Honble Justice RAM MOHAN REDDY & H.BILLAPPA
In compliance with the order dated 31.08.2012, the respondent-Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike has filed a report enclosing a statement showing per centage of the land utilized 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 R-4(J) to the memo filed by the respondent No.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 (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 Ex.1 to Ex.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 Ex.1 to Ex.8, it is stated that they are transferred in favour of members of Subbaiahs family under separate registered sale deeds hence unavailable, though some of the sites have not been utilized 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 utilized 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 unutilized 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 No.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 utilized for the road while another portion measuring 900 sq. ft. for the National Highway.
In paragraph No.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 No.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 No.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 long time used by the villagers wherein tombs exist and the land cannot be utilized either for civic amenity purpose or park and therefore cannot be taken into consideration to reduce the shortfall.
At paragraph No.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 utilized 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 utilization 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 utilization of 75 sites from out of 404 sites pointed out by Sri.Byrareddy. Learned Senior counsel submits that at Sl.No.II, the sites allotted to the family of Subbaiah and more appropriately marked as Ex.1 to Ex.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 Subbaiahs 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.