgment reported in ILR1995 Kar. 3139. Respondent 4 is directed to file necessary pleading in the matter of compliance with the said statement vis-a-vis map enclosed to the affidavit. In other words the Society to make a statement on oath whether there is compliance with the aforesaid statement made before the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court and if not, the extent of deviations.

The area demarcated in the Blue Colour measuring 22,195 sq. ft. earmarked by the Society for construction of a temple, is stated to be inclusive of 9315 sq. ft. of land handed over to the BBMP under the relinquishment deed. The balance extent of land not being part of the relinquishment deed, it is incumbent on the part of the Society to execute a relinquishment deed over the said balance extent of land too.

The Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to have its say over the rectification of the proposed development scheme in respect of Item 9 relating to the site meant for construction of temple and to file necessary memo in that regard.

List on 19-3-2010 at 10.30 a.m.

Let a copy of this order be made available to the learned Counsel for the parties."

84. Further on 19-3-2010 the following order was passed:

"In partial compliance of the order dated 15-3-2010, the President of the 4th respondent-Society files an affidavit dated 19-3-2010 stating that physical verification reveals 1940 sites carved out of 156 acres and 263/4 guntas of land as against 2048 mentioned in W.P. No. 35837 of 2004 and connected petitions. In addition, it is stated that sites bearing Nos. 1963,1966 and 1979 to 1933 (sic) totalling to 19 are not in existence. It is further stated that 310 sites are carved out of the land purchased by the Society.

Sri Subrmanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel for the 4th respondent-Society submits that allotment of site Nos. 859 F and G together measuring 8000 sq. ft. marked in yellow colour with dots are cancelled and the 4th respondent has no objection to make them part of the site meant for temple coloured in purple, in the plan annexed to the memo and affidavit dated 15-3-2010 and that the society is willing to execute the relinquishment deed in respect of said two sites measuring 8000 sq. ft., in favour of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the total extent of land thus earmarked for the temple is 22195 + 8000 sq. ft.

= 30195 sq. ft.

Sri Byra Reddy-petitioner 1(a) and Sri A.K. Bhat, learned Counsel representing petitioners 2, 6, 8 and 10 to 14 submit that an extent of 30195 sq. ft. of land left out for temple complex would be substantial compliance with the extent of land meant for the temple in the draft layout plan submitted by the 4th respondent for sanction to the Bangalore Development Authority.

In the light of the fact that, two open spaces are carved out in the Judicial layout for temple complex, one being the aforesaid extent 30195 sq. ft., and the other measuring 2400 sq. ft. (Muneswara Temple, item 7 as recorded in the spot inspection report dated 12-10-2009 of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike) being non other than item 8 in the proposed plan of action of BBMP, handed over to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, we think it appropriate that there is substantial compliance in regard to the land meant for temple in the layout.

In that view of the matter, in partial modification of the order dated 15-3-2010, the 4th respondent-Society is directed to forthwith execute and register the release and relinquishment deed of the balance extent of land from out of 30195 sq. ft., excluding the extent already relinquished (9315 sq. ft.) in favour of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. It is made clear that this extent of 30195 sq. ft., is to be put to use for a temple complex including a community hall as well as a park and the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike is directed to ensure the same in its plan of action. The proposals for construction of the Temple complex are subject to orders of this Court.

Thus the allottees of site numbers 859 C and D are free to put up construction of residential building on the said sites.

It is brought to our notice that in the joint inspection report of the Bangalore Development Authority it is observed that out of 404 sites there exists building on 83 sites while others vacant, which are cared out of sites earmarked for civic amenity in the draft layout plan submitted to the Bangalore Development Authority. It is submitted that some of the allottees in violation of the interim order have erected buildings without the permission of the Court or sanction of building plan increasing the total number of building from 83 to approximately 90 to 95 buildings. It is further submission that since the extent of land handed over to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike towards open space, parks and civic amenity sites is approximately 4.82% out of the total land use while it is represents 5.49% of the total acquired land measuring 156 acres and 26% guntas, the vacant sites out of the 404 sites could be put to use for civic amenities, parks and open space. This submission certainly deserves consideration by of 4th respondent-Society. Sri Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel submits that the Society would endeavour to consider that submission and submit their replies, if granted a reasonable time.

Sri S.P. Shankar, learned Senior Counsel on instructions from the Counsel on record Sri R.P. Rajeshwar for H.P. Ramanjaneya to whom the Registry had directed notice in compliance with the orders of this Court, though returned to the Registry unserved, submits that said H.P. Ramanjaneya is present before Court as identified by the instructing Counsel, and is willing to receive the notice. In that view of the matter, the Registry is directed to serve the notice and its enclosures on H.P. Ramanjaneya under acknowledgement. Reply if any within four weeks.

If an application is made by H.P. Ramanjaneya for issue of a certified copy of the order of this Court, taking suo motu cognizance of contempt, it is needless to state that the Registry shall forthwith isssue the certified copy.

List the petition on 9th July, 2010 for further hearing.

Let the copy of this order be made available to the learned Counsel for the parties."

85. In compliance with the detailed order dated 5-3-2010, the Sub-Registrar by name Sri H.P. Ramanjaneya filed his counter-affidavit dated 5-4-2010, the consideration of which was deferred. On 9-7-2010 the following order was passed:

"In compliance with the order dated 5-3-2010, the Sub-Registrar by name H.P. Ramanjaneya has filed his counter-affidavit dated 5-4-2010. The consideration of the averments stated in the affidavit is deferred. The Sub-Registrar''s presence is dispensed with until further orders.

There is a larger question that needs to be addressed. The pernicious practise in Sub-Registrar''s Office, which over decades, has turned into tradition and in respect of which, the State Government is fully aware, has failed to take steps to stem the rot. Therefore, we request the learned Members of the Bar to address the question, explore the possibilities to get over the difficulties encountered by every citizen in the Sub-Registrar''s Office so as to stream line the business transacted therein to make it more transparent. The State Counsel is directed to take necessary instructions from the authorities concerned.

Sri S. Shekar Shetty, learned Counsel for the impleading applicants, submits that copies of the application could not be served on the petitioners since the learned Counsel for the petitioners had declined to accept the same having retired from the case. One Sri Byrareddy, one of the petitioners who was present before the Court, accepts the copy of the application. For objections over Misc. W. Nos. 5846 and 5847 of 2010, call on 16-7-2010.

List on 16-7-2010."

86. On 24-9-2010, BBMP-files a memo along with action report over the fixing of barbed wire fencing encompassing the civic amenities and open spaces relinquished in its favour by the Society.

87. The following order was passed on 4-2-2011:

"Sri K.V. Narasimhan, learned Counsel for the BBMP submits that the BBMP has called out a plan of developmental activities providing necessary infrastructure in the areas reserved for amenities and would soon be translated into benefits for the residents.

It is hoped that the BBMP would take up action on a war footing and place material before Court over the action taken.

It is a matter of fact that the layout is not provided with a sewage treatment plant and therefore, the State Government to have its say over providing the treatment plant at the earliest, having regard to the fact that if sewage remains untreated, it would cause serious health hazard as well as pollution to the environment.

List on 25-2-2011."

88. On 25-2-2011, BBMP filed a memo enclosing a letter dated 25-2-2011 relating to the works carried out by the BBMP and copies of the photographs.

89. Misc. W. No. 4181 of 2010 was filed to implead the legal heirs of one Marappa who was the owner of Site No. 759/D and the application was allowed vide order dated 24-6-2011 and the applicants were permitted to come on record as respondents 5 to 16.

90. On 30-7-2011, R5 to R16 filed their statement of objections stating that they are the legal heirs of late Marappa and Late Lakshmamma, the absolute owners of agricultural lands in Sy. No. 12/2C, measuring 0-22 guntas and Sy. No. 12/4B, measuring 0-22 guntas, situated at Allalasandra Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore, who offered to sell the land to the Society for Rs. 80,000/- per acre and received an advance of Rs. 50,000/- on 30-1-1985, as the sale consideration was not paid, late Marappa and late Lakshmamma objected for interference. According to the Legal representatives, O.S. No. 4361 of 2000 was filed by the Society, to execute registered sale deed in their favour, which was settled by intervention of elders and well-wishers and compromise memo filed and decree passed on 9-7-2003 Annexures-R1 to R3. It is stated that after obtaining the decree, application was filed before the Municipal Commissioner, Town Municipality, Yelahanka for change of khatha whence an endorsement was issued Annexure-R5 to furnish the approved layout plan. Legal notice was issued on 9-11-2001, to withdraw the endorsement, which the Municipal Commissioner, it is said did not comply, hence W.P. No. 5152 of 2002 was filed which was disposed of on 9-7-2003 directing the Municipal Commissioner to effect the Khata without insisting on layout plan Annexure-R4.

91. It was further stated that after BBMP took possession of the entire area, application was filed to effect change of Khata but BBMP issued an endorsement Annexure-R6 stating the khata could not be given effect as it was identified as CA site. As the Society was trying to dispose of the site, O.S. No. 894 of 2010 was filed Annexure-R7.

92. Written arguments of petitioners f, h, j, k, l, m and n (6, 8, 10 to 14) was filed on 30-12-2011 while written submissions and citations of other petitioners was filed on 30-12-2011 following which reply submissions of the respondent-Society was filed on 12-1-2012.

93. On 27-7-2012 the following order was passed:

"ORDER ON IA No. 12 of 2011

Sri Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel for the Society, submits that reasonable time be extended for compliance with the order dated 11-11-2011 as the Society is in the process of making a search in the layout for a vacant site to be made available to a member, by name Mr. R.M. Nagarajaiah, an allottee of a site falling in the 404 sites mentioned in the BDA report.

In the circumstances, we think it appropriate to extend eight weeks time from today. The application is ordered accordingly.

The land acquired for formation of the layout measures 156 acres 26� guntas. The unacquired land being revenue pockets inside the layout measures 25 acres 12� guntas. The total extent of land forming the layout is 181 acres 39� guntas as described in the map enclosed to the memo dated 21-4-2012 for the fourth respondent-Society. In the abstract to the map, as against 156 acres 26 and 3/4 gunta, the percentages of areas utilised for formation of sites, civic amenity with parks and roads are furnished as 61.64% cents, 5.49% cents and 32.87% cents, respectively.

The application for sanction of a layout plan in the year 1992 filed by the fourth respondent-Society was for an extent of 156 acres and 26� guntas, by permitting the utilisation of 65% of the area for sites, and the balance of 35% towards civic amenity area, parks and roads. The BDA having considered the said representation and the plan resolved to approve the plan subject to conditions as set out in Ex. P. 83A (CCC No. 87 of 2004). P.W. 2-the Town Planning Officer, by name Mahendra examined on 13-7-2007 in CCC No. 87 of 2004 testified that the requirement for approval/sanction of a layout plan was 50% towards sital area; 15% towards parks and open spaces and 35% towards roads and civic amenities. What is not forthcoming is the requirement of the percentages contained either in a rule or a circular issued by the Government or regulation.

In that view of the matter, the BDA to furnish material in that regard, while it is also open to the petitioners and the fourth respondent-Society to place such material on record, more so, since the fourth respondent asserts that it was entitled to a sanction for utilising 65% of the area for sites, as has been extended to similar such societies.

There is no dispute that the civic amenities and parks mentioned in the layout plan submitted by the fourth respondent during the year 1992 for approval by the BDA are not at the same location, at site, but are at other locations in the layout since released and relinquished in favour of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, as demarcated and described in the sketch appended to the memo dated 21-4-2012.

In order to ascertain the correctness of the measurements and percentages of the areas utilised for civic amenities, parks, open spaces and roads as reflected in the said map, the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike to conduct a spot inspection and record measurements in the presence of anyone of the petitioners and anyone of the officer bearers of the fourth respondent-Society, and submit a report in that regard. The fourth respondent-Society to make available copies of the sketch noticed supra to the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. The aforesaid parties to assemble at 11.00 a.m. on 10-8-2012 at the office of the fourth respondent-Society in the layout without further notice.

List on 24-8-2012."

94. In compliance with the order dated 27-7-2012, the respondent-BB MP filed a report along with enclosures on 24-8-2012, with the abstract of the percentage of utilisation of land for formation of layout in respect of 181 acres and 39.25 guntas (including unacquired land), disclosing shortfall of 20.20% in CA, parks and open spaces and excess of 4.42% against roads and 15.78% towards sites.

95. BDA filed a memo enclosing a photocopy of the notification dated 12-10-1984 along with the Zonal Regulations approved under the Comprehensive Development Plan, in compliance with the order dated 27-7-2012.

96. The Society, filed a memo enclosing the sketch prepared by a private surveyor, in respect of 156 acres 26.75 guntas of land and its utilisation both in percentages and areas in sq. mtrs. and sq. ft. According to the Society, 60.13% constitutes residential area; 5.53% is relinquished in favour of BBMP; and roads including roads in unacquired land constitute 34.34%. The enclosures include photocopies of order passed by the BDA imposing penalty in respect of areas excess utilised for sites in a layout formed by MPM Housing Society and regularising the layout.

97. The Society presented a memo dated 31-8-2012 enclosing a map of layout Annexure-R4(G) signed by the Deputy Commissioner, Senior Superintendent of Land Records and countersigned by the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, indicating that an extent of 154 acres 11� guntas is acquired, while 28 acres 6� guntas is the unacquired portion, totalling to 182 acres and 18 guntas, and that an extent of 2 acres 15 guntas, is in unauthorised occupation while 7 acres 11 guntas is said to be unutilised by the Society. Also enclosed to the memo is a photocopy of a portion of the Zoning Regulations of the year 2015 providing prescription of 55% of sital area; 15% of civic amenities and parks, in a layout, and exemption to be accorded in the event of shortfall in the CA site area. The order dated 31-8-2012 reads thus:

"Respondent 4-Society files a memo enclosing two maps as Annexures-R4(G) and R-4(K), as well as photocopy of Chapter VI of Zoning Regulations of the Master Plan 2015 and a list Annexure-R4(J) containing the names, site numbers and dimensions of the sites allotted to the landowner by name Subbaiah, since deceased s/o. Pillappa.

Learned Senior Counsel for the 4th respondent submits that from out of 156 acres 26� guntas of land acquired, an extent of 16,880 sq. ft. equivalent to 15� guntas is acquired by the National Highway Authorities for the expansion of NH-7 road as described in Annexure-R4(K) map. Learned Counsel further points to Map Annexure-R4(G) and more particularly to the area marked as Exs. 1 to 8 said to be extra sites allotted to late Subbaiah''s family on the assurance that it would be utilised for construction of a choultry which is said to be vacant and unutilised. According to the 4th respondent, the total area of the sites marks in Exs. 1 to 8 works out to 33,427 sq. ft. including the road portion excluding the road portion is 33,227 sq. ft.

