1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT

DATED THIS THE 25 th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014

BEFORE:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

WRIT PETITION Nos.16858 OF 2004 AND 9942-9949 OF 2014 (LA-RES) CONNECTED WITH WRIT PETITION No.22445 OF 2004 (LA-RES)

IN W.P.Nos.16856/2004 & 9942-9949/2014

BETWEEN:

1. Rajappa, Son of Late Sonnappa, Aged about 55 years, Resident of Vajrahally, Thalaghattapura Post, Bangalore – 560 062.

2i) Seetharam, Son of Late Bachappa, Aged about 38 years, ii) Shekar, son of Late Bachappa, aged about 35 years, iii) Umesh, 2

son of Late Bachappa, aged about 30 years, iv) Ammayamma, wife of Late Era Swamy, aged about 55 years,

all are residing at Vajrahally, Thalaghattapura Post, Bangalore – 560 062.

3 i) Papaiah, Son of Late Munishamappa, Aged about 38years, ii) Marappa, son of Late Kenchappa, aged about 60 years,

both are residing at Vajrahally, Thalaghattapura Post, Bangalore – 560 062.

4. Veerachar, Son of Late Veerabhadrachar, Aged about 75 years, Residing at Vajrahally, Thalaghattapura Post, Bangalore – 560 062, Since deceased by Legal representatives a) Sathyeeramma, wife of Late Veerachar, aged about 70 years, 3

b) Sri. Nagarjappa, aged about 35 years, c) Sri. Prabhakar, aged about 25 years, d) Sri. V. Mohan, aged about 20 years, e) V. Dayananda, aged about 19 years,

all are sons of Veerachar, residing at Vajrahalli, Thalaghattapura Post, Bangalore.

5. Smt. Lakshmamma, Wife of Late G.M. Krishnappa, Aged about 60 years, Residing at Vajrahally, Thalaghattapura Post, Bangalore – 560 062.

6. Bommaiah, Son of Late Sarekkappa, Aged about 58 years, Residing at Vajrahally, Thalaghattapura Post, Bangalore – 560 062.

7i) Nageshappa, Son of Late Chikkaswamy, Aged about 58 years, 4

ii) Chandrashekar, son of Late Chikkaswamy, aged about 47 years,

both are residing at Vajrahally, Thalaghattapura Post, Bangalore – 560 062.

8. Thippakka, Wife of Late Muniyappa, Aged about 53 years, Residing at Vajrahally, Thalaghattapura Post, Bangalore – 560 062.

9. Krishnappa Rettappa, Son of Late Ramaiah, By his son, Sri. K. Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Residing at Vajrahally, Thalaghattapura Post, Bangalore – 560 062.

10. Narayanappa, Son of Late Lolappa, Aged about 48 years, Residing at Vajrahally, Thalaghattapura Post, Bangalore – 560 062.

11. Marappa, Son of Late Byrappa, Aged about 90 years, 5

Residing at Vajrahally, Thalaghattapura Post, Bangalore – 560 062. Since dead by Legal representatives a) Muniyappa, son of Marappa, aged about 63 years, Residing at Vajrahally, Thalaghattapura Post, Bangalore – 560 062.

(amended vide court order Dated 28.11.2005)

12. B.K. Nagaraj, Son of Kempanna, Aged about 45 years, Residing at Vajrahally, Thalaghattapura Post, Bangalore – 560 062.

13 i) Byranna, Son of Late Vajrappa, Aged about 75 years, Since deceased by Legal representatives a) Savithramma, wife of Late Byranna, aged about 68 yeares, b) Seetharam, aged about 35 years, 6

c) Vajrappa, aged about 28 years, d) V. Raja, aged about 28years,

all are sons of Late Byranna, e) Nagaveni, daughter of Byranna, aged about 20 years,

all are residing at Vajrahally, Thalaghattapura Post, Bangalore – 560 062.

13 ii) Ramakka, wife of Late Kempanna, aged about 70 years, iii) Lakshmamma, wife of Akalappa, aged about 32 years, iv) Gowramma, daughter of Late Kempanna, aged about 40 years,

all are residing at Vajrahally, Thalaghattapura Post, Bangalore – 560 062.

7

14. Munithayappa, Son of Late Annayappa, Aged about 55 years, Residing at Vajrahally, Thalaghattapura Post, Bangalore – 560 062.

15. Jayamma, Wife of Late Lakshmaiah, Aged about 60 years, Residing at Vajrahally, Thalaghattapura Post, Bangalore – 560 062.

16. Nagamma, Wife of B.C.Krishnappa, Aged about 55 years, Residing at Vajrahally, Thalaghattapura Post, Bangalore – 560 062.

17 i) Venkatamma, Wife of Late Muniramaswamappa, Aged about 70 years, ii) Parvathamma, wife of Laksmana Murthy, aged about 43 years,

both are residing at Vajrahally, Thalaghattapura Post, Bangalore – 560 062.

18. Muthaiah, 8

Son of Late Lolappa, Aged about 58 years Reisidng at Jaraganahally, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore – 560 062.

19. A. Nanjappa, Son of Late Avalappa, Aged about 55years, Residing at Vajrahally, Thalaghattapura Post, Bangalore – 560 062.

20. Sri. Akkalappa, Son of Late Narasimhappa, Age: 61 years,

21. Muniraju, Son of Late Narasimhappa, Age: 59 years,

22. Smt. Kamalamma, Daughter of Late Narasimhappa, Age: 56 years,

23. Sri. V.N.Narayanaswamy, Son of Late Narasimhappa, Age: 55 years,

24. Sri. Puttaraju V.N., Son of Late Narasimhappa, Age: 53 years,

25. Smt. Chandramma, Daughter of Late Narasimhappa, 9

Age: 51 years,

26. Sri. Lokesh, Son of Late Narasimhappa, Age: 49 years,

27. Sri. Kempanna, Son of Late Narasimhappa, Age: 47 years, Sl. Nos. 20 to 27 are Resident of No.26, Vajarahalli, Thalaghattapura Post, Kanakapura Main Road, Bangalore – 560 062.

…PETITIONERS

(By Shri. M.S. Rajendra Prasad, Senior Advocate for Shri. B.R. Srinivasa Gowda, Advocate for Petitioner Nos. 1 and 6 Shri. R.S. Hegde, Advocate fro Shri. Sanket M. Yenagi, Advocate for Petitioner Nos. 2 to 27)

AND:

1. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary to The Government, Revenue Department, M.S.Buildings, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore – 560 001.

2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Visveshwaraiah Mini Tower, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, 10

Bangalore – 560 001.

3. The Bangalore City Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Represented by its Secretary, Seethapathi Agrahara, Chamarajpet, Bangalore – 560 018.

4. R.L.N. Achar, Son of Late Krishna Achar, Aged about 63 years, Residing at No.17/7, Dattatreya Nagar, 3 rd Stage, Bangalore – 560 085.

5. Sri. B. Sampath Kumar, Age 42 years, Son of K.G.Bettegowda, No.58, 6 th Main, 40 th Cross, Jayanagar 5 th Block, Bangalore – 560 041.

6. Sri. Raj Reddy Kallam, Aged 45 years, Son of Late Lakshama Reddy Kallam, No.2008, TBCCHSL Layout, Raghuvanahalli, Kanakapura Road, Bangalore – 560 062.

7. Sri. Krishnaprasad S.V., Age 37 years, Son of Varadaraju S.K., 11

No.G5, Sharavanthi Regency, 7th Cross, 2 nd Lane, 1 st Stage, Teachers Colony, Bangalore – 560 078.

8. Sri. Santhosh Kumar, Age 36 years, Son of Late Srishyla Murhty, Resident of No.2029, T.B.C.C.H.S. Layout, Raghuvanahalli Gate, Kanakapura Main Road, Bangalore – 560 62.

9. Smt. S. Shri. Vidya, Major, Resident of No.2028, TBCCHS Layout, Raghuvanahalli Gate, Kanakapura Main Road, Bangalore – 560 62.

10. Smt. B.V. Vasantha, Major, Residing at Farm House, Devarayana Swamy Temple Street, Devanahalli – 562 100.

11. Sri. G. Radhakrishnan, Major, Son of S. Ganapathy, No.134, 17 th Main, B.T.M. II stage, Bangalore – 560 076.

12. Smt. Nanditha H.K., 12

Major, Resident of No.14/1, Annayappa Garden, 3rd Cross, Jaraganahalli, Bangalore – 560 062.

13. Sri. Krishnamurthy Rajendra, Major, S/o. Rajendra, No.20, 12 th ‘A’ Cross, Hanumagirinagar, Chikkalasandra Main Road, Bangalore – 560 061.

14. Sri. Rohit Thimmaiah, Major, Resident of No.29, T.B.C.C.H.S. Layout, Raghuvanahalli Gate, Shanimahathma Temple Road, Kanakapura Main Road, Bangalore – 560 62.

15. Smt. M.G. Rama, Age: 58 years, Wife of Gurunath .M, Resident of No.193, Tulasi Shankar Krupa, 5th Main Road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore – 560 018.

16. Sri. Rudreshappa, Age 62 years, Son of Siddamallappa, Resident of No.203, 13

13 th Main, R.B.I. Layout, J.P.Nagar 7 th Phase, Bangalore – 560 078.

17. Sri. S.R. Gurumurthy, Age 34 years, Son of Rudreshappa, Resident of No.203, 13 th Main, R.B.I. Layout, J.P.Nagar 7 th Phase, Bangalore – 560 078.

18. Smt. Neetu H.S. Age: 27 years, Wife of Gurumurthy S.R., Resident of No.203, 13 th Main, R.B.I. Layout, J.P.Nagar 7 th Phase, Bangalore – 560 078.

19. Smt. Rajeshawari .S, Age 38 years, Wife of B. Sampath Kumar, No.58, 6 th Main, 40 th Cross, Jayanagar 5 th Block, Bangalore – 560 041.

