Karnataka high Court ‘Trying Hard to Legalize 867 Judges & Lokayukta’s 27 Criminal Contmpt Judgments; by Illegal Orders

High Court of Karnataka : Daily Orders of the Case Number : WP  40994/2002 [PIL] for the date of order 20/09/2013

Society & Govt. since 2002 to 2013; on Affidavit stating Layout is ILLEGAL & Un-Authorized

High Court coercing B.D.A & Govt for Compromise = Bangalore into SLUM ! 
2005 Bangalore SLUM Government files Affidavit: 867 Judges’ Lay-out not Approved by  BDA & is Illegal. 156 Acres Acquired by Society. 40 Acres by Land-Grabbing.
2004: Affidavit of 867 Judges Society in present Case:  B.D.A. Never Approved Lay-out.
1999: 193 Acres Lay-out NOT Approved B.D.A reply to Lok Ayukta
1995  Judgment: 28 Sitting Judges 193 Acres Lay-out Approved :  FRAUD Judgment
1994 FRAUD Judgment:   867  JUDGES’ Judgment:
Lay-out Approved by B.D.A+ Relinquished CA sites of 96 Acres !
All Fraud!
Conspiracies Government not pleading to re-open all cases & Judgments secured by 867 JUDGES by FRAUD. Since 15 years = 867 Judges’ Conspiracy with CMs.
Bangalore Infrastructure Collapsed Judges Role Models = 3,20,000 Acres = SLUM

Honble Justice RAM MOHAN REDDY & H.BILLAPPA
20/09/2013
Order in WP  40994/2002

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 free-hold 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, Yelhanka 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/s.

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 24.09.2013 and if found to be freehold sites to take possession of the same where afterwards the respondent No.4  Society to execute the release-cum-relinquishment deeds on Wednesday i.e., on 25.09.2013.

In the memo, at paragraph No.3, it is stated that Annexure R4(P) is a tabular statement containing list of all known disputes and litigations 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 lay-out 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 respondentSociety 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.

……………………………

Previous Court Orders

Sl.No.Honble JudgeDate of Order1HONBLE RMRJ & HBJ14/01/20112HONBLE RMRJ & HBJ04/02/20113HONBLE RMRJ & HBJ10/06/20114HONBLE RMRJ & HBJ24/06/20115HONBLE RMRJ & HBJ28/06/20116HONBLE RMRJ & HBJ13/01/20127HONBLE RMRJ & HBJ24/02/20128HONBLE RMRJ & HBJ09/03/20129HONBLE RMRJ & HBJ27/07/201210HONBLE RMRJ & HBJ24/08/201211HONBLE RMRJ & HBJ31/08/201212HONBLE RMRJ & HBJ06/09/201213HONBLE RMRJ & HBJ21/09/201214HONBLE RMRJ & HBJ05/10/201215HONBLE RMRJ & HBJ07/12/201216HONBLE RMRJ & HBJ11/01/201317HONBLE RMRJ & HBJ08/03/201318HONBLE RMRJ & HBJ05/04/201319HONBLE RMRJ & HBJ26/04/201320HONBLE RMRJ & HBJ23/08/201321HONBLE RMRJ & HBJ20/09/2013

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s