Learned Senior Counsel further submits that site bearing Nos. 2119-2114 totally measuring 16,575 sq. ft., located adjacent to the land measuring 16,896 sq. ft. marked as Annexure-R4(G), handed over to the BBMP, the 4th respondent-Society is willing to utilise the same to make good the shortfall in the civic amenity areas. 4th respondent-Society as well as petitioners are at liberty to place on record such of those sites found to be vacant and forming part of 404 sites as also vacant land remaining unutilised, so as to utilise the same to reduce the shortfall in the civic amenity areas.

Having heard the learned Senior Counsel, we think it appropriate to direct the respondent-BBMP to take measurements of the extents of land noticed supra and as indicated in tire plan Annexure-R4(G) and submit a report, for further orders.

List on 6-9-2012.

Let a copy of this order be made available to the learned Counsel for the BBMP."

98. On 6-9-2012, Sri G. Papi Reddy, learned Advocate for some of the representatives of the petitioner-Association files a reply to the memo dated 31-8-2012 of the society stating that the area marked as Annexure-R4(G)(B) measuring 16,896 sq. ft. is in the possession of the BBMP, hence cannot be construed as yet another CA site that could be handed over to the BBMP. As regards sites marked as Exs. 1 to 8, it is stated that they are transferred in favour of member of Subbaiah''s family under separate registered sale deeds hence unavailable, though some of the sites have not been utilised for construction of a choultry.

99. Society files a memo containing the details of the sites which Sri Byra Reddy has made mention of in the list of 404 sites, and the version of the Society with reference to the list are as follows:

(a) Sites/property already handed over to BBMP.

(b) Sites which have been proposed to be handed over to the BBMP.

(c) Sites which have been allotted to the members of the society wherein registered deeds of conveyance have not been executed in favour of any of them in view of the interim directions issued by this Court.

(d) Sites/properties in respect of which civil disputes and disputes before the authority/department have been pending between the society and the respective persons concerned.

(e) Properties which have been settled in favour of the former landowners with whom compromise has been entered into by the society for enabling smooth completion of the layout.

(f) Sites which having been registered posterior to the interim order passed in the aforementioned writ petition and later cancelled though unilaterally.

(g) Deeds of rectification executed by the society - sites having been registered in favour of the respective members earlier to the interim order, but have cancelled with their consent, for purging the contempt attributed to R-4.

(h) Sites which have been registered, posterior to the interim order, respecting which no remedial action to retrace the steps trodden by the Society have been taken till date.

(i) Sites which are lying vacant in the layout, details of the utilisation thereof and particulars as to whether the same have or have not been allotted to any member/s are not immediately traceable from the record of the society.

(j) Site No. 2106 which is once registered on 29-9-2001 in favour of a member and same registered on 23-1-2001 in favour of different party.

(k) Site No. 2007 which is registered before the interim order.

(l) Sites where rectification deeds have been executed by the society, after the interim order.

(m) Site No. 362/18 which does not at all exist in the layout.

100. A detail order is passed on 6-9-2012 reads thus:

"In compliance with the order dated 31-8-2012, the respondent-Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike has filed a report enclosing a statement showing percentage of the land utilised for roads in the judicial layout; area statement of roads in unacquired land of judicial layout; statement showing details of sites of judicial layout as per Annexure-R4(J) to the memo filed by the respondent 4-Society on 31-8-2012; statement showing details of two vacant sites of judicial layout together measuring 16575 sq. ft. identified as Annexures-R4(G)(A) and R4(G)(B) in the map Annexure-R4(G); as also a copy of the memo dated 31-8-2012 and the plan annexed thereto.

According to the learned Counsel for the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, the area measuring 16575 sq. ft. marked as Annexures-R4(G)(A) and R4(G)(B) have been check measured and being vacant sites could be handed over to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike as civic amenity sites. As regards the vacant areas marked Exs. 1 to 8 in the map Annexure-R4(G), it is submitted that they form part of the 42 number of sites indicated in the statement Annexure-R4(J), allotted to some persons and that if that is made available, the Corporation would be willing to put them to use as a compact civic amenity site. Learned Counsel hastens to add that a check measurement of that area too was conducted and measurements are disclosed in the Annexure-3 to the report.

Sri G. Papi Reddy, learned Advocate for some of the petitioners, files a reply to the memo dated 31-8-2012 of the fourth respondent stating that the area marked as Annexure-R4(G)(B) measuring 16,896 sq. ft. is in the possession of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike hence cannot be construed as yet another CA site that could be handed over to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. As regards sites marked as Exs. 1 to 8, it is stated that they are transferred in favour of members of Subbaiah''s family under separate registered sale deeds hence unavailable, though some of the sites have not been utilised for construction of a choultry. In that view of the matter, it is stated that the fourth respondent-Society cannot seek appropriate directions of this Court to consider the said sites for the purpose of reducing the shortfall in the civic amenity area.

As regards the claim of the fourth respondent that 15� guntas of land in Sy. No. 4 of Jakkur Plantation was acquired by the National Highway Authority, it is stated, is not correct and the area utilised by the National Highway Authority is not more than 1000 sq. ft. and that out of 1 acre 15 guntas, a portion of it remains unutilised and is in the possession and control of the Society which is undisclosed with an intention to alienate the same to private parties.

In paragraph 6, it is stated that out of 2 acres of land in Sy. No. 4 of Jakkur Plantation, the fourth respondent-Society has in its possession 1 acre 14 guntas while 20 guntas is utilised for the road while another portion measuring 900 sq. ft. for the National Highway.

In paragraph 8, it is stated that the land measuring 37 guntas in Sy. No. 94/3 of Allalasandra Village acquired by the fourth respondent-Society of which restoration was sought by the owners of the said land was dismissed by an order of this Court with a direction to take possession, despite which the Society has done nothing though has lawful authority to take over the land. This piece of land, it is stated, is not disclosed in the memo filed by the fourth respondent-Society on 31-8-2012. According to the petitioners, 37 guntas of land could be taken into consideration to reduce the deficit in the civic amenity area.

In paragraph 9, it is stated that out of 404 sites, 35 sites are vacant, available since not allotted nor any transactions taken place, out of which 14 sites are relinquished and handed over to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, and the remaining 21 sites are not handed over. It is stated that 369 sites out of 404 sites are in the area earmarked for civic amenity and parks. The petitioners further state that in the contempt proceeding the fourth respondent-Society has extended an undertaking that it would cancel the transfer of 40 sites in view of the interim order while as a matter of fact what is done is cancellation of sale deeds in respect of 22 sites while 18 sites remain as such.

At paragraph 10 of the reply it is stated, a sketch of the layout covering an area of 156 acres 26.75 guntas of land is annexed with markings in red and green colours, while the area marked in the green colour is handed over to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike the red colour is required to be handed over to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, earmarked as civic amenity sites and parks.

At paragraph 11, it is stated that the Society has handed over a burial ground measuring 30 guntas to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike which has been in existence for a longtime used by the villagers wherein tombs exist and the land cannot be utilised either for civic amenity purpose or park and therefore cannot be taken into consideration to reduce the shortfall.

At paragraph 12, it is stated that a sarkari halla or kharab land exists at the extreme west of the layout meant for the flow of rain and drain water over which the City Municipal Council, Yelahanka, constructed a storm water drain. Apart from the said drain, an area measuring 6 guntas is utilised for burial ground by the residents of Chikka Bommasandra and the total area of sarkari halla measuring about 1 acre 26� guntas is handed over to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike by the fourth respondent-Society as a civic amenity site. According to the petitioners, sarkari halla was not acquired by the fourth respondent-Society and therefore, cannot be included as a civic amenity area. Petitioners assert that the shortfall shown in the report submitted by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, over land utilisation in the judicial layout is to be reckoned over 182 acres instead of 156 acres.

Sri Papi Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, reiterates that if the undisclosed areas by the fourth respondent-Society are taken into consideration, they could reduce the shortfall in the extent of civic amenity site. It is further submitted that if the sites which were transferred after the interim order passed and subject-matter of contempt proceeding are restored, they could be put to use as civic amenity area.

Sri Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel for the fourth respondent-Society files a memo disclosing the details of utilisation of 75 sites from out of 404 sites pointed out by Sri Byrareddy. Learned Senior Counsel submits that at SI. No. II, the sites allotted to the family of Subbaiah and more appropriately marked as Exs. 1 to 8 in the map Annexure-R4(G) are unavailable since allotted and the parties have entered into a compromise in a proceeding before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Though the learned Senior Counsel submits that the sites in excess of 34 sites allotted to Subbaiah''s family was with the condition that the excess sites would be put to use for construction of a choultry a public purpose, and in breach are entitled to take necessary action in accordance with law, may do so if law permits since an answer to that dispute is extraneous to this proceeding. It is also submitted that in the proceeding of the meeting held in the committee room under the chairmanship of the Chief Minister on 20-7-1987, it was decided that the Co-operative House Societies in Bangalore be permitted to form layout of sites of maximum dimension 50'' x 80'' and minimum dimension of 30'' x 50'' keeping in view the actual requirements of their members. According to the learned Senior Counsel the fourth respondent-Society, by representation dated 20-8-1987, sought formation of sites measuring 60� x 90''; 80'' x 120'' and 100'' x 150'' in view of large number of applications. The copies of the proceedings of the meeting and the application are enclosed to the memo which are taken on record.

Learned Senior Counsel further submits that regard being had to the reply statement filed by the petitioners through their Counsel Sri G. Papi Reddy, further efforts would be made to locate the areas which could be put to use for civic amenity so as to make good the shortfall and place the same before Court on the next date of hearing.

List on 21-9-2012."

101. On 21-9-2012, Court passed the following order:

"Learned Counsel for the Society submits that effort would be made to ensure reduction of the shortfall in areas meant for open spaces, civic amenities, etc.

Sri K.V. Narasimhan, learned Counsel for BBMP is directed to furnish a list of sites together with PID numbers and their location on the map which have been subjected to corporation taxes.

List on 5-10-2012."

102. The order dated 5-10-2012 reads thus:

"The fourth respondent files a memo dated 5-10-2012 stating that noticing the vacant sites and properties that could be handed over to the BBMP in continuation of the memo dated 31-8-2012 enclosing sketch of the area, followed by the order dated 21-9-2012 recording that the Society would make efforts to ensure reduction of the shortfall in the areas meant for civic amenities, open spaces etc., a tabular statement appended as Appendix-I is enclosed.

Item I in Appendix-I contains the particulars of six vacant sites and as indicated as R-4(G)(A) in the map R-4(G) annexed to the memo dated 31-8-2012, measuring 16,500 sq. ft., is adjacent to the civic amenity sites identified as R-4(G)(B) in the said map. The Society is willing to hand over the same to the BBMP if so ordered by the Court. The road measuring 42,600 sq. ft. adjacent to the said sites is said to be the only approach road to the layout and in which Railway Authorities are constructing a ''Magic Box''.

Learned Senior Counsel for the fourth respondent-Society submits that Site No. 2119 at SI. No. 1 in Item I measures 2625 sq. ft., though allotted to one Nagarajaiah R.M., the Society is agreeable to allot a site carved out of the land bearing Sy. No. 94/3 of Allalasandra Village in exchange for the said site, as requested by the allottee.

SI. No. 2 bearing site No. 2120 allotted to one Anitha B., measuring 2675 sq. ft.; SI. No. 3 bearing site No. 2121 allotted in favour of Chandregowda G., is said to measure 2725 sq. ft. "the allotment made in his favour undeniably posterior to the interim order, the cancellation thereof has not been affected till date"(corrected vide Court order dated 7-12-2012 for being spoken to); SI. No. 4 bearing Site No. 2122 allotted in favour of Prema S., measuring 2775 sq. ft.; SI. No. 5 bearing Site No. 2123 allotted in favour of Vasanthakumar B.A. and measuring 2825 sq. ft., since allotted post the interim order followed by registration have since been cancelled unilaterally, while in respect of site allotted to Vasanthakumar B.A., the Society has instituted a suit for declaration and cancellation of the registered sale deed on the premise that the said person is neither a member nor has made payment towards the sale consideration, according to the learned Senior Counsel. It is stated that SI. No. 6 bearing site No. 2124 measuring 2875 sq. ft. is vacant and unencumbered.

In the light of the fact that allotment and registration of certain sites belonging to the Society made post the interim order have since been cancelled in order to purge the contempt, it is needless to state that these sites found to be vacant belonging to the Society offered to be put to use as civic amenity sites, we find no impediment to direct the fourth respondent-Society to release and relinquish the said sites in favour of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. While we are conscious of the fact that there has been unilateral cancellation of the sites as also registration of the sites, keeping in mind the blatant violation of the interim order, we think it appropriate to accept such unilateral cancellation in order to purge the contempt as just and proper.

The fourth respondent-Society is directed to execute and lodge for registration the release and relinquishment deed in favour of Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, in respect of the aforesaid sites, as civic amenity sites, within a month from today.

Though Sri Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel for the fourth respondent, points to Item II to the Appendix-I to submit that 11 items of properties being sites in the layout totally admeasuring 28,803.25 sq. ft., are subject-matter of civil suits pending before the Courts at the instance of the Society on the premise that none of the allottees are members of the Society and Society has not received any payment towards sale consideration, to contend that the sites are also offered so as to make good the shortfall in the civic amenity areas, is unacceptable at this stage. We say so because civil suits are pending and their final outcome may not be in the near future unless directions are issued by this Court for speedy disposal of the said suits. Even otherwise, as on today, we find that these properties are not appropriate for being handed over to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike towards reducing the shortfall in the civic amenity area. We think it appropriate to direct the Civil Court seized of these suits to conclude the proceedings at the earliest and not beyond 15-12-2012.

As regards Item III, it is stated that there are eight sites and roads in between totally admeasuring 39,587.62 sq.ft., allotted in violation of the bye-laws and that some of the sites are within the 404 sites identified by the Bangalore Development Authority in its report as falling within the civic amenity areas. The note to the said item states that eight sites are allotted to the erstwhile landlords family and that pursuant to the order dated 6-9-2012 in this petition, remedial action would be taken by the Society. Learned Senior Counsel hastens to add that the fourth respondent-Society has entered into a compromise with the parties who actively prosecuted the proceedings before the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Society, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, in a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. Without adverting to the merit or demerit of the compromise entered into between the parties, while being conscious of the fact that the question as to whether the landlords could be termed as associated members of the Society, a question pending consideration in the connected writ petition, we think it appropriate to defer considering in whether these sites could be handed over to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike towards shortfall in the civic amenity sites.