20. Smt. A.V. Shubha Shankar, Age 55 years, Wife of A.G. Vidya Shankar, No.125, Skanda, 10 th Main Road, (opp. V.S.G.Temple) Shankar Nagar, , Bangalore – 560 096. 14

21. Dr. Ehrar Habeeb, Major, Daughter of Late Mr. Hussain Peer, No.1788, TBCCHS Layout, Raghuvanahalli, Near Kanakapura Main Road, Bangalore – 560 062.

22. Smt. A.B. Padmavathi, Age: 49 years, Wife of A.G. Balaji Gupta, No.507/2, 1 st Floor, New Diagonal Road, III Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 011.

23. Sri. A.S. Pramod Kumari, Age: 50 years, Wife of A.G. Sudhakar, No.40, 6 th Cross, , Bangalore – 560 027.

24. Smt. B.S. Chandrakala, Age: 53 years, Wife of B.N. Sampath Kumar, No.215, Middle School Road, Visweswara Puram, Bangalore – 560 004.

25. Smt. K.R.Shantha, Major, Wife of D.N.Ramesh, No.491, ‘Sri Chakra’, 15

5th Main II Block, III Stage, III Block, Banashankari III Stage, Bangalore – 560 085.

26. Smt. Krishna Veni, 56 years, Wife of M.V. Srinivas Murthy, No.774, 4 th Main, 1 ‘A’ Block, II Stage, , Bangalore – 560 010.

27. Smt. S.R. Mamatha, Age 32 years, Wife of V.G. Prasannakumar, Resident No.4, 4 th Cross, Ramaiah City, J.P.Nagar 8 th Phase, Bangalore – 560 078.

28. G. Narasimha Murthy, Major, Resident of Chikkathirupathi Post, Malur, Kolar District.

29. Ramesh Dasari, Major, 8-3-988/34/11, SBH Colony 2, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad – 500 073. Site No.609.

16

30. V.D. Keshava Murthy, Son of Late V.M. Devappa Naik, No.14/4, out house, Manjunatha Nilaya, Near Raghavendra Temple, Magadi Road, Bangalore – 560 023.

31. V. Viswanatha Holla, Major, Resident of 17/4, 1st Floor, 5ht Main, BSK 3 rd Phase, Ittamadu, Bangalore – 560 085.

32. Mahesh .M, Major, Resident of 17/4, 1st Floor, 5 th Main, BSK 3 rd Stage, Ittamadu, Bangalore – 560 085.

33. A.R. Manohar, Major, Resident of No.192/50, Shankar mutt Road, Chamarajapet, Bangalore – 5670018.

34. A.R. Pradeep, Major, Resident of Sri Sai Krupa, 14 th Cross, 32 nd Main, 17

J.P.Nagar 1 st Phase, Bangalore – 560 078.

35. Vinod Kumar, Major, Resident of 49/2, 1st Floor 10 th A Main, 1st Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 011.

36. Jayanthi Shivaram, Major, Resident of 49/2, Ground Floor, 10 th A Main, 1st Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 011.

37. Dr.M.R.V. Prasad, Son of Late Raghava Rao, Aged 61 years, No.63, 3 rd Cross, 3rd Block, T.R.Nagar, Bangalore – 560 028. Site No.1290

38. Sri. B.S. Narendra, Son of Late H.A. Subba Rao, Aged about 57 years,

39. S. Raghavendra Rao, Son of Late H.A. Subba Rao, Aged about 54 years,

40. B.S. Bhaskar Rao, 18

Son of Late H.A.Subba Rao, Aged about 48 years,

38 to 40 are residing at No.900/3, 6th Main, K.H.B. Main Road, Kaval Byrasandra, R.T.Nagar Post, Bangalore – 560 032.

41. Smt. K. Indiramma, Aged about 61 years, Wife of Shankara Narayana, Residing at No.252, 7th Cross, 7 th main, RPC Layout, Vijayanagar II Stage, Bangalore – 560 040.

42. Sri. S. Gopal Krishna, Aged about 73 years, Son of Late Srikantaiah, Residing at No.290, Sri. Raghavendra Krupa, Godavari River Road, Pipeline 5 th main, Srinagar, Bangalore – 560 050.

43. Sri. Nagesh G.N., Son of Late Nagaraj Rao .G, Age: 51 years, No.27, 8 th Main, Dattatreya Nagara, Hoskerehalli, BSK 3 rd Stage, Bangalore – 560 085. 19

44. Sri. G.S. Nanjundaiah, Son of G. Subbaiah, Age: 77years, Surabhi, No.49, 3rd Cross, Akshyanagara, Begur Post, Bangalore – 560 068.

45. Smt. Doddammani, Wife of Krishnappa .H, Age: 58 years, No.E-107, Golden Magic, Brigade Gardenia, RBI Layout, J.P.Nagar 7 th Phase, Bangalore – 560 078.

46. Sri. B.Sidde Gowda, Son of Byregowda, Age: 65 years, No.262, 3 rd Main Road, ISRO Layout, Bangalore – 560 078.

47. Smt. Jayanthi Vishnu Prasad, Wife of Vishnu Prasad, Age: 35 years, No.192/20, Shankaramutt Road, Chamarajapet, Bangalore – 560 018.

48. Sri. V.N.Prabhakar Rao, Son of V.N. Narayana Rao, Age: 55 years, No.544, “Shashwatha”, 20

2nd Cross, 26 th Main, BTM Layout, 2 nd Stage, Bangalore – 560 076.

49. Sri. Arvind . N, Son of Late Nagaraj Shetty, Age: 31 years, Resident of Sri. Venkateshwara Nilaya, No.42/14, 2 nd Main Road, Mount Joy Extension, Hanumanth Nagara, Bangalore – 560 019.

50. Smt. H.S.Gayathri, Daughter of Late H.T. Subbarao, Age: 62 years, Resident of Rishika Enclave, Site No.64/65, Flat No.002, Ground Floor, 3 rd Cross, Vittal Nagar, 2 nd Phase, Adjacent to ISRO Layout, Bangalore – 560 078.

51. Sri. Ashok. A, Son of K.N. Basavegowda, Major, No.56, 3 rd Main, 1 st Cross, New Kempegowda Layout, Katriguppa, Banashankari 3 rd Stage, Bangalore – 560 085.

52. Smt. Meenakshi, Wife of Sangamesh Badavadgi, Major, 21

No.2478, 7 th Main, 7th Cross, R.P.C.Layout (Hampinagar), Vijayanagara 2 nd Stage, Bangalore – 560 040.

53. Smt. Vijayalaxmi C.S., Wife of B.Y.Thimmegowda, Major, no.57, 3rd Main, 1 st Cross, New Kempegowda Layout Katriguppe, BSK 3 rd Stage, Bangalore – 560 085.

54. Sri. K.S. Madhusudana, Son of K.V. Sheshagiri, 40 years, Represented by his Spl. Holder K.V. Sheshagiri, Age: 76 years, Son of Venkobarao, No.202, “Venkatagiri”, Kumbar Street, K.R.Puram, Bangalore – 560 036.

55. Sri. Venkatesh, Son of Channaiah, Age: 70 years, No.1101, Sri. Venkateshwaraswamy Nilaya, BCCH Society Layout, Bayyannapalya, Thalaghattapura Post, Kanakapura Main Road, Bangalore – 560 062.

22

56. Sri. K.C. Chidanand, Son of K.B.Chikkabettaiah, Age: 33 years, No.589, 1 st Cross, K.G.Layout, 3rd Block, 3 rd Phase, BSK 3 rd Stage, Bangalore – 560 085.

57. Smt. M. Gangamma, Wife of Govinda, Age: 52 years, Resident of No.31, KPA Block, Chandra Layout, Vijayanagara, Bangalore – 560 040.

58. B.G. Manjunath, Son of B. Gundaiah, Major, Resident of Sompekatte, Hosanagara Taluk, Shimoga District.

59. Ganesh Mane, Son of G.S. Mane, Age 44 years, Resident of C-001, Terrace Garden Apartments, BSK 3 rd Stage, 3rd Phase, Bangalore – 560085.

60. V.N. Jagadishwaran, S/o. V. Narayana Iyer, Age 62 years, 23

No.1718, 31 st Cross, 13 th Main, BSK 2 nd Stage, Bangalore – 560 070.

61. Raghunath.G, Son of H.S. Gopinath Rao, Age : 55 years, No.61, 13 th Main, AGS Layout, Arehalli, Bangalore – 560 061.

62. K.B. Narayana, Son of K.N. Bettaiah, Age: 66years, No.31, 4 th Cross, Kalidasa Layout, Srinagara, Bangalore – 560 050.

63. Srinivasa Prasad K.A., Son of K.V. Anantha Keshava, Age: 46 years, No.730, 17 th Cross, 6th Phase, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore – 560 078.

64. Sri. S.K. Muralidhar, Son of S. Krishnarao, Age 59years, Resident of No.106, 2 H Main Road, 11 th Block, 2 nd Stage, Nagarabhavi Layout, Bangalore – 560 072. 24

65. Sri. C.S.Murali, Son of Late C.S.S.Murthy, Age: 57 years, Resident of No.678-B, “Seetha”, 2 nd Stage, 3rd Phase, 8 th main, .

66. Sri. H.S.Prakash, Son of Late H.V. Suryanarayanarao, Age: 60 years, Resident of No.7, A Street, East of Link Road, Malleshwaram, Bangalore – 560 003.

67. Sri. K. Kemparaju, Son of Kempegowda, Age 42 years, Resident of No.70, Desai Garden, Vallabhanagara, Vasanthapura Main Road, Bangalore – 560 062.

68. Smt. Jayamma, Wife of Kempegowda, Age: 60 years, Resident of No.70, Desai Garden, Vallabhanagara, Vasanthapura Main Road, Bangalore – 560 062.

25

69. Sri. Rizwanulla, Son of Sri. Ismail Khan, Aged 54 years, Resident of No.6, Ilahi Mension, Basavaraj Layout, Jaraganahalli 6 th Phase, Jeevan Bheema Nagar, Bangalore – 560 078.

70. Madhu Shankar Narayan, Wife of Shankara Narayan, Age: 48 years, No.67, Mount Joy Road, 1st Block East, Jayanagara, Bangalore – 560 011.