Item IV, without a nomenclature is said to consist of 22 sites with two roads admeasuring 52,882.06 sq. ft., located adjacent and abutting the properties relinquished in favour of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. The allottees of sites at SI. Nos. 7 to 13 and 15, it is stated, are required to be rehabilitated by providing alternate sites in III Phase in Hejjala or alternatively, reimbursed and compensated monetarily. Sites at SI. Nos. 1 to 3, 5, 14 and 21 are said to be vacant while sites at SI. Nos. 4, 6,16 to 19 and 22 were allotted post the interim order are subject-matter of cancellation unilaterally. In respect of Site No. 20 allotted to one R.M. Nagarajaiah, it is stated that an alternative site would be allotted in the land bearing Sy. No. 94/3 of Allalasandra Village as has been requested by the allottee. The learned Senior Counsel submits that all the 22 sites form part of 404 sites identified by the Bangalore Development Authority in its report as falling in the civic amenity area.

Item 5 with the nomenclature Sites registered posterior to the interim order consists of ten sites totally admeasuring 16,731.81 sq. ft., said to be registered after the interim order and cancelled with consent or unilaterally except for three sites at SI. Nos. 1, 2 and 5. Learned Senior Counsel submits that in respect of SI. Nos. 1,2 and 5, action would be Initiated to cancel the registration in order to purge the contempt. The note in the said Item V states that a vacant land measuring 3600 sq. ft., lies in between Site No. 1 (Temple site) and the water tank. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the Society is agreeable to hand over this portion of the site to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike to reduce the shortfall in the civic amenity area.

The aforesaid sites at SI. Nos. 1 to 10 are spread out in different places in the layout and not at one place and therefore, the utility of each one of these sites for civic amenities or open spaces would be considered at an appropriate stage.

We direct the fourth respondent to execute and lodge for registration a release and relinquishment deed of the land measuring 3600 sq. ft., lying in between Site No. 1 Temple site and the Water Tank in favour of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike within a month from today.

The fourth respondent-Society files a memo dated 5-10-2012 enclosing an index with copies of nine documents relating to certain orders passed by the State Government; resolution of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and a copy of the order dated 16-11-2010 in W.P. No. 18496 of 2007 and connected petitions of a co-ordinate Division Bench. Learned Senior Counsel, while pointing to the said documents, submits that though they cannot be construed as valid precedents nevertheless throw some light over methodology that was the adopted by the State and its functionaries in a matter of resolving the controversy of a like nature disposed off by this Court and in respect of other Societies plagued with the very same issues over utilisation of large extents of land meant for civic amenities, open spaces and public purpose. The same is taken on record.

List on 18-1-2013."

103. Society on 11-1-2013 filed a memo along with I.A. No. 1 of 2013 for deletion of Site No. 670/H in the statement filed vide Statement No. V at SI. No.1 and the same was allowed vide order dated 11-1-2013 which reads thus:

"Order on I.A. No. 1 of 2013 and memo dated 11-1-2013

This application is by the fourth respondent-Society to delete site No. 670/H shown at SI. No. 1 in the statement No. V accompanying the memo dated 5-10-2012. It is stated that one M.R. Rangaswamy, a Member of the Society, when allotted Site No. 670/H a conveyance deed was presented for registration on 22-3-2002, whence, the Sub-Registrar impounded the document under Section 45-A of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and thereafter released the document on 31-10-2004 as indicated in the copy of the registered instrument enclosed to the memo dated 11-1-2013. The conveyance of the said property being prior to the interim order dated 18-6-2003 the inadvertent mistake in item 1 of Statement No. V needs to be deleted.

In the light of the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel being a reiteration of the statements in the application and the memo and having perused the copy of the conveyance deed, we think it appropriate to allow I.A. No. 1 of 2013 and the memo. Item 1 in Statement No. V in respect of site No. 670/H stands deleted."

104. Further Court order dated 11-1-2013 reads thus:

"Although the fourth respondent-Society has furnished the names of the allottees of the 404 sites which are in the list of Bangalore Development Authority as sites falling within the area earmarked for the civic amenity, we direct the fourth respondent to furnish all material particulars of each of the allotees including as to whether they are member employees of the Judicial Department, presently employed or since retired and the particulars of their membership and if not such employees relationship with any of the office bearers of the Society, past or present and the particulars of their membership."

105. The Society filed the following three memos on 8-3-2013:

"(1) Memo of Compliance of the order dated 11-1-2013 regarding execution of a release and relinquishment deed:

i. The 4th respondent hereby reports the due compliance of the undertaking furnished to this Hon''ble Court on its behalf of its learned Senior Counsel as regards the execution of release/relinquishment deed a copy of the said registered relinquishment deed dated 1-3-2013 is enclosed to this memo, with a respectful prayer that this Hon''ble Court be graciously pleased to take the same on record.

ii. It is submitted accordingly.

(2) Memo:

i. The 4th respondent herewith produced a copy of deed of Exchange of immovable property dated 1-3-2013 in the above petition for kind perusal of this Hon''ble Court.

(3) Memo filed by the 4th respondent:

i. In compliance of the order dated the 11th January, 2013, passed in the aforementioned writ petition, the 4th respondent-Society files herewith a Tabular Statement containing all the available material particulars in respect of each of the allottees of the 404 sites referred in the said order of this Hon''ble Court, the said Tabular Statement containing inter alia the description of the membership of the site owners concerned. The same may kindly be ordered to be taken on record.

ii. As seen from the said Tabular Statement some amongst the site owners named therein were/are not employed in the Judicial Department or in the Office of the Hon''ble High Court of Karnataka. Even though the 4th respondent has sincerely tried to ascertain the relationship of any of such members, with any of the office bearers of the Society-past or present it is deeply regretted that the said information has not been able to be obtained by the Society, despite sincere efforts as to whether the said site owners are or were employees of the Judicial Department or of the Hon''ble High Court of Karnataka.

iii. It is submitted accordingly."

106. On 8-3-2003 the following order was passed:

"Learned Counsel for the 4th respondent-Society files three memos of even date 8-3-2013, the first of which relates to compliance with the direction to execute release/relinquishment deed in favour of the BBMP in respect of Site No. 670/7 measuring 1200 sq. ft.; Site No. 2119 measuring 2625 sq. ft.; Site No. 2120 measuring 2675 sq. ft.; Site No. 2122 measuring 2725 sq. ft.; and Site No. 2124 measuring 2875 sq. ft. The second of the memo is in relation to the exchange deed executed by R.M. Nagarajaiah, the member of the 4th respondent by which site bearing 1 measuring 2806 sq. ft. is conveyed. Learned Senior Counsel for the 4th respondent submits that the member is entitled to yet another site measuring about 1200 sq. ft. which the 4th respondent would identify and also execute a conveyance deed. The third memo is enclosed with a list of names, addresses, membership, site numbers, dimensions and remarks of allottees of sites. According to the learned Senior Counsel the use of the word ''sadasyaru'' would take into fold members who are employees of the Judicial Department while ''Sahasadasyarau'' are with reference to associate members. The list, it is said, pertains to 404 sites which the BDA in its report stated fall within the area earmarked as civic amenities. Learned Senior Counsel hastens to add that the direction to furnish the relationship of the allottees with the employees/member office bearers of the 4th respondent-Society, despite efforts could not be ascertained and that the 4th respondent would make further sincere efforts in that regard.

The memos are taken on record. 4th respondent to ensure copies of the memos and enclosures are made available to the petitioners and their Counsel and also Counsel representing other parties.

Regard being had to the fact that BDA in its report having made reference to 404 sites falling within the civic amenity area coupled with the remarks as are mentioned in the enclosure to the memo dated 8-3-2013 furnishing material particulars of the allottees, more appropriately over the pendency of the suits for cancellation of the deeds of sale conveying sites executed posterior to the interim orders, and in order to ascertain the extent of land that could be retrieved as civic amenities in that area, the 4th respondent would have to make necessary enquiries and place before Court a report as to how many of the sites could be put together to constitute a composite block to be put to use for a civic amenity site so as to reduce the shortfall in civic amenity area to be provided in the layout.

Learned Senior Counsel further submits that efforts would be made to lay before Court detailed particulars of the 2238 number of sites in the layout including the areas earmarked for civic amenity areas which are in the unacquired lands and since allotted as civic amenity areas.

Order on I.A. No. III of 2012

There is no representation for the applicant. Application rejected.

Order on I.A. No. IV of 2013

In view of the endorsement on I.A. No. IV of 2013 by the learned Counsel for the applicant stating that he does not press the application, the same is accordingly dismissed as not pressed.

Order on I.A. No. II of 2012

Although office objections raised on the application are not complied with nevertheless having had a glimpse at the application the relief to grant permission to construct a residential house in property bearing Site No. 2113, III Cross, Judicial Colony, Jakkur, Allalasandra, is unavailable.

The site in question is one amongst the 404 sites falling within the civic amenity areas in terms of the report filed by the Bangalore Development Authority and in view of the interim order not to change the character of the land, the relief sought for is unavailable. Application is, accordingly rejected.

List on 5-4-2013."

107. On 5-4-2013, Court passed the following order:

"Learned Senior Counsel for the 4th respondent submits a memo and statement dated 5-4-2013 furnishing a tabular statement containing information of sites owned/not owned by office bearers of the Society in the names of their family members, in compliance with the order dated 8-3-2013.

The same is taken on record.

It is noticed that the contemnors, by name Basavarya C.M. and Kempathimmaiah, have not responded to the information sought for by the Society. However, other office bearers have furnished information as indicated in the tabular column.

Learned Senior Counsel files yet another memo of even date enclosing copy of a notice dated 20-3-2013 Annexure-1 seeking information from the ex-office bearers as set out therein. Also enclosed is a map describing the areas in seven blocks which could be handed over to the BBMP to make good the shortfall in the civic amenity areas in the Judicial Layout at Yelahanka. The Map also contains a legend describing the areas indicating the proposed lands to be handed over along with the lands since handed over, together with the roads to constitute 43.20% of the lands utilised for civic amenity purpose. In the memo, it is stated that some litigation is pending in respect of portions of properties in the Blocks, steps would be taken to put an end to the litigation and recover possession of the said properties subject to orders of this Court.

If the 4th respondent is inclined to hand over the properties in Block Nos. 1 to 7 as indicated in the map, to reduce the shortfall in the civic amenity areas, it is needless to state that it is for the Society to take necessary action in that regard, in accordance with law and indicate the date on which possession would be handed over to the BBMP.

Learned Counsel for the BBMP seeks sometime to make his due diligence over the lands proposed to be handed over as civic amenity areas. List on 26-4-2013."

108. Order dated 26-4-2013 reads thus:

"Learned Counsel for the respondent-Society files a memo dated 26-4-2013 enclosing an additional tabular statement furnishing information as regards sites owned/not owned by the office bearers of the Society in the names of their family members. In the said statement, it is noticed that Kempathimmaiah, Shiresthedar in the City Civil Court at Bangalore, an ex officio office bearer, while holding the post of Director secured allotment of a site measuring 40''x 50'' in the name of his wife Smt. Ranjini, as an associate member of the Society''. We think it appropriate to extend an opportunity to Kempathimmaiah to put in his explanation.

Memo is taken on record.

Sri Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel for the fourth respondent-Society, submits that as and when the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike carries out its due diligence, as recorded in the order dated 5-4-2013, the Society would indicate the date for handing over possession of the properties.

Sri Narasimhan, learned Counsel for the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, submits that in the wake of the elections to the State Legislative Assembly, the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike requires a fortnight''s time commencing from 10-5-2013 to carry out its due diligence.

List after summer vacation.

It is needless to state that the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, after carrying out its due diligence, may indicate to the fourth respondent-Society, in writing, in the matter of taking possession of the properties. The Society is permitted to fix a date to hand over possession of the properties and execute and lodge for registration the release-cum-relinquishment deed, without awaiting further orders of this Court and report on the next date of hearing."

109. Court by its order dated 23-8-2013 passed the following order:

"In the order dated 26-4-2013, it is noticed that, one Kempathimmaiah, Sheristhedar of the City Civil Court also an ex-office bearer of the fourth respondent-Society, while as a Director, secured allotment of site measuring 40 feet x 50 feet (should be read as 40 feet x 60 feet) in favour of his wife Smt. Ranjini (to be read as ''Rajini'' though in the sale deed dated 13th July, 1998, it is mentioned as Smt. Rajani, an associate member of the society.

In compliance with the order dated 26-4-2013, that Kempathimmaiah has filed an affidavit along with three documents as enclosures, admitting the fact of allotment of a site in favour of his wife and the subsequent conveyance of the said site under the registered sale deed way back in the year 1998 for a valuable consideration and that the wife of the deponent is willing to deposit the sale consideration and if permitted, minus Rs. 61,598/- paid to the society.

Learned Senior Counsel for the deponent submits that the affidavit be accepted and directions be issued as regards the deposit of the sale consideration. In the circumstances, we think it appropriate to defer orders on the request made in the said affidavit.

Sri Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel files a memo dated 23-8-2013 indicating that the Society has always been ready and willing to hand over the sites as indicated in the earlier memo dated 5-4-2013, which includes sites indicated in Block Nos. 1 to 7 in the map annexed thereto. However, due to certain difficulties faced in the form of litigation pending before Court and also interim orders of injunction operating, learned Senior Counsel submits, on instructions from the President, who is present before Court, that such of those sites, which are not subject to litigation and are freehold, would be handed over to the B.B.M.P. by making out a list at the first instance and furnishing the same to the learned Counsel for the B.B.M.P. and thereafter wards complete and conclude the process of delivery of possession by execution of necessary instruments of release-cum-relinquishment.

As regards the properties over which disputes are pending, learned Senior Counsel submits that a list would be prepared and made available to the Court furnishing all material particulars.

We think it appropriate to re-list these petitions on 20th September, 2013."

110. On 20-9-2013, Court passed the following order:

"The fourth respondent-Society files a memo dated 20-9-2013 in compliance with the specific proposals contained in the earlier memo dated 5-4-2013 and a further memo dated 23-8-2013. To the memo is enclosed Annexure-R4(L) containing a list of 18 numbers of sites with their property numbers and the areas comprised therein which according to the learned Senior Counsel for the fourth respondent are freehold properties to be handed over to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike by way of release-cum-relinquishment deeds, to reduce the shortfall in the civic amenity areas comprised in the layout in question. Annexure-R4(N) is said to contain relevant material particulars of the boundaries and the extents comprised in the 18 sites mentioned in Annexure-R4(L), while, Annexure-R4(M) is said to be a letter addressed to the Joint Commissioner of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Yelahanka Range, with the acknowledgement over the proposal to concede in favour of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike the said sites.

Learned Senior Counsel for the fourth respondent-Society submits that the fourth respondent is ready and willing to ensure a joint spot inspection of the said 18 numbers of sites, with the officials of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and execute release-cum-relinquishment deed.

Sri K.V. Narasimhan, learned Counsel for the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, submits that the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike is willing to have a joint spot inspection of the said sites, conducted at about 11.00 a.m. on Tuesday i.e., on 24-9-2013 and if found to be freehold sites to take possession of the same where afterwards the respondent 4-Society to execute the release-cum-relinquishment deeds on Wednesday i.e., on 25-9-2013.

In the memo, at paragraph 3, it is stated that Annexure-R4(P) is a tabular statement containing list of all known disputes and litigation''s respecting certain properties. Learned Senior Counsel submits that better particulars of the litigation would be made available to the Court by the next date of hearing.

Learned Senior Counsel points to the layout map annexed to the memo dated 5-4-2013 to submit that the fourth respondent would explore the possibility of including the road adjacent to Block No. 7 which stands redundant so as to form a part of the other areas in Block No. 7, to be handed over to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, to further reduce shortfall in the civic amenity area.

Sri Papireddy, learned Counsel for the applicant in I.A. Nos. VI and VII of 2013, submits that the fourth respondent-Society having not kept up its promise has resulted in these applications. The fourth respondent-Society to file its response to each of the applications.

The fourth respondent-Society to comply with the requirement of joint inspection and execution of release-cum-relinquishment deed as indicated supra.

List this matter on 25-10-2013."

111. Court order dated 24-1-2014 reads thus:

"Learned Counsel appearing for Mr. Shaker Shetty, learned Counsel for applicant in I.A. No. 1 of 2014 submits that he does not press I.A. No. 1 of 2014 filed for direction. I.A. No. 1 of 2014 is, accordingly, rejected.

2. Mr. Shivappa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for fourth respondent-society, submits that the memo filed on 8-1-2014 is pursuant to the execution of a relinquishment deed dated 25-9-2013 in favour of BBMP in compliance with the order dated 20th September, 2013 and that in a joint inspection that was held, it surfaced that certain properties to be relinquished are in possession of persons whose particulars are mentioned in Annexure-R4(R) enclosed to the memo, more appropriately in Block Nos. 5,6 and 7 of the layout.

3. Learned Senior Counsel submits that some of the immovable properties in Block Nos. 5 and 6 are subject-matter of original proceedings before City Civil Court, Bangalore in CCH No. 6, are ripe for evidence and appropriate direction be issued for disposal of those suits expeditiously.

4. Mr. K.V. Narasimhan, learned Counsel for respondent-BBMP, submits that the society has since executed a relinquishment deed in terms of the order dated 20th September, 2013 while some of the properties in R4(R) are not handed over in the light of the remarks found in the said Annexure.

5. The entire effort is in the direction of enabling the fourth respondent-society to ensure maintenance of civic amenity areas more appropriately to an extent of 45% as was the prescription of BDA at the relevant point of time and in that regard, according to learned Senior Counsel, the society has reached 42% with a shortfall of 3%. If the properties as are set out in Annexure-R4(R) to the memo are made available to BBMP towards civic amenities it would pave way for reducing the shortfall. Learned Senior Counsel is very confident that the said properties would be sufficient to make good the shortfall. Regard being had to the fact that the subject-matter of pending litigation in the City Civil Court, Bangalore relates to properties which form part of the area meant for civic amenity, we deem it appropriate to direct the City Civil Court to expedite the conclusion of the proceedings in the suits desirably before the commencement of summer vacation of 2014. It is needless to state if fourth respondent-society, which is the plaintiff in the suits, were to make a request to the Civil Court we have no reason to believe that the Civil Court would not take up the matter on day-to-day basis for disposal.

6. Since the names of the parties who are non-members and to whom sale deeds of certain sites are executed are not forthcoming and also failure to provide the name of the person who allotted the sites or under whose authority the execution of the sale deeds were permitted, it is not possible for the Court at this juncture, to initiate action as is necessary in law against such persons and, therefore, fourth respondent is directed to make available all the names of non-member allottees and the name/s of the person/s who made the allotments or executed the conveyance deeds.

7. The fourth respondent-society has also filed a memo today enclosing true copies of two layout plans Annexures-R4(L) and R4(M) said to be concerning two House Building Co-operative Societies which were permitted to have 36.30% and 35.21% as civic amenity areas and the remaining as residential areas by the respondent-BDA. The same is taken on record.

8. Sri Krishna, learned Counsel for BDA seeks time to take instructions in the matter of the memo.

9. Society and the BBMP to file objections to I.A. Nos. 6 and 7 of 2013. BBMP and furnish information as to whether kathas have been issued to persons allegedly in possession of lands or portion of land as are mentioned in annexures to the applications, by the next date of hearing.

Relist on 14-2-2014."

112. Order dated 14-2-2014 reads thus:

"Learned Senior Counsel for the fourth respondent-Society files a memo furnishing the names of non-member allottees and the name/s of the person/s who made allotment or executed the conveyance deeds in compliance with paragraph 6 of the order dated 24-1-2014. The same is taken on record. Further orders on the memo deferred.

Learned Senior Counsel further submits that when a memo enclosing copy of the order dated 24-1-2014 was filed before the City Civil Court in the pending suits, memo was not accepted and therefore, I.A. is filed today.

The Presiding Officer of the City Civil Court, CH No. 6, is directed not to make any further ado over the subject-matter, but to hear and dispose the suits on day-to-day basis commencing from today. Learned Counsel are requested to make submissions before the City Civil Court today, in this regard.

Sri Krishna, learned Counsel for the BDA and the learned Government Advocate for the State seek time to make their submission.

Learned Counsel for the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike submits that the relevant material particulars of information, sought for in the order dated 24-1-2014, is on the anvil and would be made available to the learned Counsel for the fourth respondent-Society and thereafter filed into the registry.

Sri V. Padmanabha Kedilaya, learned Counsel for the applicant in I.A. No. 2 of 2014, submits that an alternative site may be made available to the applicant in view of the fact that the site allotted to him is one among 404 sites identified as civic amenity sites.

Learned Senior Counsel for the fourth respondent-Society submits that besides the objections over technicality and maintainability of the application, nevertheless Society would endeavour to identify an alternative site at the earliest and make its submissions.

Relist on 7-3-2014."

113. On 7-3-2014, Court passed the following order:

"Regarding being had to list brought before this Court coupled with facts stated by the 4th respondent-Society that one of its earlier director by name Sri N. Shivanna and a former President by name Sri C. Shivalingaiah had executed documents conveying the sites formed in the layout to persons, who were neither members nor resolution passed for allotment of sites, it is appropriate to implead these persons as party respondents 18 and 19. Petitioners are permitted to amend the cause title.

The 4th respondent-Society submits that the aforesaid ex-office bearers are party defendants in the suits instituted by the purchasers said to be pending before the Civil Court, as stated in the statement of pending suits enclosed to the memo dated 14-2-2014 (Annexure-R4N). Petitioners to serve copy of the memo along with enclosures on the two ex-office bearers-respondents 18 and 19. The former President, Sri C. Shivalingaiah, who is one of the accused in the contempt case, is present before Court. The 4th respondent-Society is permitted to serve memo forthwith on the said persons.

Sri N. Shivanna as identified by the President of the 4th respondent-Society is present before Court. The 4th respondent is permitted to serve copy of this memo on the said Sri N. Shivanna.

For the statement of respondents 18 and 19, list on the next date of hearing i.e. on 28-3-2014.

Sri K.V. Narasimhan, learned Counsel for the BBMP submits that the BBMP is unable to locate the 37 guntas of land and if the office bearers of the 4th respondent-Society were to assist the staff of BBMP, they would prepare a report in the matter.

Sri Subrahmanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel submits that the President of the 4th respondent-Society will assist the BBMP after giving prior information.

Sri Krishna, learned Counsel for the BDA files the statement of facts dated 7-3-2014 with affidavit and photocopies of certain resolutions and orders passed by the Authority relating to certain benefits extended to two Societies viz.: Mysore Paper Mills Employees House Building Co-operative Society and Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society. The same is taken on record.

Relist on 28-3-2014."

114. On 28-3-2014, the following order was passed:

"Learned Counsel for respondents 18 and 19 are permitted to file power in the registry and the registry to print their names.

Post order passed on the last date of hearing, Sri K.V. Narasimhan, learned Counsel for the respondent-BBMP submits that though a spot inspection was conducted, nevertheless, the area apparently identified as land belonging to the Society, since acquired is presently a slum known as ''Hanumappa Layout''.

Learned Counsel submits that Engineers of BBMP were unable to actually identify the area and would do so if granted some more time.

It is trite that after the land is identified, then the question would be whether the constructions therein are legal or illegal or otherwise and as to who permitted those constructions. Many questions would arise for decision making thereafter wards.

The office bearers of the society are directed to ensure assistance to the survey department of BBMP to conduct survey and identify the exact location of the land that belongs to the Society.

Respondents 18 and 19 to file their statement of objections, if any, by the next date of hearing.

Sri K.V. Narasimhan, learned Counsel having made a statement that at the time of spot inspection, they had noticed that in a particular area released and relinquished in favour of the BBMP was being used as a burial ground, action has been initiated to prevent recurrence. In that view of the matter, the BBMP to file a comprehensive report over the exact status and the condition of all the lands released and relinquished in their favour in the Judicial Layout together with photographs both positive and negative by the next date of hearing.

Sri Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel for the Society submits that in compliance with the directions issued by this Court, the proceedings in the sixteen civil suits pending before the Trial Court is conducted on a day-to-day basis.

Although learned Senior Counsel suggests that a direction be issued to the Civil Court to furnish reports over the progress, we are not inclined to do so. It is for the Society to persuade the City Civil Court to ensure that proceedings in each of the cases listed on day-to-day basis, should not turn out to be an empty formality, but there must be something substantially done in the progress of each of the cases. The Society may file its report to the Court in the form of the affidavit of an Officer as to exact status of each of the cases.

Relist on 13-6-2014."

115. Court by its order dated 10-10-2014, passed the following order:

"Respondent 19 i.e., Sri C. Shivalingaiah is reported to have died on 14-8-2014 as recorded in the order sheet dated 10-10-2014 in CCC No. 87 of 2004. In that view of the matter, the petition against the respondent 19 stands abated.

Respondent 18 to file statement of objections by today i.e., 10-10-2014 into the registry.

The petitioners are permitted to implead as party respondent the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board represented by its Member Secretary as respondent 20. Sri Gururaj Joshi, learned Standing Counsel, to take notice for the respondent 20. Learned Counsel to secure instructions over the installation of sewage treatment plant outside the Judicial Layout. The registry is directed to make out a copy of this order to be furnished to the learned Counsel.

Learned Counsel for the respondent-Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike submits that the respondent is collecting materials to comply with the order dated 28-3-2014 and would file the report, if extended some more time. Learned Counsel is granted time till 14-11-2014 to comply with the order dated 28-3-2014.

Relist on 14-11-2014."

116. Order dated 10-4-2015 reads thus:

"Learned Advocate for the 18th respondent submits that statement of objections dated 10-10-2014 though filed, would file an affidavit furnishing material particulars leading to the sale deed executed in favour of one Vijayakumari, including the details of the site, copy of the sale deed and authorisation etc., before the next date of hearing.

Sri Gururaj Joshi, learned Counsel for the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board submits that the then Presiding Officer and the Chairman of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Bengaluru, by order dated 31-8-2007, in the matter of Karnataka State Judicial Employees House Building Co-operative Society, recorded findings that it was the responsibility of the Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewerage Board authorities to provide water supply and maintain sewerage facilities in the layout, and directions were issued in that regard to take immediate action. Learned Counsel files a memo enclosing a copy of the said proceeding, Learned Counsel submits that the Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewerage Board installed a Sewage Treatment Plant (for short, ''STP'') to treat sewage generated from Yelahanka New Town and areas very close to the Judicial Layout and all that is required to be done is to connect the underground drainage system of the Judicial Layout for free flow of sewage into the STP. Learned Counsel promises the Court that by the next date of hearing relevant material particulars, including technical details, after an inspection, would be made available to the Court.

Sri Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-Society, files a memo dated 10-4-2015 enclosing copies of letter dated 20-10-2010 addressed to the Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewerage Board and its response dated 8-11-2010. In the light of the response stating that the disposal of sewage system in the Judicial Layout would be taken up through the execution of Karnataka State Pollution Control Board work, which is said to be pending, the Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewarage Board, by its Secretary, is impleaded as a party respondent 21. Let a copy of this order be addressed to the Secretary, Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewerage Board, forthwith for their response.

It is stated, one K.B. Mounesh Kumar, is the Standing Counsel for Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewerage Board. Registry to print the name of the learned Counsel.

Sri K.V. Narasimhan, learned Counsel for the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short, BBMP'') submits a report as directed in the order dated 28-3-2014, followed by the order dated 10-10-2014. Learned Counsel submits that the report contains necessary 7 particulars of the areas in the layout relinquished by the 4th respondent-House Building Society in favour of BBMP, as civic amenities and open spaces and BBMP proposed utilisation, and further that the word future development as shown in the report, requires proper identification which would be placed on record in the form of an affidavit. Learned Counsel refers to the map enclosed to the report to submit, that, possession of certain portions of civic amenity sites, is not handed over which submission is responded to by Sri Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel, to submit that some of those areas are under litigation before Civil Courts in 16 civil suits, at the instance of the Society which it intends to pursue and secure possession thereof, hence requests the Court to issue suitable direction to the Civil Courts to post all the 16 civil suits to be tried by one Single Court since some of the suits are pending before two Courts, in Bengaluru.

At this stage, Sri Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel, submits that in the area marked as park Nos. 16 and 17 in the map, there are two roads which are perpendicular and that by amalgamating them with the civic amenity site located adjacent there to, would make it a compact civic amenity/open space and on instructions of the present President of the Society who is personally present, a relinquishment deed would be executed and possession of the road handed over to the BBMP. In addition, learned Senior Counsel hastens to add that certain small sheds that have come up in three of the portions marked in red colour in the said map are of unauthorised occupants who would be evicted and possession of the same would also be delivered to the BBMP so as to reduce the deficiency in the total civic amenity areas in the layout.

If regard is had to the submission of the learned Counsel for the BBMP and the report placed on record, there is a need to issue direction to the BBMP to ensure the allocation of funds in its budget for the financial year 2015-16 for development activity over the areas specified in the map and as particularised in the report and also to file an affidavit in that regard before the next date of hearing.

It is hoped that the joint enterprise of BWSSB and the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board would ensure connectivity of the passage for sewage through the underground drainage system in the Judicial Layout into one of the STPs at least before the next date of hearing. The request to post all the 16 cases before one Civil Court, in Bengaluru, to be considered on the next date of hearing.

Relist on 19-6-2015."

117. On 4-9-2015, Court passed the following order:

"In compliance with the order dated 10-4-2015, the respondent-Society is said to have addressed letters enclosing draft of the relinquishment deed and a sketch calling upon the Joint Commissioner to be present at the time of execution of the relinquishment deed, nevertheless, since there was no response, a registered letter was addressed through a legal Counsel on 27-7-2015, to which too, there was no response, according to Sri Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel for the society.