71. Sri. Rathnagiri Swamynathan, Son of Late R. Srinivasan, Age 62 years, Resident of No.239/3, A Cross, Bull Temple Road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore – 560 018.

72. Smt. Suguna Simha, Wife of K.G.Jayasimha, Aged about 50 years, No.766, Sri Nivas, 18 th Main, 36 th Cross, IV ‘T’ Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 041.

73. Smt. S. Prema, Wife of Anantha Narayan, 26

Aged about 71 years, No.1553, 39 th F Cross, 18 th Main, Jayanagar IV T Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 041.

74. Smt. Aparna Ananth, Wife of C.S. Viswanath, Aged about 44years, No.1553, 39 th F Cross, 18 th Main, Jayanagar IV T Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 041.

75. Sri. T.N.Muralidhar, Son of T. Nagabhushan, Aged about 54 years, No.259, 1 st Cross, Hanumanthnagar, Bangalore – 560 019.

76. Dr. Bhagyanathulu Ravindranath, Son of B.S.Rao, Aged about yeares No.610, 15 th Cross, VI Phase, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore – 560 078.

77. Sri. T.N.Anantharamu, Son of T.R. Nagappa, Aged about 60 years, No.809, 19 th Cross, 16 th Main, BSK II Stage, Bangalore – 560 070.

78. Sri. M.N. Narendra Rao, 27

Son of M.L.Narayana Rao Aged about 54 years, No.88, R.V.Road, , Bangalore – 560 004.

79. Sri. A.C.Arun, Son of A.r.Charudatha, Aged about 52 years, No.40, Pranam C.R.Layout, J.P.Nagar I Phase, Bangalore – 560 078.

80. Smt. Pushpalatha K.R., Wife of S.G. Lakshmi Narayan, Aged about 60 years, No.550, 2 nd Stage, 11 th Cross, Nagpur Main Road, West of Chord Road, Bangalore – 560 086.

81. Sri. Srinivasa .N, Son of Lakshmi Narayanan, Aged about 34 years, No.7, Srinivasa Nilaya, Muniswamappa Garden, Chunchanaghatta Village, Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore – 560 062.

82. Sri. Balaji Prasad T.P., Son of Prasanna Kumar T.G., Aged about 39 years, Plot No.403, 28

Suraksha Residency , 4 th Floor, White Field, Kondapur, Sarelingampalli Mandal, Hyderabad.

83. Smt. Sujatha Chandrashekar, Wife of R. Chandrashekar, Aged about 54 years, No.42, Doctors Colony, 2nd ‘A’ Cross, , Bangalore – 560 062.

84. Sri. J. Shekar, Son of T. Jayaram, Aged about 51 years, No.491, BCCHS Layout, Vajarahalli, Kanakapura Main, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore – 560 062.

85. Sri. H.S.Shivashankar, Son of H. Srikantaiah, Aged about 65 years, No.82/32B, B Main, 4th Cross, Sarakki Main, Arya Nagar, Vysya Bank Colony, J.P.Nagar 1 st Phase, Bangalore – 560 078.

86. Smt. Annapoorna, Wife of H.S. Nagabhushana, Aged about years, 100 feet Ring Road, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore – 560 076. 29

87. Sri. Ravikumar .J, Son of Premchand Jain, Aged about years, No.120, 3 rd Main, 2nd Stage, 1 st Block, Rajmahal Extension, Bangalore – 560 094.

88. Sri. M. Hanumantharayappa, Son of Late Mahimeramgalal, Aged about years, No.2591, 8 th Main, 17 th Cross, BSK II Stage, Bangalore – 560 070.

89. Sri. K.S.Ramanathan, Son of Late R. Srinivasaiah, Aged about 69 years, Flat No.3E, Pavan Pardesi, 63/A, 1 st Cross, Tyagarajanagar, Bangalore – 560 028.

90. Smt. Madhu Mathi, Wife of Raghotham U.R., Aged about years, No.274, Srinivasa Nagar, Bangalore – 560 050.

91. Smt. Bhavani V.L., Wife of Ravikumar, Aged about 38 years, No.41/1A, 3 rd Cross, 3rd Block, Tyagarajanagar, 30

Bangalore – 560 028.

92. Smt. M.B. Roopasri, Daughter of M.R.Balaji, Aged about 33years, No.109, Bhargavi , 4 th Block, 4th Cross, T.R.Nagar, Bangalore – 560 028.

93. Sri. M.B.Sheshachandra, Son of M.R.Balaji, Aged about 43years, No.109, Bhargavi, 4th Block, 4 th Cross, T.R.Nagar, Bangalore – 560 028.

94. Smt. Radha Narayan, Wife of Narayan M.R., Aged about 67 years, No.172/43, (Upstairs), 5th Cross, II Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 011.

95. Smt. Manjula, Wife of R. Sheshagiri Rao, Aged about 76 years, No.183/2, 2 nd Main, Chamarajpet, Bangalore – 560 018.

96. Smt. Nandini Murthy, Wife of Aged about years, 31

No.38, Akshaya, 7 th Main, Saraswathipuram, Mysore.

97. Smt. B.P.Latha, Wife of C.J. Balasubramanya, Aged about 45years, No.56, Gurukrupa, 2 nd Main, 3rd Block, 3 rd Stage, West of Chord Road, Bangalore.

98. Sri. Ramachandra Sharma Kotagal, Son of K.S.Krishna Sharma, Aged about 39 years, c/o.S. Manjunatha, No.12, 5 th Cross, Nagappa Street, Palace Guttahalli, Bangalore – 560 003, Represented by GPA Holder, K.S. Krishna Sharma, Son of K. Srinivasa Shastri.

99. Sri. D. Narasimhaiah Pai, Son of Late Damodara Pai, Aged about years, No.B28, 1053, BDA Quarters, , 2 nd Stage, Neelasandra, Bangalore – 560 047.

100. Sri. Nagaraja Chikkagowda, Son of K.H.Chikka Gowda, Aged about 42 years, No.317, 2 nd Main, 32

4th Stage, BEML Layout, Rajeshwari Nagar, Bangalore – 560 098.

101. Sri. P.N. Koushik, Son of HRS Nagaraju, Aged about 53 years, No.778, 34 ‘A’ Cross, 9th Main, 4 th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 041.

102. Sri. Deepak Nayak, Son of B.H.Nayak, Aged about 33 years, No.2018, Ground Floor, 18 th A Main, J.P.Nagar 2 nd Phase, Bangalore – 560 078.

103. Sri. B.R.Shankar, Son of Ramasheshaiah, Aged about 57years, No.279, 1 st Floor, 100 feet Ring Road, Katriguppa, BSK 1 st Stage, Bangalore – 560 070.

104. Sri. H. Basavesha, Son of M.B.Hosa Goud, Aged about 37 years, No.1198/76, 6 th Main, D Block, AECS Layout, , Bangalore – 560 037. 33

105. Sri. Anil Kumar Murali, Son of T.R.Nagappa, Aged about 35 years, No.53/1, 1 st Main, 9th Cross, V.V.Nagar, Vasanthpur, Bangalore – 560 061.

106. Sri. Dattatri V., Son of Venkateshan, Aged about 58 years, No.2335, 20 th Cross, BSK II Stage, Bangalore – 560 070.

107. Sri. Sathish Kumar Narule, Son of Ashok Rao Narule, Aged about 38 years, No.53/1, 9 th Cross, 1st Main, Vasantha Vallaba Nagar, Bangalore – 560 061.

108. Smt. Asha B.S., Wife of B.A.Sridhar, Aged about 55 years, No.2333, 20 th Cross, 39 th F Cross, BSK II Stage, Bangalore – 560 070.

109. Sri. Abhijith.S, Son of N. Shashidhara, Aged about 28 years, No.70, 11 th Main Road, 1st Block, Jayanagar, 34

Bangalore – 560 041.

110. Smt. B.S. Girija, Wife of N. Shashidhara, Aged about 61 years, No.70, 11 th Main Road, 1st Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 041.

111. Smt. Preethi Vidyananda, Wife of Vidyananda, Aged about 50 yeares, No.1812 (1568), 39 th F Cross, 4th T Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 041.

112. Smt. Girija Shankar (GPA Holder), Wife of Gowrishankar, Aged about 65 years, No.1812 (1568) 39 th F Cross, 4 th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 041.

113. Smt. Sowmya M. Kumar, Wife of K.V.Manjunath Kumar, Aged about 30 years, Resident of No.1923, 5th Cross, 20 th Main, J.P.Nagar II Phase, Bangalore – 560 078.

114. Smt. S. Praba Murthy, Aged 52 years, Wife of J. Srikantamurthy, 35

Doctors Colony, 1st Main, 1 st Cross, Doddakallasandra Post, Konanakunte, Bangalore – 560 062.

115. K.N. Surya Narayana Rao, Aged 62 years, Son of K.S.Nagaraja Rao, Resident of No.49, 6 th Main, BTM Layout, 2 nd Stage, Bangalore – 560 076.

116. J.S.S. Anand, Aged 37 years, Son of Jayaraman C.A., F-3, V.R.Apartment, (Opp to Rapsri Engineering) Uttarahalli Main Road, Bangalore – 560 061.

117. S.G. Sridhar, Son of S. Gopala Krishnan, Aged 42 years, No.290, Sree Raghavendra Krupa, Pipeline Road, ‘L’ Cross, Srinagar, Bangalore – 560 050.

118. Dr. S.N. Sathyanarayana, Son of Late Sontha Neelakantappa & Sharada Shetty, aged about 67 years, No.775, 1 st Floor, 53 rd Main, 25 th Cross, , Bangalore – 560 078. 36

119. Sri. Avinash Adiga, Aged 32 years, Son of Rangayya Adiga, No.18, ‘Nanda Deepa’, Vittal Nagar, Near ISRO Layout, Bangalore – 560 078.

120. S.N.Ramesh, Son of Late S.Nanjundaiah, No.70, 11 th ‘B’ Main, V Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 011.

121. Deepa N Shet, Wife of Nagesh N Shet, Represented by her GPA Holder Sri Nagesh N Shet, no.854/83, 1st Floor, 14 th Cross, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore – 560 086.