Sri Sreenidhi, learned Counsel for respondent-BBMP submits that he has filed power recently and has no instructions from the Joint Commissioner and would secure instructions and report to Court on the next date of hearing.

If the respondent-Society, has, in compliance with the order dated 10-4-2015 taken steps in regard to execution and lodging for registration a release and relinquishment deed of the area more fully set out in the order, more appropriately, the area covered by two roads to be amalgamated with the civic amenity site located adjacent to them, respondent-BBMP to authorise its representative to appear before the Sub-Registrar on 8th September, 2015, and take possession of the said relinquished properties. For the purpose of registration, the Joint Commissioner to furnish well in advance the name and designation of the officer to represent the respondent-BBMP.

Learned Senior Counsel, submits that 16 suits in different Courts have since been brought together and are tried in CCH No. 6, City Civil Court, Bangalore, and if that is so, the learned Judge presiding over the Court, is requested to hear all the suits on the question of Court fee, since a preliminary issue and pass orders, in any event, by the end of this month, without further time. Respondent-society is permitted to furnish a copy of this order to the learned Judge presiding over CCH No. 6.

Sri K.B. Monesh Kumar, learned Counsel for respondent-BWSSB submits that sewerage treatment plant of size not known is installed in the periphery of Jakkur, to which the sewerage lines from the judicial layout are connected. Learned Counsel to file a memo furnishing all material particulars of the said sewerage treatment plant including its capacity to treat the volume of sewerage that flows from Judicial layout.

If the plant is in operation, the Pollution Control Board to inspect the plant by 8th September, 2015 and submit a report by the next date of hearing.

Relist on 11-9-2015.

Order on I.A. No. 2 of 2015

Application to be heard along with main matter. Order on memo for retirement Memo for retirement of learned Counsel for respondent 3-Mr. K.V. Narasimhan is accepted since Sri Sreenidhi, learned Counsel has filed power. Memo is ordered accordingly.

Order on I.A. No. 5 of 2013

I.A. No. 5 of 2013 is rejected as office objection is not complied with."

118. On 11-9-2015, Court passed order which reads thus:

"Sri Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel submits that a relinquishment deed has been executed and lodged for registration on 8-9-2015, a copy of which is enclosed to the memo dated 11-9-2015. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the following are the total areas and dates on which the relinquishment deeds have been executed in favour of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike towards civic amenities, open spaces, parks and roads as well as storm water drains:

1. C A 443003.25 sq. ft. * 10 acres 17 guntas

2. Storm Water Drain 47710.00 sq. ft. * 1 acre 4 guntas

3. Road 2393082.92 sq. ft. * 54 acres 37 guntas

66 acres 18 guntas

Total 156 acres % 42.423

On 10-4-2015, the following submission of the learned Senior Counsel was recorded:

In addition, learned Senior Counsel hastens to add that certain small sheds that have come up in three of the portions marked in red colour in the said map are of unauthorised occupants who would be evicted and possession of the same would also be delivered to the BBMP so as to reduce the deficiency in the total civic amenity areas in the layout.

Learned Senior Counsel submits that in furtherance of the said submission, the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and the office bearers of the Society would jointly endeavour to ensure the eviction of the unauthorised occupants so as to put to use the said properties for the purposes for which they are earmarked.

Learned Counsel for the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike submits that they would assist the Society and its office bearers in that regard and would take steps to fence the areas and also file a report over the development activity over the areas specified in the map and as particularised in the earlier report and file an affidavit in that regard. Learned Counsel for the Pollution Control Board files a report of what was noticed in the spot inspection by the officers of the Board indicating gross deficiencies in the sewage treatment plant, a copy of which is made available to the learned Counsel for the Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewerage Board-respondent 21.

Learned Counsel for the Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewerage Board files a memo stating that the STP was installed in the year 2003 under the Cauvery FV Phase to the capacity of 10 MLD and that the average inflow of sewage per day is about 8.9 MLD, as per the inflow meter which is functional and other details of the capacity of the motors in the pumps as well as discharge. Same is taken on record.

The particulars furnished is as sketchy as it can be and it is not what was expected of the Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewerage Board. The report of the Pollution Control Board is quite exhaustive and therefore, the Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewrerage Board to answer over the points raised in the report of the Pollution Control Board and if possible, rectify the defects by the next date of visit of the officers of the Pollution Control Board which is to take place on 25-9-2015."

119. Court passed the following order on 6-11-2015:

"In compliance with the order dated 11-9-2015, the respondent-BBMP files an affidavit of one Mr. Jagadish, Assistant Executive Engineer stating that the development activity proposed is appended in a Compendium and seeks leave of the Court to take necessary steps to implement such development activity.

Affidavit along with compendium is taken on record.

It is made clear that since BBMP is a civic authority required under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, to maintain orderliness and also carry out development activity for and on behalf of general public, a statutory duty and obligation, there is no necessity for orders of Court to carry out development activity as proposed in the report.

Respondent-BBMP to file affidavit on a timely basis over the development activity carried on.

Relist on 20-11-2015."

120. Respondent 4-Society filed a memo on 4-12-2015 furnishing a pen drive in which the contents of the entire layout plan are found. In addition to it, a hard copy thereof is also filed. In the memo the following information is umished:

In the map enclosed to the memo, the legands read thus:

The memo further states that insofar as the unacquired area of 25.12 guntas of land, a contiguous part of the same layout, is concerned proceedings had been taken under Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and in the light of the report of the Committee constituted by the Government headed by Sri A.T. Ramaswamy, the proceedings culminated in favour of the Society which paid the penalty imposed under Section 96 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, for diversion of agricultural land for the residential purposes of the Society.

121. In addition it is stated that prior to the initiation of such proceedings and the levy of penalty and the payment thereof made by the Society, the City Municipal Council, Yelahanka Town, within the territorial jurisdiction of which the layout in question falls had resolved on 22-5-1996 to provide all the facilities to the Society and even to levy and collect property tax in respectoi the sites formed by the Society, from the respective owners thereof, and that service charges and Development Charges have been demanded and collected by the City Municipal Council, Yelahanka Town, to which the Society has paid as early as on 10-9-2008, a total sum of Rs. 43,27,320/-.

122. On 11-12-2015, BDA has filed a memo stating:

"Society has submitted Residential Layout Plan in several Sy. Nos. of Allalasandra, Chikkabommasandra and Jakkur Plantation Villages to an extent of 156 acres 26% guntas for approval.

Authority in its meeting held on 16-11-1992, vide Sub. No. 503 of 1992, resolved to approve the Layout Plan in Sy. Nos. 9/1, 2B and 3, 11/1 and 2,12/2A, 2B, 3,4A, 13/1 A, IB and 2,14/2,3,5 and 6,89/1 and 2, 90, 91/2A, 4 to 6 , 94/3, 97, 98/1, 5, 6 and 9, 99, 100, 100/P, 101/1,2 and 3, 102/2, 3 and 4, 104/1, 3A, 3B, 108, 108/P, 110/1 and 2, 3A, 3B and 4,111/2 and 3,112 of Allalasandra Village and Sy. Nos. 39,41/2 and 42 of Chikkabommasandra Village and Sy. Nos. 3/1 and 2,4P of Jakkur Plantation, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk to an extent of 156 acres 26% guntas in favour of Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees HBCS Limited, subject to the following conditions:

(1) To furnish possession certification from Revenue Department before issue of intimation communicating layout charges;

(2) To furnish NOC from KEB and BWSSB Authorities before issue of work order;

(3) To remit contribution of Rs. 2.00 lakhs per acre towards Cauvery Water Supply Schemes as per the revised rates;

(4) To furnish NOC from the Co-operation Department before release of sites;

(5) To entrust the civil works to the Society itself under the supervision of BDA;

(6) To pay ring road surcharge at the rate of Rs. 1.00 lakh per acre as per the Authority Resolution;

(7) Other usual terms and conditions.

Now the Society has produced the Layout Plan as built on the ground in an extent of 156 acres 26.75 guntas and out of this extent, the area reserved for roads, CA is to the extent of 67 acres 7.45 guntas. The Society has already handed over an area of 10 acres 01 gunta to the BBMP to retain as park.

As per the then Master Plan approved on 12-10-1984, the Society should have reserved up to 50% for residential purpose and remaining extent to park, open spaces, playgrounds, CA and Road.

As per the prevailing Master Plan, the area to be reserved for residential purpose is 55% and 45% towards Park, CA and Road. Since the Society has executed the layout, the residential area is around 57�%. It means that Society has utilised the excess area of about 2�%.

In the earlier occasion BDA passed a resolution under subject No. 140 of 2004 on 29-8-2004 in the case of MPME HBCS Limited and therein the Authority permitted excess residential area of 13.70% and also considered 4.10% of park and open space area which was less than minimum prescribed in the ZR. The above resolution was passed after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances involved. Similar decision was also taken in the case of Vishwabharathi HBCS as per Court order in W.P. Nos. 18496 of 2007 connected with W.P. Nos. 6945, 10377, 10343, 9990, 11127, 9832 of 2008,19026 to 19087, 16108 to 16112, 16113 to 16123 of 2010, 2182 of 2008 and 18960 to 19025 of 2010 (LA-BDA), dated 16-11-2010. In the present case, layout is fully developed, residential buildings have come up. On humanitarian grounds, BDA is prepared to approve the layout plan keeping in mind the procedure followed in the earlier two cases referred to above it there is a direction by the Hon''ble High Court."

123. On 14-12-2015, petitioners f, h, j, k, 1, m and n (6,8,10 to 14) have filed memorandum of written submissions stating:

"The writ petition was filed by the Judicial Layout Residents and Site Holders Association (Regd.), on the premises that the 4th respondent-House Building Society had obtained a sanctioned layout plan from the Competent Authority the BDA the first respondent herein and the 4th respondent-society is alienating the civic amenity area reserved in the said layout plan.

Now from the latest build layout plan submitted by the BBMP and from the 4th respondent-society it transpires that the acquired area is 156 acres 26.75 guntas and out of that 67 acres and 7.45 guntas road and 10 acres 01 gunta civic amenity area is handed over to the BBMP-the first respondent herein, in compliance with the interim directions issued in the case.

As per the Master Plan existing as on the year 1992, the year in which the 4th respondent-society applied for sanctioned plan, it was required to utilise not more than 50% for residential purpose. However as per the Master Plan now prevailing, the area to be utilised for residential purpose is 55% and remaining 45% is to be utilised for roads and civic amenities, resulting in excess utilisation by the 4th respondent-society for residential purpose to an extent of 2.5% even if the present Master Plan requirement norms are considered.

Now the 4th respondent-society claims that it has substantially complied with the legal requirements of the Zonal Regulations as existing now in respect of the layout plan executed by it.

Considering the absence of sanctioned approved plan from the planning authority, the BDA and under the changed circumstances and keeping in mind the welfare of the bona fide members the 4th respondent-society who have secured sites in the layout, including the members in 404 sites, the relief claimed by the petitioners in the writ petition may kindly be suitably moulded so that a sanctioned plan is obtained from the BDA by the 4th respondent-society.

Hence the petitioners are filing this submission requiring the BDA-the first respondent to issue sanctioned plan to the 4th respondent-society in respect of the layout, the subject-matter of the writ petition on such terms as this Hon''ble High Court deems just under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."

124. On 4-12-2015 the 4th respondent filed a synopsis of this case.

125. On 18-12-2015, this Court passed the following order:

"Sri Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel submits that a synopsis of the case, in brief, is filed on 14-12-2015 furnishing relevant information, in a nut shell, about the case put forth by the society, in defence, and further that the actual extent of shortfall in the civic amenity areas is 2�% of 156 acres 26.34 guntas of land acquired and handed over to the society for formation of the layout.

Learned Senior Counsel further submits that this extent of land could be considered by the Bangalore Development Authority (for short, ''BDA'') so as to forward a recommendation to the State Government to condone the shortfall as has been done in the previous past in respect of similarly circumstanced House Building Co-operative Societies, numbering more than 5. According to learned Senior Counsel, the layout plan submitted to the BDA for approval under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 when placed before the Board, in its meeting held 16-11-1992 resolved to approve the layout plan subject to certain conditions, of which Condition Nos. 3 and 6 relating to payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre towards Cauvery Water supply Schemes and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards legal right surcharge when subject-matter of Writ Petition No. 11144 of 1993 instituted by Air Craft Employees'', Co-operative Society Limited�s case subjected to very similar conditions, a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 20th April, 2001, quashed the said two conditions and applying the very same principle, the BDA cannot insist on compliance with the aforesaid two conditions, by the 4th respondent-society.

In addition, it is asserted that the Board of the BDA did not, subsequent to Resolution No. 503 of 1992, dated 16-11-1992, accord sanction to the layout plan nevertheless, the civil works carried out by the society to form the layout is well-within the four comers of the policy of the State Government relating to percentages of land to be put to use for residential purposes, roads and civic amenities etc.

Learned Senior Counsel points to paragraph 8 of the statement of objections dated 24-5-2004 of the BDA admitting the fact of there being no sanction accorded to the layout plan while also pointed to the memo dated 10-12-2015 filed by the BDA signed by the Commissioner and Town Planning Member inter alia admitting that the shortfall is 2�% i.e. 42�% instead of 45% towards park, civic amenity, road and on humanitarian ground BDA would approve the layout plan as has been done in earlier cases.

It is lastly submitted that the society has, over twelve years, complied with all the directions issued by the Court, time and again, to reduce the shortfall in the civic amenity area to 2�%, hence necessary directions be issued to the State Government and the BDA.

Sri K. Krishna, learned Counsel for the BDA reiterates the averments set out in the memo dated 10-12-2015 to submit that 2%% deficit in the civic amenity areas could be considered in the like manner as has been done at the instance of the State Government in respect of other House Building Co-operative Societies.

Sri A. Krishna Bhat, learned Counsel for petitioners 6, 8, 10 and 11 to 14 submits that memo dated 9-12-2015 is filed and the same be taken on record and reiterates the averments set out therein. In other words, submits that considering the absence of the sanction to the layout plan by the BDA and in the changed circumstances over a period of twelve years and keeping in mind the welfare and benefits of members of the 4th respondent-Society who are allottees of sites in the layout, the relief in the petition be moulded suitably so as to sanction the layout plan submitted to the BDA by the 4th respondent.

Sri G. Papi Reddy, learned Counsel representing the petitioners 1, 3, 4 and 5, submits that in the changed fact situation of the layout providing civic amenity areas, the shortage being 21/2%, nevertheless, I.A. No. 6 of 2013 is for a direction to the BDA to consider survey of the entire extent of land and submit a report, over land in possession of the society, which if released would further reduce the shortfall. Learned Counsel submits that having noticed, in the report of BBMP, that 32 guntas of land from out of 1 acre 15 guntas is since relinquished, I.A. No. 6 of 2013 does not survive for consideration. As regards the merit of the petition, learned Counsel very fairly submits that the changed circumstances coupled with the fact that shortfall of 21/2% in the area for civic amenities would be considered by the BDA or the Government, nothing further survives for consideration in the petition.

Learned Counsel for the BWSSB submits that he would file an affidavit of the Chairman relating to establishment of Tertiary Treatment Plant of capacity of 10 MLD in the 41 acres of land allotted to it though presently what is commissioned as a secondary treatment plant existing over an area of 10 acres. Affidavit to be filed within a week.

Learned Counsel for the BBMP, submits that an affidavit dated 6-11-2015 is filed enclosing Development Plan/Scheme in relation to properties released and relinquished in its favour by the 4th respondent-society.

Learned Counsel responding to the query, submits that item No. 17 measuring 15785 sq. ft. described in compendium of BBMP dated 6-11-2015, at page 43, is used by the people in the vicinity as a burial ground and that Section 393 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, applies to burials and its management under bye-laws.

Learned Counsel hastens to add if granted a week''s time he would file the affidavit of the Commissioner enclosing copy of the bye-laws over the management of the burial ground.

Government Advocate submits that affidavit of the Principal Secretary, Urban Development would be filed within a week clarifying the power of the State Government to condone the deficit of 2�% of land for civic amenity and other common areas.

Learned Counsel for the Pollution Control Board-respondent 20 maintains that it is for the BWSSB to ensure proper treatment of sewage flowing into the Secondary and Tertiary Treatment Plants by establishing necessary infrastructure of STPs since 41 acres is allotted to BWSSB.

All learned Counsel submit that they have concluded their arguments.

Reserved for judgment."

126. In compliance with the order dated 18-12-2015, BWSSB filed an affidavit on 4-1-2016 stating the feasibility of the construction of a Tertiary Sewer Treatment Plant at Jakkur. The petitioners have filed a detailed synopsis/written submissions on 20-1-2016 in addition to the written submissions filed on 30-12-2011 Annexure-A.

Contempt Petition: CCC No. 87 of 2004:

127. Writ petitioner filed a complaint invoking Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 18-6-2003 in W.P. No. 40994 of 2002 arraigning 19 respondents as contemnors, registered as CCC No. 87 of 2004.

128. Petition was opposed by filing statement of objections of the 6th respondent-Sri C. Shivalingaiah since deceased denying the allegations while specifically asserting that the interim order dated 18-6-2003 was passed ex parte and that though Sri B.L. Acharya, learned Advocate had filed vakalath on behalf of the Karnataka State Judicial House Building Society arraigned as 4th respondent, nevertheless his name was shown in the cause list nor was present when the order was passed on 18-6-2003. It was denied that the site measuring 195 ft. x 200 ft., subject-matter of interim order dated 21-2-2003 in WP No. 40994 of 2002 directing not to change the nature of land termed as a temple site, is in fact not a temple site but comprises of several residential sites in the layout plan sanctioned by the Yelahanka Municipal Council and that all those sites had been transferred much before the interim order was passed. As regards the plan of the layout submitted to the BDA and directed to be produced by order dated 17-6-2003 in the writ petition, it was stated that such a record was not available with the society nor is aware of any plan having been prepared and submitted to the BDA. While the only layout plan prepared was submitted to the Yelahanka Municipal Council. In addition, it was asserted that the BDA had issued an endorsement stating that a layout plan pertaining to the society was not available. The further allegation in the contempt petition that the interim order dated 18-6-2003 directed the society not to transfer any civic amenity sites shown in the map was misleading statement while what was directed was not to transfer the civic amenity sites as shown in the plan submitted to the BDA. The further allegation that the interim order dated 18-6-2003 was made in the presence of the learned Counsel for the society, it is stated, is false.

129. 1st respondent-BDA filed statement of objections inter alia denying the allegation of having violated the interim order as complaint. In addition, it denied that the layout plan annexed to the contempt petition and marked as Annexure-E is not the plan submitted by the society to the BDA for approval. So also, the endorsement on Annexure-E that the BDA had accorded approval to the said plan is not true. It is stated that the recording in the aforesaid endorsement of approval by Resolution No. 506 of 1992 of the BDA is false since that resolution related to utilisation of land in Sy. No. 60 of Domlur Village for formation of 100 ft. inner ring road. It was asserted that by Resolution No. 503 of 1992 the BDA had imposed certain conditions for approval of the plan submitted to the BDA. In addition, it is stated that the headnote on Annexure-E plan states that the plans submitted to the BDA for approval are not yet released. At paragraph 6, it is stated that the application dated 6-11-1992 of the Society for approval of layout plan, was accompanied by a layout plan, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-R3(a) and that approval was with held till the fulfilment of the conditions by the society, which was not pursued further.

130. Respondents 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 to the contempt petition jointly filed a reply dated 17-2-2006 inter alia denying the allegations while however admitting that after 18-6-2003, 24 sites were sold from out of which 7 sale deeds were cancelled and the balance of 17 sale deeds, notices were issued to the beneficiaries for cancellation. In addition, it was mentioned that 2 sites bearing Nos. 859/C and 859/D were allotted and conveyed in favour of two Hon''ble Judges on 8-11-2002 and 2-12-2002 respectively carved out of the land measuring 195 ft. x 200 ft. while, site No. 859/B1 measuring 10,000sq.ft. is kept vacant for a temple. It is further stated that the 6th respondent-Shivalingaiah was not informed of the interim order passed in writ petition on 18-7-2003 and respondents 5, 7 and 8 have not executed any sale deeds in violation of the interim order. It is further stated that the party respondents in W.P. No. 40994 of 2002 were the Bangalore Development Authority; State of Karnataka; City Municipal Council and The Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society represented by its Secretary. According to the respondents 5, 6, 7 and 8, were not parties to the writ petition.

131. By memo dated 24-3-2006 of respondents 4 and 6 produced cancellation sale deeds dated 23-2-2006, numbering 16.

132. An affidavit of one Kempathimmaiah-the 6th respondent and Director of the Society as also its Treasurer was filed on 24-3-2006 disclosing that the Secretary of the Society by name S. Suresh Kumar was placed under suspension and that the alleged wilful disobedience, with due deference to the directions issued by the Court, the society would purge itself of the contempt alleged by cancelling the deeds executed post the interim order.

133. By order dated 29-1-2004, respondents 2 and 3 i.e. State of Karnataka, and City Municipal Council, Yelahanka were deleted in CCC No. 87 of 2004. Respondent 6-Sri C. Shivalingaiah was reported dead on 14-8-2014 as recorded in the order sheet dated 10-10-2014. In the order dated 28-4-2007, it is noticed that respondents 2 and 3 were deleted from the array of parties by order dated 29-1-2004 and contempt proceedings against respondents 1, 9 and 19 were dropped by order dated 7-7-2006. Therefore respondents 4 to 8 were directed to be renumbered as respondents-accused 1 to 5.

134. By order dated 28-7-2006, the following charge was framed:

"That you accused 1 to 5 (respondents 4 to 8 in the complaint) being the Registered Co-operative Society and office bearers of the Registered Co-operative Society have sold sites in violation of the order dated 18th June, 2003 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 40994 of 2002 and thereby you have committed contempt of this Court by wilful disobedience of the order dated 18th June, 2003 within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which is punishable under Section 12 of the said Act.

That we hereby direct you to be tried by this Court on the said charge."

135. So also the plea of the accused by name Kempathimmaiah, Treasurer, C.M. Basavarya, C. Shivalingaiah, representing the society and his personal capacity as also that of M. Rudraiah were recorded whence they pleaded not guilt.

136. B.V. Byra Reddy, complainant 1-a was examined as P.W. 1 and marked documents Exhibits P. 1 to P. 3 and on being further examined on 30-3-2007 marked Exhibits P. 4 to P. 62. In the further examination-in-chief on 13-4-2007, documents-Ex. P. 63 to P. 80(a) were marked. On 8-6-2007, P.W. 1 was cross-examined in part and Ex. R. 1 was marked. One B. Mahendra Town Planner Member of BDA was examined as P.W. 2 on 13-7-2007 and documents were marked as Exs. P. 81, P. 81 -A, P. 82, P. 82-A, P. 83, P. 83-A, P. 84 and P. 85. In the cross-examination on 3-8-2007 documents R-2 to R-6 were marked. One S.D. Venkataravanaiah, the member of the Society was examined as P.W. 3.

137. The Court exercising jurisdiction under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 recorded the statements of accused 2, 3 and 4 on 24-8-2007 while the statement of accused 5 was recorded on 31-8-2007.

138. The State Government having superseded the society appointed an Administrator who took charge and that order when called in question by the society in writ proceedings were quashed.

139. On 9-10-2009, this Court recorded the submission of the learned Government Advocate that on verification from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, that Site Nos. 362/6 to 11 are not allotted and are vacant, unencumbered while the sale deeds of 22 sites executed after the interim order were cancelled and are also unencumbered, by placing on record a memo enclosing the Encumbrance Certificate.

140. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings, examined the evidence both oral and documentary, the following points arise for decision making:

(I) Whether in the facts, circumstances and evidence on record, the petitioner proves that:

(a) layout plan for sanction/approval was prepared by the Society and submitted to the BDA?

(b) the layout plan Annexure-E to the petition is the very same layout plan prepared by the Society and submitted to the BDA?

(c) the BDA in its Resolution No. 503 of 1992, dated 16-11-1992 approved the layout plan submitted by the Society?

(d) the Society altered the use of parks, civic amenity sites and other open spaces as specified in the approved layout plan duly sanctioned by the BDA, as alleged?

(II) Whether the percentages of areas reserved for residential use, civic amenities, parks, open spaces and roads in the layout formed by the Society are in accordance with the ''Old Policy'' of the State Government prior to the year 1992 as claimed by the Society?

(III) If not, what order?

(IV) Whether petitioner proves that the contemnors in CCC No. 87 of 2004 are guilty of wilful disobedience of the interim order dated 18-6-2003 in W.P. No. 40994 of 2002?

141. Point No. I(a):

The State Government acting on the representation of the 4th respondent-Society proposed to acquire large extents of lands comprised in Allalasandra, Chikka Bommasandra and Jakkur Plantation by invoking the LA Act. However, by notification dated 28-2-1999, issued under Section 6(1) of LA Act, 1894, 169 acres 12 guntas as against 170 acres was notified for acquisition for and on behalf of the society. It appears from the records, more appropriately Annexure-R4(G), layout plan that the actual extent of land acquired and possession delivered was 154 acres 11% guntas, although it is claimed that under the possession certificates dated 13-11-1992 and 2-9-1994, a total extent of 156 acres and 26� guntas was acquired and possession delivered. Without taking possession of even a portion of said land, the Society made a representation dated 6-11-1992 Ex. P. 81 to the BDA enclosing a draft layout plan Ex. P. 82 for sanction of the layout over an extent of 193 acres 2� guntas which when considered in the meeting held on 16-11-1992 vide Resolution No. 503 of 1992 Ex. P. 83(a) resolved to approve the private layout to an extent of 156 acres and 26� guntas subject to fulfilment of the conditions as communicated to the Society in its letter dated 28-11-1992. The factual matrix discloses that the BDA in its Resolution No. 503 of 1992 did not accord sanction to the layout plan submitted by the society over an extent of 193 acres 2� guntas nor was a modified plan duly approved and furnished to the Society over an extent of 156 acres 26� guntas, or 154 acres 11� guntas but subjected the approval of 156 acres and 26� guntas to compliance with the conditions imposed. Fact remains that the society did not pursue the matter of obtaining approval and sanction of the layout plan since several tidier Co-operative House Building Societies, similarly situated called in question the conditions imposed by the BDA, by filing writ petitions and further more since the Special Land Acquisition Officer had not issued a No Objection Certificate, one of the conditions imposed by the BDA. That challenge to the said conditions when considered by a Co-ordinate Division Bench in WP No. 11144 of 1993 and connected petitions by common order dated 20-4-2001 quashed the conditions. Although the Society did not challenge the conditions as had been done by the other societies, nevertheless, the effect of the order of the Division Bench was equally applicable to the Society.

142. The factum of BDA having not approved the layout plan as submitted by the Society is admitted in its statement of objections dated 25-2-2004, at paragraph 8 which reads thus:

"It is submitted that the 1st respondent has not sanctioned or approved a layout plan in favour of the 4th respondent as on date since the 4th respondent failed to comply with the conditions laid down by its letter dated 28-11-1992 as on date."

143. In the evidence of P.W. 2-B. Mahendra, the Town Planning Member, BDA in CCC (Civil) No. 87 of 2004, it is elicited in examination-in-chief that Ex. P. 82 is the blueprint of the proposed layout enclosed to the application dated 6-11-1992 Ex. P. 81 (the very same plan copy of which is marked Annexure-R3(a) to the statement of objections of the BDA and exhibited as P. 64(d). That witness further testified that the BDA issued a communication dated 8-12-1993 calling upon the society to comply with the conditions within a period of 15 days for consideration of approval of the layout plan over an extent of 156 acres 26� guntas which was responded to by a reply of the society enclosing the interim order in W.P. No. 1600 of 1994 directing the authorities to hand over possession of 17 acres 18 guntas acquired for formation of the layout, being part of the entire extent 193 acres 2� guntas. P.W. 2 further states thus:

"Thereafter till date the BDA has not sanctioned any layout plan in favour of the 1st accused-Society."

144. In the light of the aforesaid statements, it is obvious that the petitioner is able to establish a fact that the Society prepared the layout plan Ex. P. 82 over an extent of 193 acres 2% guntas comprised in Allalasandra, Chikkabommasandra and Jakkur plantation and submitted the same for approval as enclosed to its application dated 6-11-1992 Ex. P. 81. Hence Point No. 1(a) is answered in the affirmative.

145. Point No. 1(b):

The plan Ex. P. 1, annexed to the petition as Annexure-E, the admissibility of which was directed to be considered at a later stage, when introduced in the evidence of P.W. 1 on 16-3-2007 as a copy of the very same plan Ex. P.82 introduced in the evidence of P.W. 2. Ex. P. 1 is a copy of the draft plan which P.W. 1 claims was exhibited in the 2nd meeting conducted by the Society at the time of formation of the layout, in connection with the development of the layout. Ex. P. 1 has an index stating the total extent of land for development in the 1st stage is 154 acres 16� guntas and the 2nd stage is 37 acres 30� guntas, totally measuring 192 acres 6� guntas. According to P.W.1 a certified copy of Ex. P. 1 though applied for, the BDA did not furnish a copy. In the cross-examination of P.W. 1 it is elicited thus:

"I am not aware whether the original of Ex. P. 1-plan was produced to the BDA. I do not know whether the original of Ex. P. 1 - I plan was replicated, duplicated or triplicated. I do not know'' if a duplicate, replicate or a triplicate of the original of Ex. P. 1-plan was produced to the BDA. I do not know'' which plan was produced to the BDA "It is true that I have not obtained the certified copy of the plan alleged produced by the 4th respondent, either from the BDA or from the office of the society I do not have copy of that plan produced by the society to the BDA."