122. M.R.Parthasarathy, Aged 71 years, Son of Late Rajagopalan M.N., No.173, 1 st Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 011.

123. M.P.Rajagopal, Aged 52 years, Son of M. Parthasarathy, No.173/43, 5 th cross, 1st Block, Bangalore – 560 011.

124. Ambika Rajagopal Padaki, 37

Wife of P. Rajagopal, No.70/2, 8 th Main, Mathikere Extension, Bangalore – 560 054.

125. Gowri Rajaram, Wife B.K. Rajaram, No.69, 11 th B Main, 5th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 070.

126. B.S. Sathyanarayana, Son of Suryanarayana Rao, No.62, 5 th Cross, Hanumanthanagar, Bangalore – 560 019.

127. Smt. Nagamani, Aged 61 years, Wife of C.N. Govindaraju, No.20, 1 st cross, Brindavan Layout, , Near Gandhi Statue, Bangalore – 560 043.

128. Smt. C.R.Swaroop Kishan, Aged 35 years, Daughter of Sri. C.V.Raghavachari, No.002, Narasi Apartment, No.3, LIC Colony, Yeshwantpur, Bangalore – 560 022.

129. K.B.S. Ramachandra, Represented by his GPA 38

Holder Rama Vishnu Hebbar, 16 th MCR Extension, 18 th Cross, Vijayanagar, Bangalore – 560 040.

130 .Smt. Lakshmi Bhat, Aged 52 years, Wife of Ganapathi Anantha Bhat, No.38/A, (Opp Mother Diary), New Town, Bangalore – 560 041.

131. Smt. P. Geetha P Bhat, Aged 55 years, Wife of Prabhakar N Bhat, No.1859, 11 th ‘A’ main, 4th T Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 041.

132. Sri. Ramachandra K.B.S., Son of S.G.Bhat, No.166, MCR Extension, 18 th Cross, Vijayanagar, Bangalore – 560 040.

133. Sri. Jayashree Bhat, Aged 52 years, Wife of K.S.Bhatt, no.166, Srigiri, MCR Extension, P.O.Road, Vijayanagar, Bangalore.

134. R.Rajani, Wife of Sri. G. Raghu, No.1278, 27 th Main, 39

8th Cross, 1 st Phase, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore – 560 070.

135. S. Chandrashekar, Aged 65 years, Son of S. Shivashastry, No.564, 20 th Main, 36 th Cross, 4 th T Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 041.

136. Sri. S. Srikanta, Aged 61 years, Son of Late Shivashastri, No.766, Srinivas, 18 th Main, 36 th Cross, 4th T Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 041.

137. Sri. N.S.Girish, Aged 35 years, Son of Shankara Narayan, Represented by his GPA holder Sri. Shankar Narayan, No.3506/A, 6th Cross, Gayathrinagar, Subramanyapuram Post, Bangalore – 560 021.

138. Sri. H.R. Subramanya, Aged 41 years, Son of Late H.S.Rachandraiah, No.38, 2 nd A Cross, 1 st Main, Doctors Colony, 40

Konanakunte, Bangalore – 560 062.

139. Sri. P.V.Raghavendrachar, Aged 76 years, Son of Late P.R.Venkataramana, No.8, 14 th Cross, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore – 560 086.

140. Sri. V. Ravi, aged 50 years, C/o. M.C. Vasudeva Rao, No.19, Vallabhanagar, Vasanthpur, Bangalore – 560 061.

141. Smt. H.V.Padma, Wife of Late H.V.Venkateshaiah, Aged 76 years, No.42/3, East Anjaneya Temple Street, Basavanagudi, Bangalore – 560 004.

142. Smt. M.Susheela, Wife of Sri. K.V.Naresh, Aged 57 years, “Sri Saiganga”, No.896/1, Out House, 1st Floor, 19 th Main, BSK 2nd Stage, Bangalore.

143. Sri. Laxmaiah, Son of Bavanna, Aged 59 years, No.17/1, Kempanna Cross, 41

Banashankari Temple Road, Mavalli, Bangalore – 560 004.

144. Smt. Divya .C, Wife of Deepak Rudraiah, Aged 31 years, No.3944 B, 17 th D Cross, 4 th Main, BSK 2 nd Stage, Bangalore – 560 070.

145. Sri. Hanumantha Rao, Son of Manikrao, Aged 54 years, No.138, 4 th Main, 9th Cross, Chamarajpet, Bangalore – 560018.

146. Smt. A.N. Suvarna Mukhi, Wife of Venkatanarayana Rao, Aged 61 years, No.62/1, 6th Cross, 5 th Main, 3rd Block, T.R.Nagar, Bangalore – 560 028.

147. Smt. Uma .S, Daughter of Late Shankaram .M, Aged about 54 years, Residing at No.239/3/1, B.T.Road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore – 560 018.

148. Smt. Geetha Bai H.S., 42

Wife of Madhuranath, Aged 32 years, Resident of No.228/2, 5th Main, Kempegowdanagar, Bangalore – 560 019.

149. Smt. Premakumari B.S., Wife of Srikanta Sharma, Aged 64 years, Resident of No.785, 20 th Main, 36 th A Cross, 4th T Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 041.

150. Smt. Kalpana J Rao, Wife of Jagadish Rao, Aged 47 years, No.416, 5 th Cross, 4 th Main, J.P.Nagar 3 rd Phase, Bangalore – 560 056, Represented by her GPA holder Sri Akshay J Rao, Sonof Jagadish Rao C.S., Aged 18 years, Resident of No.B 1402, Mangolia Block, Brigade Millennium, J.P.Nagar 7 th Phase, Bangalore – 560 058.

151. Sri. Lakshmikanth Kulkarni, Son of Manik Rao, Aged 64 years, No.77, 8 th Block, Nagarabhavi 2 nd Stage, Bangalore – 560 072.

43

152. Smt. Hema Ravi, Wife of Sri. D.K.Ravi, Aged about 53 years, Resident No.110, Padma Nilaya, 16 th Cross, 8 th Main, J.P.Nagar 4 th Phase, Bangalore – 560 078.

153. Smt. V. Padma Rekha, Wife of Sri. K.V. Rajeevalochana, Aged about 53years, Resident of No.1135, Srinivasa Nilaya, 11 th Main, RPC Layout, Vijayanagar, Bangalore – 560040.

154. Sri. Kiran Kumar .B, Son of Sri. C.S. Balamukunda, Aged about 39 years, Currently resident of No.44, Sama Building, A1 Khuwair, Muscat, Sultante of Oman, Represented by his duly Constituted attorney Sri. B.S. Venkatanarasaiah.

155. Sri. K.S.Ashwathnarayana Rao, Son of Late Sri. Surappa, Aged about 69 years, Resident of No.108/B, ‘Yashas’, 7 th A Main, 3rd Cross, T.R.Nagar, Bangalore – 560 028. 44

156. Ms. Vasantha B.V., Daughter of B.V. Varadachar, Resident of Maralubagilu Farm House, II Division, Devanahalli Town, Bangalore Rural District.

157. Ms. S. Jyothi, Daughter of Sri. Srinivas, Aged about 36 years, Resident of No.681, 9 th main, 10 th Cross, Vijayanagar 1 st Stage, Mysore – 570 017.

158. Smt. Indira Shivaram, Wife of Sri. Shivaram, Aged about 43 years, Resident of No.681, 9 th main, 10 th Cross, Vijayanagar 1 st Stage, Mysore – 570 017.

159. Sri. V.N. Kiran, Son of Vasnathalakshmi, Aged about 40 years, Resident of No.1583/A, 26 th Cross, 30 th Main, BSK II Stage, Bangalore – 560 070.

160. K.S. Kavya Shree, Wife of Sri. Dharshan Rangegowda, Aged about 30 years, Resident of No.451, Inchara, 11 th Main, 6th Cross, Canara Bank Layout, Post, 45

Bangalore – 560 097, Represented by her duly Constituted attorney Sri. K.K. Shivalingaiah.

161. Sri. Girish .S, Son of C. Shivashankar, Aged about 38 years, Resident of No.33, 3rd Main, Hanumanthanagar, Opp. Vijaya Bank, Bangalore.

162. Dr. Prashanth Ramakrishna Keshav, Son of Sri. Dr. P.K.Ramakrishna Rao, Aged about 42 years, Resident of No.4985, Chestnut Hill, Mansion Drive, Ohio, 45040, USA, Represented by his duly Constituted attorney Dr. P.K. Ramakrishna Rao.

163. Smt. Shubha Sheshadri, Wife of Ravi .R, Resident of No.19, 1 st A Cross, SBM Colony, Bangalore – 560050.

164. Sri. S.Venkatesh, Son of A.V.Sesha Iyengar, Age 56 yeaers, Resident of NO.7075, Bennington Woods Drive, Pittsburg, USA, 15237, 46

Represented by his GPA holder Smt. Shyamala, Age 62 years, Wife of K.S.Anantharaj, Resident of No.192/19, Shankarmutt Road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore – 560 018.

165. Sri. Prasanna L.C., Age 44 years, Son of HSL Murthy, No.32, “Sri Keshava”, 3rd Cross, 1 st main, Samruddhi Layout, Subramanyapura Post, Bangalore – 560 061.

166. Smt. Amudha S., Age 42 years, Wife of R. Thyagarajan, No.778, 25 th Cross, 53 rd Main, Kumaraswmay Layout 1 st Stage, Bangalore – 560 078.

167. Dr. B.N. Somashekar, Age 58 years, Son of N. Narasimha Rao, No.14/1, Obalappa Street, Chikkamavalli, Bangalore – 560 004.

168. Sri. B.N. Mohan Kumar, Age 56 years, 47

Son of N. Narasimha Rao, No.11/2, Old Kasi Cross Road, (Minerva Circle), Doddamavalli, Bangalore – 560 004.

169. Smt. Geetha, Age 50 years, Wife of B.N. Mohan Kumar, No.11/2, Old Kasi Cross Road, (Minerva Circle), Doddamavalli, Bangalore – 560 004.

170. Sri. M. Mahadevaiah, Age 46 years, Son of K. Muniyyappa , No.4, 4 th Main, 12 th Cross, Hanumagiri Nagar, Padmanabha Nagar, Bangalore – 560 026.