146. The testimony of P.W. 2 in the cross-examination, a relevant fact is admitted as regards the plan Ex. P. 1 which reads thus:

"It is true Ex. P. 1 shown to me now was not submitted to the Bangalore Development Authority by the society for approval. The witness volunteers that another plan Ex. R. 3(A) bearing the signature of the President of the Society was submitted for approval. The plan Ex. R. 3(A) was enclosed to the letter dated 6-11-1992 addressed by the society to the BDA. The following endorsement 1 "1st stage layout plan approved vide Resolution No. 506 of 1992 of BDA" found in Ex. P. 1 is not found in Ex. R. 3(A) (Ex. P. 64-D) filed by the society to the BDA for approval."

147. The aforesaid interpolation in Ex. P. 1 not found in the original blueprint Ex. P. 82 being the draft of the layout plan submitted by the Society, coupled with the facts noticed supra that the extents of land in Exs. P. 1 and P. 82 are neither similar nor identical, it is manifestly clear that the petitioner is unable to establish the fact that Ex. P. 1 is a copy of the very same Ex. P. 82.

148. In the light of the aforesaid testimony of P.W. 1 and the Xerox copy of the plan marked as Ex. P. 1 subject to objections over its admissibility, not being the very same copy of Ex. P. 82 since the extent of land shown therein is 193 acres 2� guntas as well as the demarcation of the land are neither similar nor identical to Ex. P. 82, cannot but be said to be inadmissible in evidence. In that view of the matter the Point No. 1(b) is answered in the negative.

149. Point No. I(c):

It is indisputable that Ex. P. 82 the layout plan enclosed to the application Ex. P. 81 of the society addressed to the Bangalore Development Authority on 6-11-1992 was for according sanction to the private layout over an extent of 193 acres and 2� guntas comprised in Allalasandra, Chikkabommasandra and Jakkur Plantation specifying the boundaries thereof. It is also an undisputed fact that the BDA having considered the application passed a Resolution No. 503 of 1992, dated 16-11-1992 approving a private layout in several survey numbers in Allalasandra Village, some of them in Chikkkabommasandra Village and others in Jakkur Plantation of Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk to an extent of 156 acres 26� guntas in favour of the Society without issuing an approved layout plan over that extent which was less than the extent of land proposed by the Society to form the layout. That approval, it is undisputed was subjected to certain conditions which were not fulfilled by the society. It is also an undisputed fact that the Special Land Acquisition Officer did not put the society in possession of the entire extent of land proposed for formation of layout as on the date i.e. 6-11-1992 when the application along with layout plan was submitted to the BDA for approval/sanction. The society was unable to secure the No Objection Certificate from the Special Land Acquisition Officer as on the date of filing the application for sanction of the layout plan. Thus the society without taking possession of all the lands from the Special Land Acquisition Officer could not have made the application Ex. P. 81 and enclose a plan Ex. P. 82 for approval. When the plan itself was without necessary particulars over acquisition of title to the lands therein, it cannot be said that there was a valid approval of the said plan by the BDA.

150. Much was made about Section 32 of the BDA Act asserting that Ex. P. 1 was, in fact, the plan that was approved by the BDA and even assuming that such an approval was not granted, nevertheless, in the light of sub-section (8) of Section 32, the said plan was deemed to have been sanctioned. This submission having regard to the facts supra is noticed only to be rejected. The plan Ex. P. 1 was not submitted to the BDA and therefore Resolution No. 503 of 1992 did not apply over sanction of the said plan by the BDA. The entire case of the petitioner is over the ''alleged'' approval by the BDA for the formation of a layout of residential sites in accordance with the layout plan Ex. P. 1 (marked as Annexure-E to the petition). Hence Point No. 1(c) is answered in the negative.

151. Point No. 1(d):

The testimony of P.W. 1 that the site meant for ''temple'' and other civic amenity sites as shown in Ex. P. 1 were put to use for residential purpose, in other words by altering its usage at the instance of the respondent-society is sought to be corroborated by the testimony of P.W. 2 who in cross-examination however admits that in the original blueprint-Ex. P. 82, there is a pencil entry ''temple'' as against the site denoted as CA and that entry was made for the purpose of working when the authorities went for inspection to ascertain the nature and usage of CA sites and further that the entry was made by the Head Draftsman on the basis of statement made by petitioner and accused although P.W. 2 was not present at the time of spot inspection.

152. Regard being had to the testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the material on record, coupled with the finding on Point Nos. 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) the allegations that sites earmarked for CA as well as temple in the plan Ex. P. 1 were diverted to use for residential purpose is unacceptable. Petitioner is unable to establish the said allegations and therefore Point No. 1(d) is answered in the negative.

153. Point Nos. II and III:

In order to answer these issues, it is necessary to refer to relevant materials relating to the exact extent of lands with their boundaries comprised in Allalasandra, Chikkabommasandra and Jakkur Plantation in the matter of making private layout by the society. Ex. P. 82 the plan said to have been submitted by the society on 6-11-1992 is over an extent of 193 acres 2� guntas comprised in the aforesaid three locations. In addition the material discloses certain portions of land comprised within the said area were unacquired land, since, acquired by private negotiation with the owners of the said lands, excluded from the extent of land shown in Ex. P. 82.

154. It is borne out from the order sheet that the society prepared and submitted to Court a comprehensive layout plan comprising of the extents of land both acquired by the State and those purchased by the Society by way of private negotiations and that litigation is pending before the Civil Court in respect of lands purchased under private negotiations, more appropriately in respect of 22 guntas in Sy. No. 12/2C and 22 guntas in Sy. No. 12/4B belonging to decree-holders-respondents 5 to 16, the legal representatives of deceased Marappa. All the parties have agreed that the extent of land for the purpose of determining the percentages of land to be put to use for residential, civic amenities, open spaces, roads, and parks ought to be 156 acres 26� guntas. The order sheet further discloses that during the pendency of the petition, approximately 6.4% i.e., 10 acres and 01 gunta from out of 156 acres 26� guntas is handed over to the BBMP towards parks, open spaces and civic amenities while an extent of 35.41% equivalent to 54 acres 37.6 guntas is utilised for roads some of which is included in the unacquired lands and that storm water drain measures 1 acre and 3.8 guntas equivalent to 0.07% totalling to 42.51% or 67 acres 70.45 guntas. The balance of 57.49% is said to be put to use for residential purposes.

155. In this regard, the 4th respondent-society filed a Memo dated 4-12-2015 enclosing a layout plan furnishing the description of the aforesaid utilisation of various portions of the land including but not confined to the unacquired land also, while highlighting the following particulars:

156. The BBMP has filed its reports disclosing the extents of lands which the society has handed over under several relinquishment deeds duly registered and the action taken by the BBMP to develop the said areas.

157. The BDA in its memo dated 10-12-2015 does not dispute the extent of land i.e., 156 acres 26� guntas from out of which 67 acres 7.45 guntas are reserved for CA and parks, and handing over of possession of 10 acres and 01 gunta to the BBMP towards parks and open spaces submits that in terms of the Master Plan approved on 10-12-1984 under the KTCP Act, the Society could have reserved 50% of land for residential purpose and the remaining towards parks, open spaces, playgrounds, CA and roads. However, it is also stated that under the prevailing Master Plan the area to be reserved for residential purpose is 55% and 45% towards parks, CA etc., and since the Society having formed the layout reserving 57�% towards residential, the excess utilisation is about 2�%.

158. The statement of BDA is in contrast with the claim of the society that prior to the year 1992 the reservations to be provided in a layout plan for sanction is 65% towards residential purpose and the balance of 35% towards civic amenities, parks, open spaces and roads as was permitted by the State Government under its "Old Policy". P.W. 2 the Town Planning Member of the BDA in his examination-in-chief in CCC No. 87 of 2004 testified over the norms prescribed by the State Government during the year 1992 for approval of a private layout were 50% of the area to be reserved for residence; 15% for parks and open spaces; and 35% for roads and civic amenities. Hence, in the absence of relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of the fact asserted by the Society, it is not possible to accept the percentages of reservation claimed by the Society.

159. It is a matter of fact as admitted by the BDA in its Memo dated 10-12-2015, that in the case of MPME HBCS Limited the BDA passed a resolution in Subject No. 140 of 2004, dated 29-5-2004 permitting excess residential area of 13.70% and an extent of 4.10% less than the prescribed minimum extent for parks and open spaces in the Zonal Regulations. So also, it is admitted that in the case of Vishwabharathi HBCS in terms of the order dated 16-11-2010 in W.P. No. 18496 of 2007 and connected petitions, similar such resolution was passed by the BDA favouring the society. The memo further states that the Society having carried out all the civil works by fully developing the layout in question and several residential buildings are constructed, the BDA is prepared to approve the layout having regard to and in the light of the resolution in other societies, as may be directed by this Court.

160. Petitioners 1(f), 1(h), 1(j) to 1(l) being Directors of the petitioner-Association, through their legal Counsel filed a statement dated 9-12-2015 inter alia admitting the fact of the Society having fully developed the layout, the extents put to use for residential, CA, open spaces, parks and roads as also the percentages of lands to be reserved for the aforesaid purposes under the present Zoning Regulations, submit that in the absence of a sanction and approval of a layout plan by the Bangalore Development Authority, in the changed circumstances and keeping in the mind, the welfare of the members of the society the reliefs in the writ petition may be suitably modified so as to permit sanction of plan by the BDA.

161. The synopsis dated 20-1-2016 is filed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-Association inter alia reiterating the allegations set out in the writ petition as well as the contempt petition with a request to allow the writ petition and also to recall the orders dated 18-12-2015 on IA Nos. 6 and 7 and 15-3-2010 in respect of Site Nos. 859C, 859D and 670/H.

162. The Society filed its synopsis on 14-12-2015 while reiterating its averments set out in the statement of objections as well as the correspondence between it and the BDA including the non-approval and sanction of the layout plan as well as the private acquisition of an extent of 25 acres of land from out the said villages in addition to the demand and collection of development charges by the City Municipal Council, Yelahanka from the society coupled with the compliance of orders in the petition from time to time, there being substantial compliance with statutory provisions in the matter of forming the private layout in the acquired lands nothing further would survive for consideration in the petition.

163. Undoubtedly, the society without obtaining prior sanction or approval for formation of a private layout, did so which is contrary to the provisions of the KTCP Act as well as the BDA Act. The development works even according to the witnesses, was carried out by the society without there being a plan released by the BDA according approval and sanction for the private layout. The allottees of the sites in the layout have constructed buildings thereon presumably after obtaining permission/sanction of building plans from the local authority being the Municipal Council. The petition presented in the year 2002 by members of the petitioner-Association, none other than the members of the Society, being allottees of sites in the layout complaining of certain illegalities is in itself at a belated stage of development, though being under the impression that the layout plan was approved by the BDA in its Resolution No. 503 of 1992.

164. In the light of several orders passed in the petition extracted supra, and the layout developed reserving areas noticed above, it would be in the best interest of all concerned i.e., the Society, its members and allottees to ensure that the comprehensive layout plan d-alienating the areas put to use for residential, parks, civic amenities, open spaces and road, is placed before the BDA - the Planning Authority under the BDA Act and as the area in question falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the BDA, for sanction and, approval. Points II and III are answered accordingly.

165. Although a faint assertion was made by the 4th respondent-society that the City Municipal Council, Yelahanka exercising the jurisdiction under the Karnataka Municipalities Act had accorded sanction and permission for formation of the layout in question, that Council arraigned as respondent 3 in the petition filed an additional statement dated 11-3-2005 that the Council when constituted for the villages of Allalasandra and those adjoining were included in its territorial jurisdiction by Gazette notification dated 22-8-1995 and that elections to the office bearers of the Council was held on 7-1-1996 while the elected officer-bearers took charge on 14-2-1996. In addition it is stated that the 4th respondent-Society submitted a layout plan with a request to accept the layout formed and transfer the Khata of the sites in the name of the members in addition to sanction of building licences following which the Council on 22-5-1996 resolved to transfer the Khata and sanction building licences on compliance with the rules and procedure of the Municipality. It is further stated that the in-charge Commissioner was the Chief Officer of the Town Municipal Council on 22-5-1996 who affixed the seal and signature to the layout plan submitted by the society. That on 17-5-2002 the society executed a registered relinquishment deed in respect of roads, drainage, civic amenity sites, parks, schools etc., Annexure-R3(b) and that the plan said to be annexed to the deed was in fact not done so; and that the society is due Rs. 47,04,568/- towards development and supervision charges in respect of the layout.

166. To the statement of objections dated 9-7-2004 of the 3rd respondent-CMC, is enclosed a copy of the resolution dated 22-5-1996, Annexure-R1, which reads thus:

"There were detail discussions on the subject. The circular of Director of Municipal administration dated 17-4-1990, bearing No. D.M.A.: A.D.M.: 89/90 was taken into consideration. The owners, that is the house Building Co-operative Society has carried out the development work in the said layout formation of road putting Tarr to main road and cross roads, drainage, underground drainage, electricity supply are all carried out and same satisfies the conditions of the circular. Subject to payment of 9% layout formation expenditure by the Society, the transfer of Katha Building licence etc., may be granted subject to payment of necessary fees, damages etc."

167. Thus the inevitable conclusion is that the CMC, Yelahanka did not accord sanction or approval to the layout plan for the formation of a private layout except to demand payment of 9% of the layout formation expenditure from the society and permit transfer of Khata, building licence etc., subject to payment of necessary fees, damages etc.

168. For the aforesaid reasons, it is impermissible to accept as a matter of fact the claim of the Society to have obtained sanction and approval of the layout plan from the CMC, Yelahanka.

169. Point No. IV:

The complaint petition is grounded on the allegation of the contemnors having caused wilful disobedience of the order dated 18-6-2003 in W.P. No. 40994 of 2002. According to the complainant none other than the writ petitioner when the writ petition was listed for Preliminary Hearing on 22-1-2003, Emergent Notice was directed and an interim order restraining the respondents in the writ petition from changing the nature of land with regard to the temple side measuring 195 ft. x 200 ft. That on 18-6-2003 the Court directed the 4th respondent-society, therein, to produce the map submitted to the BDA along with a list of civic amenity sites which were transferred within one month and the BDA to place a report within two months thereof, while continuing the interim order with a further direction to the society not to transfer any civic amenity site shown in the map. That on 2-7-2003 the complainant served a copy of the interim order dated 18-6-2003 on the Secretary/Manager of the Society and that the interim order was made in the presence of the Counsel for the Society.