171. Sri. B. Santhappa, Age 52 years, Son of Late Subbaraya Gowda, No.W-4, WMS Compound, 47 th Cross, 9 th Main Road, 5th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 041.

172. Sri. Prashanth Bhat, Age 33years, Son of B.G.Bhat, No.005, “Sai Charitha Apartments”, Nandanavanam Layout, 48

Vidyaranyapura Post, Bangalore – 560 007.

173. Sri. Bhakthavatsala, Age 42 years, Son of Sri. Narayana, G-4, Nanda Residence, 1st Mani Road, Prashanth Nagar Extension, Bangalore – 560 078.

174. Smt. Geetha Pai .M, Wife of Sri. Suresh Pai .V, Age 58 years, No.58, Old No.68, “Maha Maya”, 6 th Main, 2nd Cross, 4 th Block, Thyagarajnagar, Bangalore – 560 028.

175. Sri. B. Rabindra Bhat, Son of Late Mukundaraya Bhat, Age 71 years, No.37, Kathyayani, 15 th Main, 17 th Cross, , Bangalore – 560 070.

176. Ramachandra Shanbhog, Son of Late Seshagiri Shanbog, Age 56 years, No.190, 2nd Block, Sriram Road, , Bangalore – 560 028.

177. K.M.Boppaiah, 49

Aged about 53 years, Son of Late K.J.Medappa, Resident of No.120, Balachandra Layout, II Cross, , Kalyana Nagar, Bangalore – 560 043.

178. Sri. K.G. Vallabha Ramu, Aged about 57years, Son of Late K. Gundu Rao, Resident of No.576, 1st Main, Nagendra Block, BSK 1 st Stage, Bangalore – 560 050.

179. Sri. K. Umesh Babu, Aged about 43 years, Son of Late K.V.Krishnappa, Resident of No.4195, 1st Main Road, Subramanyanagar, Bangalore – 560 021.

180 Sri. K.Srinivasa Acharya, Aged about 67 years, Son of Late Venkataramana Acharya, Resident of No.305, 7th Main, 10 th Cross, ISRO Layout, Bangalore – 560 078.

181. Smt. Prabhavathi, Aged 54 years, Daughter of Ramachandraiah, Resident of No.637, 6 th Cross, Hanumanthanagar, 50

Bangalore – 560 019.

182. Sri. C.S. Nagarajan, Aged about 62 years, Son of C.S. Sreekantaiah, Resident of No.252, 17 th Main, II Cross, II Block, BSK I Stage, Bangalore – 560 050.

183. Smt. Bhavani, Aged about 46 years, D/o C.S.Shivaramaiah, D/o Roop Kumar, Resident of No.94-I, 8th Cross Road, Rajamahal Vilas Extension, Bangalore – 560 080.

184. Sri. M.V.Sreenivasa, Aged about 68 years, Son of Vijendra Rao, Resident No.1/B, 6th Cross, LIC Colony (JPH), III Block East, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 011.

185. Smt. B.R. Manjulamba, Aged about 32years, Daughter of Ramachandraiah, Resident of No.9 ST Street, Maruthi Nagar, New Extension, Bangalore – 560 068.

51

186. Smt. G.K. Sowbhagya, Aged about 54 years, Daughter of Late G.N.Krishna Murthy, Resident of No.523, 53 rd Cross, 3rd Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore – 560 010.

187. Sri. N.L.Ravichandra, Aged about 58 years, Son of Late N.P.Lakshminathan, Resident of No.2974, 13 th Main, Mariyappanapalya, II Stage, Rajajinagar, Bangalore – 560 021.

188. Smt. B.R. Hamsaveni, Aged about 50 years, Wife of K.G. Vallabha Ramu, Resident of No.576, 1 st Floor, Nagendra Block, Banashankari I Stage, Bangalore – 560 050.

189. Smt. Kusuma Ramesh, Aged about 50years, Wife of Sri. U.K.Ramesh, Resident of No.25, 11 th Main, 18 th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore – 560 055.

190. Sri. T.S. Jayaraman, Aged about 74 years, Son of Late T.N.Srinivas Murthy, Resident of No.97-a, First Floor, KGE Layout, 52

New BEL Road, Devasandra, Bangalore – 560 094.

191. Sri. V. Subbaraya Holla, Aged about 76 years, Son of Late Krishna Holla, Resident of No.309, Pramoda, 3rd Cross, 6 th Main, N.R.Colony, Bangalore – 560 019.

192. Smt. T.D. Bharathi, Aged about 58 years, Wife of T.R.Dwarakanath, Resident of No.34, Surveyor Street, Basavanagudi, Bangalore – 560 004.

193. Smt. Uma, Aged about 38years, Resident of No.1178, 7th Main Road, RPC Layout, Vijayanagar II Stage, Bangalore – 560 040.

194. Sri. Ramachandraiah .M, Son of Sri. Ramalingaiah, Aged about 62years, Resident of No.25, Doddamavalli, Susheela Road, Anjaneya Temple Street, Bangalore – 560 004.

195. Sri. B.S. Prashanth, Aged about 36 years, 53

Son of D.R. Anantha Murthy, Resident of No.43, 31 st Main Road, ITI Layout, J.P.Nagar, 1 st Phase, Bangalore – 560 078, By his GPA holder Sri. D.R.Ananthamurthy.

196. Sri. A.N. Anantha Murthy, Aged about 57 years, Son of Pandith A.N.Nagappa, Resident of No.1960, Kamala, Sri Shani Mahathma Temple Street, BCCHS Layout, Raghuvanahalli, Kanakapura Road, Bangalore – 560 062.

197. Sri. N.M. Srikanta, Aged about 60 years, Son of M. Mylaraiah, Resident of No.1967, “Varnita”, BCCHS Layout, Raghuvanahalli, Kanakapura Road, Bangalore – 560 062.

198. Sri. N. Anantha Padmanabha, Aged about 60 years, Son of Late S. Narayana Rao, Resident of No.1762, “Gurukrupa”, Opp Ramaiah Garden, BCCHS Layout, Vajarahalil, Kanakapura Main Road, Bangalore – 560 062.

54

199. Sri. H.S. Chandrashekar, Aged about 59 years, Son of Late H.N. Srinivasa Rao, Resident of No.252, BCCHS Layout, Vajarahalli, Talaghattapura Post, Kanakapura Road, Bangalore – 560 062.

200. Sri. Malathesha Nadiger, Aged about 65 years, Son of Late Subba Bhatt Pujar, Resident of No.261, BCCHS Layout, Vajarahalli, Kanakapura Road, Bangalore – 560 062.

201. Sri. Padmanabha Shimanthur Rao, Aged about 69years, Son of Late S. Dasappayya, Resident of No.1303, BCCHS Layout, Vajarahalli, off: Kanakapura Road, Talaghattapura Post, Bangalore – 560 062.

202. Smt. Dr. Revathi Rangaraj, Aged about 59 years, Wife of Dr. C.S.Rangaraj, Resident of No.241, BCCHS Layout, Vajarahalli, Kanakapura Road, Bangalore – 560 062.

203. Sri. Hasmukhlal, Aged about 38years, 55

Son of M. Chainraj, Residing at No.6/1, Ratna Vilas Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore – 560 004.

204. Sri. C.Arun Kumar, Aged about 49 yearse, Son of m. Chainraj, Residing at No.6/1, Ratna Vilas Road, Basavanagudi , Bangalore – 560 027.

205. Smt. Manju, Aged about 44years, Wife of Gajendra Singh, Residing at No.18, Lakshmi Road, Shantinagar, Bangalore – 560 027.

206. Sri. M. Mohanlal, Aged about 63 years, Son of Late M. Maniklal, Residing at No.6/4, Ratna Vilas Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore – 560 004.

207. Sri. Surendra Kumar, Aged about 46 years, Son of M. Kushalraj, C/o. M.K.Electric Co., V.S.Lane, , Bangalore – 560 053. 56

208. Sri. K. Mahendra Kumar, Aged about 48 years, Son of M. Kushalraj, C/o. M.K.Electric Co., V.S.Lane, Chickpet, Bangalore – 560 053.

209. Smt. Pushpadevi Parakh, Aged about 64 years, Wife of Late Tarachan Parakh, Residing at No.214, 1 st Main, “G”Cross, Sharada Colony, Near Monkey Park, , Bangalore – 560 079.

210. Sri. Sathish Krishna Murthy, Son of Late C.S.Krishna Murthy, Aged about 41 years, Residing at No.123, 5 th Main, 5th Cross, Padmanabhanagar, Bangalore – 560 070.

211. Sri. T.R.Shoba, Wife of S.R.Sham, Aged about 56 years, Residing at No.17, 3rd Cross, 6 th C Main, Tata Silk Farm, Bangalore – 560 028.

212. Smt. Meena S Singh, Wife of Dr. B.K.Sadashiva Singh, Aged about 51years, 57

Residing at No.759, Sri. Jayalakshmi Nivas, 100 feet Road, HAL 2 nd Stage, , Bangalore – 560 038.

213. Sri. Somashekar A.V., Son of Late A. Venkataramaiah, Aged about 57 years, No.145/C, I (N) Block, 5th Cross, Rajajinagar, Bangalore – 560 010.

214. Smt. Sharada Shankar, Wife of Sri. Shankar, Aged about 53 years, No.9, ‘Belaku’, 4th Cross, 1 st Main, Gauravanagar, J.P.Nagar, 7th Phase, Bangalore – 560 078.

215. Smt. B.Shimsha, Wife of Y.S. Naveen, Aged about 35 years, Residing at No.690/S, 12 th Cross, 15 th Main, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore – 560 078.