170. The accused are the President, Secretary/Manager and Directors of the Society although only the society was arraigned as respondent 4 in the writ petition represented by its Secretary. It is said that the society filed a memo on 18-7-2003 in compliance with the order dated 18-6-2003. It is the allegation that despite service of notice of the interim order the society deliberately sold residential sites in the open area in wilful disobedience of the interim order. In addition, it is alleged that the society changed the nature of the civic amenity sites by converting them as residential sites and selling and registering the same to different persons after the interim order dated 18-6-2003, as disclosed in the Encumbrance Certificates, Annexure-C series while the list of civic amenity sites as Annexure-D and the layout plan Annexure-E said to have been submitted by the society to the BDA for approval. In addition, it was stated that the society furnished a modified plan approved by the CMC, Yelahanka Annexure-F. Hence, it is contended that all the respondents committed Contempt of Court and being officer-bearers of the society are personally liable.

171. In the statement of objections of the 6th respondent, by name C. Shivalingaiah, who was the President of the Society ever since the year 1999 denied the allegations and contended that the society though engaged Sri B.L. Acharya, learned Counsel, Bangalore to represent the society and had filed vakalath, nevertheless, on 18-6-2003 when the case was listed for orders, the Counsel''s name was not shown, hence he did not represent the case. That the interim order dated 21-2-2003 though directed the respondents not to change the nature of land in respect of site measuring 195 ft. x 200 ft. termed as temple site nevertheless, in the layout plan sanctioned by the CMC, Yelahanka, that area comprised of several residential sites, some of which were transferred before the interim order while others remained as such. As regards production of a copy of the layout plan submitted to the BDA, it was asserted that the said respondent was not aware of the same while the records maintained in the society disclosed one layout plan submitted to the CMC, Yelahanka as also an endorsement issued by the BDA stating that no layout plan is available in its records. The assertion that the order dated 18-6-2003 directing the society not to transfer any civic amenity sites shown in the map is a misleading statement. And further that the Board of Directors of the Society having considered the interim order were of the opinion that it did not prevent the transfer of civic amenity sites reserved in the layout plan submitted to the CMC, Yelahanka. It was admitted that certain residential sites sold were not subject-matter of interim order since not civic amenity sites. The Encumbrance Certificates, it is said, relate to sale of residential sites while the layout plan Annexure-E is not the plan submitted by the society to the BDA for approval.

172. 1st respondent-BDA also filed its statement of objections inter alia denying the allegations stating that they were not parties to any of the transactions of sale. While Annexure-E plan is not a copy of the plan submitted by the society to it for sanction or approval and that no sanction or approval was accorded to any plan by Resolution No. 503 of 1992.

173. The BDA by memo dated 22-2-2005 placed on record a statement of number of sites formed by the society in the area shown as CA sites and park area in the layout plan submitted by the society to the BDA for approval. It was specifically pointed out that in terms of the layout plan the area reserved for the civic amenities is 271248.12 sq. ft. (3.97% of total area) and area reserved for park as 13,99,782.39 sq. ft. (20.51% of the total area). According to the BDA, in terms of the directions contained in the order dated 8-7-2005, it superimposed plan submitted by the society to the BDA for approval with the enlarged plan since submitted to Court on 8-7-2005 found that the society had formed 131 numbers of sites in the area reserved for civic amenities (271248.12 sq. ft.) and 273 numbers of sites in the area reserved for park (1051768.41 sq. ft.) totalling to 404 sites.

174. Respondents 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 filed their objections denying the allegations, while however, admitting the execution of sale deeds in respect of the following 24 sites:

175. The 6th respondent being the President of the Society, it is stated was a party respondent in the writ petition and was not informed of the orders passed in the writ petition while respondents 5, 7 and 8 did not execute any sale deeds as alleged nor were they parties to the writ petition and were not aware of the interim orders. The BDA filed a memo dated 17-2-2006 enclosing a joint inspection report along with the statement of 404 sites and a layout plan.

176. Respondents 4 to 6 filed a memo enclosing copies of 16 cancellation deeds dated 23-2-2006.

177. Charges were framed and plea recorded on 28-7-2006 in respect of the accused who pleaded not guilty. Evidence of three witnesses was recorded and thereafter arguments were made.

178. For a better understanding of the allegations, it is useful to extract the interim order dated 18-6-2003 which runs thus:

"Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that despite the order dated 22-1-2003 the civic amenity sites are being sold by the 4th respondent-Society and in this way it is changing the character. The petitioners are directed to file the details of such sites, which have been sold in violation.

2. Respondents 3 and 4 are served, but not appeared despite service. Learning Standing Counsel for the BDA, and the learned Government Advocate are present, but no counter has been filed.

3. It is necessary to ascertain the facts. Therefore, respondent 4-Society is directed to submit a copy of the map filed to BDA, to this Court and a list of transfer of civic amenity sites, if any, within one month. Respondent 1-BDA, shall also submit its report within two months.

4. The interim order dated 22-1-2003 shall continue and in addition it is also made clear that during the pendency of this petition, the Society shall not transfer any civic amenity sites as shown in plan submitted to BDA, until further orders. In the meanwhile the respondents can file their counter. Put up after two months."

179. In essence what is complained of is wilful disregard to the direction contained in paragraph 4 of the interim order, insofar as it relates to transfer of civic amenity sites as shown in the plan submitted to BDA.

180. In order to sustain the allegations, the indispensable requirements of the complainants are to prove the act of contempt. In other words, complainant would have to prove the following:

(a) Service of notice and knowledge of the interim order dated 18-6-2003 on the respondents-contemnors;

(b) Precise act of contempt;

(c) Date of alleged act of contempt;

(d) Responsibility of the contemnors.

(a) Service of notice and knowledge of the interim order dated 18-6-2003 on the respondents-contemnors:

As regard (a), it is not in dispute that the society when arraigned as 4th respondent in W.P. No. 40994 of 2002 was served with the notice as evident from the postal acknowledgement dated 25-1-2003 pursuant to the order dated 22-1-2003 and Sri B.L. Acharya, learned Counsel filed vakalath for and on behalf of 4th respondent-society on 10-2-2003. These facts are admitted in the statement of objections dated 4-8-2004 of the society.

181. P.W. 1 in the further examination-in-chief on 13-1-2007 introduced in evidence the certified copy of the Register for delivery of copies for the year 2003 Ex. P. 80 and Entry 8047, dated 19-6-2003 recording the name of Suresh Kumar, Secretary of the society having applied for the certified copy of the order dated 18-6-2003 in W.P. No. 40994 of 2002 marked as Ex. P. 80(a). This evidence remains unchallenged. The documentary evidence discloses that Suresh Kumar received the certified copy of the interim order on 24-6-2003. The testimony of P.W. 3 that he personally served a copy of the interim order on Suresh Kumar, the then secretary of the society on 3-7-2003 as an enclosure to a covering letter under an acknowledgment, though the acknowledgement is missing, is not seriously contested nor anything incriminatory elicited in the cross-examination. In fact, in the objection statement of the 6th respondent-contemnor by name Shivalingaiah, it is stated that the interim order was considered by the Board of Directors of the Society who opined that it did not prevent the sale of residential sites. In Ex. P. 61-Memo dated 18-7-2003 filed by the 4th respondent in W.P. No. 40994 of 2002 the heading reads thus:

"Memo filed by the 4th respondent producing documents as directed by this Hon''ble Court order dated 18-6-2003."

182. In the light of the aforesaid evidence both oral and documentary there can be no more doubt that the 4th respondent and its office bearers had not only notice but also knowledge of the interim order dated 18-6-2003. The contention that the office bearers not being parties to the writ petition were unaware of the interim order pales into insignificance and deserves to be rejected.

(b) Precise act of contempt:

The act complained of is that the society represented by its President C. Shivalingaiah sold various sites reserved for civic amenities and parks as shown in the plan of the year 1992 submitted by the society to the BDA. In view of this allegation, the layout plan submitted by the society to the BDA assumes importance.

183. P.W. 2-the Town Planning Director of the BDA testifies to the filing of the application dated 6-11-1992 Ex. P. 81 enclosed with a layout plan Ex. P. 82 by the respondent-society for sanction and approval of the layout plan in respect of development of 193 acres 2� guntas reserving lands for residential, civic amenities, parks, playgrounds etc. This fact is not in dispute although, the complainant asserts that the layout plan Annexure-E marked as Ex. P. 1 in the testimony of P.W. 1 is a copy of Ex. P. 82. For reasons already recorded supra, Ex. P. 1 is not same or similar to Ex. P. 82. Therefore, it can be safely assumed that the layout plan submitted by the society to the BDA for sanction and approval was Ex. P. 82.

184. The fact that 24 sites of various dimensions as extracted supra were allotted and conveyed under several sale deeds executed by C. Shivalingaiah representing the society, on and after the interim order dated 18-6-2003 is not in dispute. These documents of conveyance, including eight such documents at SI. Nos. 2 to 8 in IA dated 4-2-2005 are found in the Encumbrance Certificates-Exs. P. 14 to P. 41.

185. Both P.Ws. 1 and 3 having testified to the aforesaid documents coupled with the statement made by C. Shivalingaiah, there is no more dispute over execution of sale deeds. However, it must be noticed that in the affidavit of Shivalingaiah-Ex. P. 72, filed in W.P. No. 40994 of 2002, it is stated that the said documents have been cancelled, although in the layout plan approved by the CMC, Yelahanka, these sites do not form a part of the civic amenity areas. In other words, the alleged act of contempt stands purged.

(c) Date of alleged act of contempt:

The date of act of contempt as disclosed in the list of documents executed, extracted supra is between August 2003 and December 2003.

(d) Responsibility of the contemnors:

The President of the Society by name Shivalingaiah, since deceased having admitted to the execution of the sale deeds, the defence is that the sites conveyed under the sale deeds do not form a part of the civic amenity area and even otherwise, the documents as well as the allotment of sites are cancelled.

186. It is the assertion of the BDA that it held a joint inspection of the area in the presence of the parties and having superimposed the two plans i.e., Ex. P. 82 and the plan submitted to the Court on 17-2-2006, prepared a report-Ex. P. 75(a) identifying 404 sites formed in the civic amenity area and parks. In the testimony of P.W. 2, there is not a whisper over the so-called superimposition of the maps, while, it is stated that in Ex. P. 82, there is a pencil entry ''temple'' in the site denoted as CA which entry was made by a Head Draftsman at the time of inspection on the basis of the statement of the Complainant and the accused although P.W. 2 was not present at that time.

187. It is noticed supra that Ex. P. 82 encompasses an extent of 193 acres 2� juntas of land while Resolution No. 503 of 1992 is in respect of 156 acres 26� guntas of which a rectified or modified plan is not issued with an endorsement of either a sanction or approval. Therefore, to say that the 404 sites identified in the report-Ex. P. 75(a) falls within the CA site in Ex. P. 82, in the given facts and circumstances is far from acceptance.

188. It is matter of fact that C. Shivalingaiah one of the contemnors is no more.

189. Although learned Senior Counsel for the complainant submits that the decision of the Co-ordinate Division Bench in Subramani M.''s case supports the case of the petitioners, we are afraid the decision is inapplicable since what fell for consideration was over the challenge to the acquisition of the land by the State Government for and on behalf of the Society and whether the acquisition was tainted on account of engaging a middle man under an agreement for the purpose of acquisition and allotment of sites to sitting and retired Judges of this Court and that of the Apex Court.

190. In the circumstances, since there is substantial compliance with the formation of layout reserving areas for residential, parks, open spaces, CA, roads, etc., coupled with sufficient dispute over the exact extent of land and their location as also the reservation in the lands acquired and unacquired, while Society has settled the dispute of the unacquired land before the Civil Court in the suits instituted against respondents 5 to 16, there is a need to issue directions to the BDA and the State Government over the sanction of the layout plan.

191. In the result, though petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs, nevertheless the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

(a) The Society to prepare and submit on or before 30th June, 2016 to the BDA a layout plan over an extent of 154 acres 11� guntas since acquired by the State Government and 28 acres 6� guntas being the unacquired portion, totalling to 182 acres and 18 guntas comprised in Allalasandra, Chikkabommasandra and Jakkur Plantation, as indicated in the plan Annexure-R4(G), for approval and sanction in accordance with the KTCP Act as also the BDA Act;

(b) The layout plan to depict the areas reserved and handed over to the BBMP as civic amenities and open spaces under the relinquishment deeds executed by the Society, and in the event of shortfall in the area so reserved, in accordance with law, the Society shall make available the deficit of the land from out of the said layout or in the alternative, pay penalty determined by BDA as done in the case of Vishwa Bharati House Building Cooperative Society and Mysore Paper Mills Employees'' House Building Co-operative Society;

(c) BDA to consider the layout plan to be submitted by the Society and pass resolution after due inspection and verification of the land and accord sanction, strictly in accordance with law, within four months thereafter;

(d) The State Government to consider the resolution to be passed by the BDA strictly in accordance with the KTCP Act and pass orders thereon within one month from the date of recommendation from the BDA;

(e) Respondents 5 to 16 are at liberty to have their grievance redressed before the competent Civil Court in respect of land measuring 22 guntas each in Sy. Nos. 12/2C and 12/4B, claimed to be subject-matter of judgment and decree dated 9-7-2003 in O.S. No. 4361 of 2000 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore and as also in W.P. No. 3152 of 2002, dated 9-7-2003;

(f) This order shall not be construed as a precedent or one of regularising allotment of sites, if shown to be illegal;

(g) The Society to pursue all legal proceedings pending before the Civil Court, as also before the Authorities of the Co-operative Department in respect of the sites formed in the layout, including the evicting of unauthorised occupants, taking possession of the sites and allot them to members who have lost the allotment due to cancellation on account of reservation of the sites for civic amenities and open spaces or have not been allotted sites, in accordance with their seniority in membership;

(h) The BBMP is directed to ensure the development within 6 months and maintenance of the layout including the areas delineated as parks and open spaces etc. of which they are put in possession by the Society under several relinquishment deeds and in accordance with the promise set out in the compendium filed in 6-11-2015, so as to showcase the layout as a Model Layout;

(i) All the statutory bodies namely the BDA, BBMP, the BWSSB and KSPCB are directed to act, in tandem, in the matter of ensuring proper functioning of the sewage treatment plan at Jakkur established during the year 2004, including its maintenance based on established standards for treating the sewage and to pump the treated water into the water tank adjoining the STP;

(j) The State Government and all its authorities are directed to consider, within six months the establishment of a tertiary treatment plant in the light of the quantity of sewage flowing from the judicial layout and surrounding layouts at Jakkur;

(k) The Society is directed not to allot or alienate any site until the layout plan to be submitted by the Society is approved and duly sanctioned by the BDA and the State Government;

(l) In the light of the a foresaid findings, conclusions and directions, the contempt petition is dismissed.