216. Sri. Shashank, Son of Sri. Brahmasuraiah, Aged about 33 years, No.4203, Anriaya Atrieus Apartments, H.B.R. Layout, 5 th Block, Bangalore – 560 043. …RESPONDENTS 58

(By Shri. Ananth .H, Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Shri. Madhusudhana R Naik, Senior Advocate for Shri. K. Shashi Kiran Shetty, Advocate for Respondent No.3 Shri. S. Sreevatsa, Advocate for Respondent No.4 Shri. K. Sreedhar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 to 37, Shri. K. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 38 to 40 Shri. B.A. Ramakrishna, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 41, 42, 177 to 209, Shri. Ratnagiri Swamynathan, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 43 to 70, 141 to 151, 163, 164, 210 and 211 Shri. H.S. Prakash, Advocate for Respondent No.71 Shri. R. Chandrashekar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 72 to 112, 114 to 140 Shri. Ashwin Kumar M.S., Advocate for Respondent No.113 Shri. Bharath .S, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 152 to 162 Shri. K.L. Ashok, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 165 to 173 Shri. B. Phalakshaiah, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 174 to 176)

***** These Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, praying to declare that the acquisition of lands of the petitioners by Annexure-B vide final notification dated 25.9.1989, the particulars of which are in the schedule to the writ petition, are void and illegal and direct the respondents forthwith to restore to the petitioners’ possession of the lands in the schedule to the writ petition. 59

IN W.P.No.22445/2004

BETWEEN:

Chikkaveerappa, Son of Channappa, Aged about 94 years, Thalaghattapura Post, J.P.Nagar 9 th Phase, Bangalore – 560 062. …PETITIONER

(By Shri. R. Chandrashekar, Advocate )

AND:

1. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary to The Government, Revenue Department, M.S.Buildings, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore – 560 001.

2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Visveshwaraiah Mini Tower, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore – 560 001.

3. The Bangalore City Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Represented by its Secretary, Seethapathi Agrahara, Chamarajapet, Bangalore – 560 018.

60

4. The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore.

5. Sri. K.R. Kiran, Son of Sri. Ramakrishnappa, Aged about 36 years, Residing at Near Government School, Vajrahalli, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore – 560 062.

(Amended vide court order Dated 22.09.2010)

6. Sri. Satish Krishnamurthy, Son of Late C.S. Krishnamurthy, Aged about 41 years, Residing at No.123, 5th Main, 5 th Cross, Padmanabhanagar, Bangalore – 560 070.

(Amended vide court order Dated 25.3.2013) ….RESPONDENTS

(By Shri. Anantha .H, Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Shri. K. Shashi Kiran Shetty, Advocate for Respondent No.3 Shri. K. Krishna, Advocate for Respondent No.4 Shri. K. Sreedhar, Advocate for respondent No.5 M/s. Just law , for Respondent No.6)

61

This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary notification dated 23.8.1988 issued under Section 4(1) and published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 1.9.1988 as per Annexure-A and notification issued under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act bear dated 25.9.1989 published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 1.9.1988 as per Annexure-B and direct the respondents to maintain status quo and not to alter the nature and position of schedule property.

These petitions, having been heard and reserved on 08/01/2014 and coming on for Pronouncement of Orders this day, the Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

These petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order as the same are filed on the same grounds under the same set of circumstances.

2. The petitioners in the first of these petitions claim that they are owners of individual parcels of lands and some claim to be joint owners of certain items of lands of Vajrahalli, Bangalore

South Taluk. 62

It is stated that by a notification dated 23.8.1988, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘LA Act’, for brevity), the lands owned by the petitioners were notified for acquisition for the purpose of providing house sites for the members of the Bangalore City Co- operative Housing Society Ltd., the third respondent, herein. It is claimed that the objections filed by the petitioners was overruled and a Declaration under Section 6(1) of the LA Act came to be made on 25.9.1989. The same was said to have been followed by an Award, dated 23.6.1990. It is alleged that the petitioners were never paid the compensation amount and that the same has also not shown to have been deposited with the Treasury. It is also claimed that the possession of the lands of each of the petitioners, has been retained by them and that it is falsely claimed to have been taken by the respondent Society, through an agent.

It is stated that some of the land owners had challenged the acquisition proceedings before this court. Two such writ petitions were in WP 10406/1991 and WP 16419/1992. The 63

petition in WP 16419/1992 was said to have been dismissed on the ground of delay. The petitioner therein having challenged the said order in appeal, in WA 9913/1996, the Division Bench is said to have allowed the appeal, inter-alia, on the ground that the acquisition of the lands could not be said to have been made for a public purpose as the mandatory requirement of Section 3(f)(vi) of the LA Act had not been complied with, by judgment dated

16.3.1998. In the result the entire acquisition proceedings having been quashed, the same was said to have enured to the benefit of the petitioners, in respect of their lands as well. However, the third respondent - Society having sought a review of the judgment, it was said to have been clarified that the judgment was restricted to the case of the appellants in those appeals, by an order dated 9.7.1999.

It is stated that the third respondent - Society had challenged the judgment passed in the appeal in WA 9913/1996, before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal no.7452-7426 /2002. 64

The other petition, in WP 10406/1991, referred to herein above was said to have been allowed by a learned single judge on the preliminary ground that a Division Bench of this court had held that the Karnataka Land Acquisition (Mysore Extension and

Amendment) Act, 1961, stood impliedly repealed by the amendment of the Central Act, vide Act 68 of 1984. The same having been challenged in appeal in WA 4246/1998 by the

Society, during the pendency of the appeal it was declared by a

Full Bench of this court that the law laid down by a Division

Bench , which had been followed by the single judge in the above petition, was not good law, following the dictum of the Supreme

Court in Kanaka Gruha Nirman Samathi v. Narayanamma , AIR

2002 SCW 4305 . In that view of the matter, the Division Bench which was seized of the matter in WA 4246/1998, was requested to address the matter on merits instead of remanding the matter to the learned single judge. The matter having been heard on merits the acquisition proceedings were quashed by a judgment dated 65

6.2.2004. It was held that the entire process of acquisition was vitiated by fraud and colourable exercise of power.

It is the case of the petitioners that the cause of action to invoke the jurisdiction of this court arose on 6.2.2004 when this court declared that the acquisition pursuant to the impugned notifications are vitiated by fraud and abuse of power. And that the final declaration dated 25.9.1989 could not be held against the petitioners for the reason that vitiating factors were judicially recognized and disapproved in the judgment in WA 4246/1998 rendered on 6.2.2004.

It is urged that the Supreme Court of India in the case of

Bangalore City Co-operative House Building Society v. State of

Karnataka & others, (2012) 3 SCC 727 (hereinafter referred to as the

“BCC Case” for brevity), has declared that the entire acquisition proceedings that are the subject matter of these petitions, are void and illegal and hence, the petitioners are entitled to restoration of possession of their lands. And that this court should apply the ratio of that judgment and grant the consequential relief. 66

3. In WP 22445/2004, the petitioner claims to be the owner of land bearing Survey no.17/1, 19/1 and 20 measuring 19 acres and 33 guntas of Raghuvanahalli, Bangalore South Taluk. It is stated that the petitioner had preferred a Special Leave Petition

(SLP), aggrieved by the Order passed in the review petition filed by the respondent - Society, in CP 366/1998, whereby it was clarified that the judgment rendered in WA 9913/1996 was restricted to the appellants therein. The said SLP filed by the petitioner was said to have been rejected. However, the petitioner having been permitted to approach this court for redressal of his grievance , the present petition is filed.

The very same contentions as urged in the first of these petitions are canvassed on behalf of the petitioner.

The first of these writ petitions was dismissed by a learned single judge on 13.4.2004, on the ground of delay and laches.

However, in an appeal filed against the said order, a Division

Bench had, by its judgment dated 14.10.2004, set aside the order 67

and remanded the matter with a direction that the explanation offered by the petitioners as regards the delay be considered and an order be passed on merits. Now in view of the judgment in

BCC Case, it is canvassed that the entire acquisition proceedings having been quashed, the need for any further adjudication is redundant and that the petitioners are routinely entitled to the benefit of the judgment and hence the petitions are only to be formally allowed in terms of the said judgment and that the petitioners are to be put back in possession of their lands.

4. It is hence necessary to firstly take stock of the content of the BCC case , in addressing the case of the petitioners as well as the respondents. The appeals before the Apex court involved two sets of judgments and orders passed by the Division Benches of this court in (i) WA 9913/1996 (Geeta Devi Shah v. State ) and

Civil Petition 366/1998 ( Bangalore City Co-op. Housing Society

Ltd. v. Geeta Devi Shah) (Civil Appeals 7425 -26/2002) and 68

(ii)WA 4246/1998 (Bangalore City Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. v.

State ( P. Ramaiah) ) and WA 6039/1998 (State v. P.Ramaiah and others (Civil Appeals 774- 78 / 2005).

The following facts were taken note of, apart from other circumstances in the said appeals.

The notification for acquisition of lands, issued under

Section 4(1) of the LA Act, dated 23.8.1988, was for the acquisition of 201 acres 17 guntas of land including the land comprised in Survey no.49 and 50/1 belonging to one Smt.Geetha

Devi Shah, who was a respondent in one of the appeals and the land bearing Survey nos.7/1 and 8/1 belonging to the predecessor of P. Ramaiah, Munnikrishna and others (Respondents 3 to 7 in

Civil Appeals 774-78/2005).

The above said respondents had filed their objections to the acquisition. However, a declaration under Section 6(1) of the LA

Act was issued on 25.9.1989.

The details of the litigation before the High Court, as narrated by the Supreme court itself is as follows : 69

“Details of the litigation before the High Court

A. Smt.Geetha Devi Shah case.

32. Respondent 3 challenged the acquisition of her land comprised in Survey No.49 in Writ Petition No.16419/1992. The appellant also filed Writ Petition No.29603 of 1994 questioning the legality of notification issued under Section 48(1). By two separate orders dated 18.11.1996, the learned Single Judge dismissed both the writ petitions. The writ petition filed by respondent 3 was dismissed only on the ground of 2½ years' delay between the issue of the declaration under Section 6(1) of the 1894 Act and filing of the writ petition. The explanation given by Respondent No. 3 that on her representations, the Government had withdrawn the acquisition of land comprised in Survey No.50/2 and she was awaiting the Government's decision in respect of other parcel of land, was not considered satisfactory by the learned Single Judge. The writ petition of the appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by observing that the State Government has absolute power to withdraw the acquisition before the possession of the acquired land can be taken.

33. Respondent 3 challenged the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Appeal No.9913/1996. The Division Bench of the High Court first considered the question whether the learned Single Judge was right in 70

dismissing the writ petition only on the ground of delay and answered the same in negative by making the following observations:

“After hearing the rival contentions of the appellant and contesting respondent and perusing the pleadings of both the parties, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has erred in taking into consideration the delay of 2½ years from the date of final notification. The learned Single Judge has not considered the explanation given by the petitioner at paras 12 to 15 wherein, he has explained regarding delay. The State Government has issued notice dated 6.1.1990 of inspection of lands proposed to be held at 10.30 a.m. on 16.8.1990 and the Land Acquisition Officer conducted spot inspection and satisfied that the lands could be deleted and further another notice dated 6.2.1990 of fixing the inspection of the spot on 9.2.1990 was received, in pursuance of the same spot inspection was held and one more notice dated 7.3.1990, 11.5.1990 (sic) on those days inspection was not made. Thereafterwards, he submitted the petition to the Revenue Secretary. His enquiries with the Revenue Secretary revealed the proceedings bearing No. RD 294 AQB 90 dated 5.10.1991. One Mr. N.Lokraj, Under Secretary to the Government called for reports on the matter vide Notification dated 29.1.1992. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner was pending consideration 71

before the Government under Section 15A of the Land Acquisition Act as on 29.1.1992. In this regard, we have perused the record produced by the Government. These facts with reference to the denotification of the acquisition in respect of the land in question along with other lands are reflected therein. Further the explanation offered by the appellant at paragraph 15 in the writ petition clearly shows the bona fides on the part of the appellant in the matter of challenging the acquisition proceedings, as he had submitted the representation to the Revenue Department seeking for denotification of the land in question. In our opinion the delay with regard to the challenge of the proceedings has been satisfactorily explained by the appellant. Therefore, non-consideration of the explanation and rejection of the petition by the learned Single Judge solely on the ground of delay and latches cannot be sustained. Moreover relief cannot be denied to a party merely on the ground of delay. In fact, in view of the subsequent events after the final notification, it cannot be said that the appellant has approached this Court belatedly.”

34. The Division Bench then scrutinized records relating to the acquisition of land, relied upon the judgment in H.M.T. House Building Coop Society v. Syed Khader, (1995) 2 SCC 677 (Hereinafter described as `Ist HMT Case') and held: 72

“It is a mandatory requirement in law, since no prior approval of the scheme has been obtained by the second respondent from the State Government, the first respondent herein, the acquisition by the first respondent cannot be held to be for public purpose as the mandatory requirement as contemplated under Section 3(f)(vi) has not been complied with. Hence the acquisition proceedings have to be held as invalid, and on this ground the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed. In its counter at paragraph (sic) it has not positively stated with regard to the fact of prior approval of the scheme as required under Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act is granted by the Government. On the other hand, what is stated by the second respondent at paragraph 5 of the counter is that the said society had submitted necessary scheme to the first respondent for the purpose of initiating acquisition proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Act. The acquisition proceedings were to be initiated after fully satisfying the requirement under Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent that the acquisition proceedings are in accordance with law, cannot be accepted in the absence of specific, positive assertion and proof in this regard. The burden is on the first and second respondents to show that there is prior approval of the housing scheme to initiate the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question. The same is not established. In this view of the 73

matter and in view of the law declared by the Apex court in 1st H.M.T. case, we have no option but to hold that there is no housing scheme approved by the State Government. Hence on this ground the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed.”

The Division Bench also opined that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had submitted report without giving opportunity of hearing to respondent No.3 and this was sufficient to nullify the acquisition of her land.

35. Civil Petition No.366/1998 filed by the appellant for review of judgment dated 16.3.1998 (Geetha Devi Shah vs. State, Writ Appeal No.9913/1996) was dismissed by the Division Bench by observing that once the Government had issued notification under Section 48(1) nothing survives for consideration.

36.Writ Appeal No.1459/1997 filed by the appellant against the negation of its challenge to notification issued under Section 48(1) was dismissed by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 12.3.1998 (Bangalore City Coop Housing Society Ltd. vs. State) along with other similar writ appeals and writ petition.

B. Shri P. Ramaiah and others case.

37. Shri P. Ramaiah and others also challenged the acquisition proceedings in Writ Petition No.10406/1991. The learned Single Judge allowed the 74

writ petition by relying upon the order dated 15.6.1998 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Naveen Jayakumar vs. State, Writ Petition Nos. 3539- 42/1996, wherein it was held that after the amendment of the 1894 Act by Act No.68 of 1984, the Deputy Commissioner did not have the authority to issue notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act.

38. The appellant challenged the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Appeal No.4246/1998. The State of Karnataka and the Special Land Acquisition Officer also filed Writ Appeal No.6039/1998. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed both the appeals by common judgment dated 6.2.2004. The Division Bench referred to the judgment of this Court in 1st H.M.T. case and held that the acquisition was vitiated due to adoption of corrupt practice by the appellant, which had engaged an agent for ensuring the acquisition of land and large amounts of money changed hands in the process.

39. When the learned counsel for Shri P. Ramaiah and other respondents pointed out that there were certain errors in the judgment dated 6.2.2004 inasmuch as Smt.Geetha Devi Shah's case has been referred to instead of the citation of H.M.T. House Building Cooperative Society v. Syed Khader, the Division Bench suo motu corrected the errors vide order dated 11.2.2004. 75

40. Review Petitions Nos.166 and 170 of 2004 filed by the appellant were dismissed by another Division Bench of the High Court which declined to entertain the appellant's plea that the issues raised by Shri P. Ramaiah and others are covered by the judgment of the High Court in Subramani v. Union of India, ILR 1995 KAR 3139 and that in view of the dismissal of SLPs(C) Nos.12012-17/1997 filed against the order passed in Writ Appeals Nos.7953-62/1996 - Byanna v. State of Karnataka, the order passed by the Division Bench was liable to be set aside. The Division Bench held that the judgment in P. Ramaiah's case does not suffer from any error apparent requiring its review.”

The apex court has then referred to the grounds of challenge and the arguments canvassed and has noticed that the appellant had challenged the impugned judgments on several grounds which mostly related to the case of Geeta Devi Shah – and proceeded to address the same.

The first ground that the writ petition was barred by delay and laches is dealt with at paragraphs 42 to 57 of the above judgment. 76

The second ground urged was that the acquisition proceedings could not have been nullified on account of non- compliance with Section 3(f)(vi) of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894. This is dealt with from paragraph 58 to 89, in coming to the conclusion that no housing scheme was framed by the appellant, which was held to be the sine qua non for treating the acquisition of land for a co-operative society as an acquisition for public purpose within the meaning of Section 3(f).

In further addressing a contention of the appellant that the

2nd HMT case (HMT House Building Co-op Society v.

M.Venkataswamappa, (1995) 3 SCC 128), was not followed in other similar cases, was addressed at length with reference to the particular cases – from paragraph 90 to 113 to conclude as follows:

“ Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant’s case is squarely covered by the ratio of 1st HMT and 2nd HMT cases and the High Court did not commit any error by relying upon the judgment in 1st HMT case for declaring that the acquisition was not for a public purpose.” 77

Another facet of the challenge was a contention that even if there was no express approval by the State Government to the acquisition of land, the approval will be deemed to have been granted because the State Government had contributed Rs.100

Crore towards the acquisition of land. That was negated in paragraphs 115 to 119.

After dealing with three ancillary grounds of challenge in paragraphs 121 to 126, at paragraphs 127 and 128, it is recorded that the Senior Advocates appearing for the appellants had sought to bring it to the attention of the Court that the appellant had already spent Rs.18.73 crore for the formation of the layout and

1791 plots were allotted to the members, out of which, 200 have already constructed their houses. It was pointed out that 50% of the land had been handed over to the BDA for providing civic amenities and 16154 square feet had been handed over to the

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited. It was hence contended that it was a fit case to invoke the doctrine of 78

prospective overruling so that those who had already constructed houses may not suffer incalculable harm.

While negating the contention that it was a fit case to invoke the doctrine of prospective overruling, dismissed the appeals with the following directions:-

“133. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. However, keeping in view the fact that some of the members of the appellant may have built their houses on the sits allotted to them, we give liberty to the appellant to negotiate with the respondents for purchase of their land at the prevailing market price and hope that the landowners will, notwithstanding the judgments of the High Court and this Court, agree to accept the market price so that those who have built the houses may not suffer. 134. At the same time, we make it clear that the appellant must return the vacant land to the respondents irrespective of the fact that it may have carved out the sites and allotted the same to its members. This must be done within a period of three months from today and during that period the appellant shall not change the present status of the vacant area/sites. The members of the appellant who may have been allotted the sites shall also not change the present 79

status/character of the land. The parties are left to bear their own costs.” It is evident that the Court while granting liberty to the appellant -Society ‘to negotiate with the respondents’ - (for purchase of their land) and hoping that ‘the land owners will, notwithstanding the judgments of the High Court and this court, agree to accept the market price….etc’ , was apparently referring to the respondent- land owners, Geeta Devi Shah and P.Ramaiah, only. (emphasis supplied)

It is to be noticed that the appeals having been dismissed by the apex court, the judgments of the Division benches of the High Court were thus affirmed. In the both the sets of appeals the High Court had restricted the judgment to the case of the petitioners. This position was specifically clarified in a review petition in Geeta Devi Shah’s case. In

P.Ramaiah’s case the Division Bench which decided the petition on merits has held thus in the operative portion of the judgment:

“ In this view of the matter, we quash and set aside the present acquisition. The petition is allowed with costs. We direct that if petitioners have been divested from the possession of the lands that the same will have to be restored to them forthwith. As a necessary consequence, it would be equally necessary that if the petitioners have received any compensation that the same will have to be refunded by them.

80

11. In the special facts and circumstances of this case while we have already held that the appeals stands allowed, we also need to hold that we allow the original

petition with costs. “

The fact that the Apex Court has referred to the plea on behalf of the appellants of the formation of the ‘layouts’ (sic) at phenomenal expense and of allotment of 1791 plots and to the fact of 200 of such allottees having constructed their houses on those plots and large extents of other areas having been handed over to civic authorities for provision of amenities- is not to be construed as being the subject matter of the contemplation, and directions issued, at paragraphs 133 and 134 of the judgment of the apex court.

The judgment has not referred to the extent of land of the respective respondents in the appeals. The respective lands, of the respondents therein, are only identified with reference to the survey numbers assigned to the same. It is to be kept in view that Geeta Devi Shah was claiming as the owner of 7 acres and 39 guntas of land in Survey no. 49 and 1 acre 4 guntas in Survey no.50/2 of Vajrahalli and that the other land owner, P. Ramaiah, was laying claim to 29 guntas of land, bearing Survey No.8/1 and 1 acre of land, bearing Survey No.7/1 of Vajrahalli. It is thus evident that the appellant - Society was apparently pleading on behalf of a substantial number of members who may have been allotted plots and who had built houses on the lands of the above

81

respondent - land owners, while incidentally referring to the aspects of the overall cost, development and other circumstances. Hence it is clear that the above judgment of the apex court does not lay down, or even imply, that all the land owners including the petitioners herein, who claim to be land owners, should, ipso facto, be put in possession of their lands – by virtue of the above judgment, or by virtue of the judgments of this Court, which have been affirmed by the same.

5. On the other hand, the first of these petitions was dismissed by a learned single judge as being barred by delay and laches, the same having been challenged by way of an appeal, the Division Bench by its judgment dated 14.10.2004 remanded the matter with a direction that the petitioners’ case be considered with reference to the explanation offered to justify the belated challenge to the acquisition proceedings.

It has been contended that the cumulative explanation is to be found at paragraphs 4 to 7 of the writ petition, to the effect that the judgments of the Division Bench of this court in WA 82

4246/1998 (Bangalore City Co-operative Housing Society vs.

State) and WA 9913/1996 (Smt.Gita Devi Shah vs. The State), was the law declared – which applied to all the lands notified under the impugned notifications. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder for ready reference:

“5. That, the notifications Annexures A & B have been quashed by the judgment in W.A.No.9913/1996 (Annexure-C) and by the judgment dated 6.2.2004 in W.A.No.4246/1998 (Annexure-E) is a matter of record. The former quashed the entire acquisition, though by a later order it was confined to the appellant therein. Notwithstanding the findings recorded in the aforesaid judgment, more particularly the finding that the acquisition by Annexures A & B are vitiated by fraud and by abuse of statutory power, the rights of the petitioners in the lands owned by them, which are notified in Annexure-B have not been restored and the property rightfully owned by them are under the dark shadow of acquisition. Though the acquisition of lands owned by persons similarly situated are quashed, the clog on the right, title and interest of the petitioners is not removed, which in effect is unreasonable restriction of the petitioners’ rights 83

conferred by Articles 14,19 and Article 300A of the Constitution. 6. The petitioners are aggrieved in that they have been arbitrarily discriminated and denied by the State Government the restoration of their rights in the properties notified in Annexure “B”. The petitioners are constrained to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court for the relief hereinafter set out. 7. The cause of action for the petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court arose on 6.2.2004 when this Hon’ble Court declared i) that the present acquisition proceedings are illegal by reason of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the H.M.T.case ii) that the judgment in Writ Appeal 9913/1996 (Annexure-C), which relates to the present acquisition, is binding on the respondents therein, who were the respondent in W.A.9913/1996 and iii) that the acquisition pursuant to Annexures A & B is vitiated by fraud and abuse of power. That Annexure ‘B’ is dated 25.9.1989 cannot be held against the petitioners for the reason that the vitiating factors were judicially recognized and disapproved in the judgment in Writ Appeal 4246 of 1998 (Annexure E) rendered on 6.2.2004. Further, prior notice is not required for the reason the judgments of the Hon’ble Court in the aforesaid Writ Appeals are notice to the State Government and the Housing Society that the 84

law declared and laid down applies to all properties notified by Annexure-B, the final notification.”

6. The primary contention of the petitioners is that the ratio of the judgments would apply to the case of the petitioners, irrespective of every other circumstance, including delay if any, as the illegality pervading the entire acquisition proceedings is judicially recognized and disapproved. It is also contended that this position is fully endorsed and settled by the latest judgment of the apex court in the BCC Case, in respect of the very acquisition proceedings.

However, there is no acceptable explanation offered in the pleadings, except the emphasis on the contention that in view of the subsequent decision of the apex court, supra, having declared the acquisition as illegal, it would not be necessary to dwell on the explanation for the delay if any, on the part of the petitioners, in challenging the acquisition proceedings.

85

The petitioners can hardly take advantage of a decision rendered at the instance of a diligent litigant, whose petition was not vitiated by delay. It is not possible to overlook the fact that the petitioners are placed at the threshold, in firstly having been relegated to the stage of offering an acceptable explanation for the delay and laches, as required in terms of the order of remand. The petitioners are to explain the delay in approaching this court on

12.4.2004, when the decision in Geeta Devi Shah ’s case was rendered as early as in the year 1998. Unfortunately , there is no attempt at any such explanation.

The apex court has time and again recognized the disastrous consequences any inferential conclusions being drawn, nullifying the entire acquisition proceedings, on the basis of an order passed at the instance of a particular land owner. (See: TN Housing Board v. L. Chandrashekaran ( 2010) 2 SCC 786 ; Shyamnandan Prasad v. State of Bihar; (1999)4 SCC 255; Abhey Ram vs. Union of

India, (1997)5 SCC 421; Delhi Administration vs. Gurdip Singh

Uban and others, (2000)7 SCC 296). 86

The further contention on behalf of the petitioners, as to the case being sustained on the strength of the reasoning of the Apex

Court in the First HMT case and the line of cases to which the ratio had been applied, is also not tenable. For it would have to be reconciled with the circumstance that in the First HMT case, the challenge was brought even at the stage of the preliminary notification, and even though there was no question of possession of the lands having been taken, it was directed that the lands shall be restored to the respective land owners, irrespective of the fact whether such land owners had challenged the acquisition proceedings or not. It is to be noticed that despite such a declaration as to the entire acquisition proceedings being vitiated in circumstances such as were present in the First HMT case and similar batch of cases, when a subsequent challenge was made in respect of acquisitions for the very Society in Hanumakka and

Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others in WP 42784/1995 and connected cases , alleging identical circumstances, the petition 87

was summarily dismissed by order dated 14.6.1996 on the ground of delay and laches. The same was affirmed by a decision bench in Writ Appeal No.7122-7134/1996, 1999(4) KLJ 194 and the same having been carried to the Supreme Court by way of a

Special Leave Petitions in SLP 23256-23268/1996, the same were dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

Further, it is shown that in a writ petition before this court in WP 14863/2001, Hastimal Sisodia v. The State of Karnataka, it was contended that the petitioner would have the benefit of the declaration of the acquisition proceedings against the present respondent Society having been declared to be bad. The said petition was however, dismissed on the ground of delay of more than twelve years. An appeal against the said order had been dismissed on 20.6.2011 (WA 3057/2004). The contentions as regards fraud and the want of compliance with Section 3(f)(vi) of the LA Act, is specifically noticed therein. It is also significant that a review petition had been preferred – pursuant to the decision of the BCC case – and the same has also been dismissed by an order dated 22.6.2012. It transpires that the same was carried to the Apex Court by way of a Special Leave Petition – but appears to have been withdrawn. 88

Hence, it is pertinent to note that the appeals decided by the

Apex Court related to land owners, who had challenged the acquisition proceedings immediately and were not vitiated by delay and laches, as noticed by the Apex Court itself in the BCC case, in so far as it pertains to Geeta Devi Shah .

7. In the light of the above, it is not possible to accept the case of the petitioners that the judgment in the BCC case should be extended to them in seeking recovery of possession of their lands.

Incidentally, the learned counsel for the petitioners have brought to the attention of this bench a decision rendered in a writ petition in WP 6283/2008 , Bangalore City Co-operative Housing

Society Limited v. State of Karnataka and others, dated

22.12.2013. It is to be noticed on the facts of that case that the present respondent Society had challenged the State government’s action in having sought to withdraw from the acquisition 89

proceedings in respect of land belonging to respondents (5(a) to

(e), therein. The challenge was primarily sought to be sustained on the ground that the reasoning of the State government in issuing the notification under Section 48(1) of the LA Act, proceeded on the basis that there were no documents available to evidence the handing over and taking over of the land in question pursuant to the acquisition proceedings - it was contended that such a stand was not tenable as there was reference made to the relevant records pertaining to the factum of having taken possession, in earlier proceedings before this court pertaining to the very respondents’ lands. It was then contended on behalf of the respondents therein that the petition itself was rendered infructuous in view of the entire acquisition proceedings having been held to be void in the Bangalore City Housing case .

The proposition that the acquisition proceedings was bad in law in so far as the present respondent Society was concerned, was available to the respondent land owners therein, as the question of delay and laches in questioning the acquisition 90

proceedings was not at all in issue. The observation made by the undersigned that the respondent land owners therein, could reclaim their land de hors the impugned order therein, by virtue of the entire acquisition proceedings being held to be vitiated, is without reference to the nuances that are brought to light in the present proceedings, vis-à-vis the land owners and the grounds of challenge to the acquisition proceedings, as well as the tenability of the petitioners seeking to sustain the petitions inspite of their unsuccessful petitions earlier or some of them having acquiesced in the proceedings by receiving compensation and hence, cannot be cited as supporting a case of every land owner being enabled to recover possession of land that was subject matter of the said acquisition proceedings.

In view of the above, the further facts and circumstances highlighted by the respondent –Society as regards the several petitioners being precluded from filing the present petition in view of earlier proceedings brought them having attained finality or having acquiesced in the proceedings and the petitioners also 91

being guilty of suppression of facts, is not dealt with, though noticed, as it would only add to the reasons on which the petitioners could be denied any relief and as the same would not advance their case at all.

The petitions are accordingly dismissed.

In view of the petitions being dismissed, it is not necessary to implead the applicants in IA 23/2013 and IA 1/2014.

Sd/- JUDGE

nv*