IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR W.P.NOS.24982 & 25272/2018 (LB-RES) BETWEEN 1. DAVANAGERE CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., DAVANAGERE, OLD SIRIGERE HOSTEL BUILDING, NARASARAJA ROAD, DAVANAGERE CITY - 577001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI. AJJAPPA A.M.
2. DAVANAGERE CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., DAVANAGERE, OLD SIRIGERE HOSTEL BUILDING, NARASARAJA ROAD, DAVANAGERE CITY - 577001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI M.BASAVARAJ.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI B K MANJUNATH, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. DAVANAGERE-HARIHARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SRI. DEVARAJA URS EXTENSION, 'A' BLOCK, P.B. ROAD, DAVANAGERE CITY – 577006, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE CHAIRMAN, DAVANAGERE-HARIHARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SRI. DEVARAJA URS EXTENSION, 'A' BLOCK, P.B. ROAD, DAVANAGERE CITY-577006.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.A.SUBRAMANI, HCGP FOR R1, SMT. NALINI VENKATESH, ADV. FOR R2, R3 – SERVED.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT R-2 TO HANDOVER POSSESSION OF 60 SITES FORMED IN THE LAND BEARING SY. NOS. 116/2, 117/2 AND 120/1B IN SRI D. DEVARAJA URS LAYOUT, 'B' BLOCK, DAVANAGERE CITY EARMARKED AS PER SANCTIONED PLAN VIDE ANNEX-M ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondents.
2. The petitioners are before this court on a very peculiar circumstances praying for the following relief:-
“Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representations Annexure-P1 to P3 for handing over 60 sites formed in the land bearing Survey No.116/2, 117/2 and 120/1B in Sri. D.Devaraja Urs Layout, ‘B’ Block, Davanagere City earmarked as per sanctioned plan vide Annexure-M”;
3. The case of the petitioners is that it came to be registered as a Society on 24.12.1955 under the then Mysore Co-operative Societies Act, 1948 and was assigned registration No.ARC/540/1955-56. That the society was formed for the purpose of acquiring lands and forming housing layouts in the said land and allot the same to its members.
4. That in pursuance of its object, the society purchased the lands bearing re-survey No.116/2, 117/2 and 120/1B of Davanagere Village, Davanagere Taluk, totally 9 acres 14 guntas under four registered sale deeds dated 12.02.1973 & 21.02.1973.
5. The society, thereafter is alleged to have approached the Town Planning Authority for approval of the layout on 01.03.1977. That in reply the Director of Town Planning by reply dated 30.03.1977 intimated the petitioners that the lands in question forms part of the Sri.
D. Devraj Urs Layout, scheme approved by the Government and that the plan for the purpose of forming a layout in survey No.86 to 131 had been prepared by the officer and forwarded to the City Improvement Board and the lands of the petitioners are part of the scheme and hence the concurrence and clearance by the City Improvement Board was required.
6. That pursuant to the same they approached the Improvement Board, Davanagere and the Chairman of the Board by letter dated 11.08.1977 had asked them to forward a copy of the layout plan to the Board. That pursuant to the same by a letter dated 03.10.1977 the petitioner society requested that the sites that would be formed in the lands of the petitioners i.e. the survey number afore stated, be allotted to it to enable it to allot the same to the members and that they are a non profit organization and requested the Board to intimate the development charges at the earliest and that in turn they would intimate the members and collect the same and deposit with the Board. That pursuant to the same vide, Annexure-E, the Board by a resolution dated 23.09.1978 resolved to enter into an agreement to form 111 sites in the said extent belonging to the society and hand over the same to the society. That pursuant to the same, the petitioner also paid the said development charges by depositing a sum of Rs.4,44,000/- towards the development charges under various checks and on various dates as per Annexure-F.
7. That the State Government imposed a levy at the rate of 12½ % of the market value for the purpose of transferring the khatha in respect of the sites that were allotted to the society and the same was opposed by the society vide Annexure-G1.
8. Further by another letter dated 17.12.2007 they objected to the allotment of the civic amenity sites (in the words of the society un-allotted pieces of land) and thereafter under various communications produced as Annexure-G2, G3, G4, G5, G6, G7, G8, G9 and G10, the society started asserting its rights over the lands which were part of the survey numbers purchased by them and which had not been allotted to their members. The petitioners have also produced Annexure-M, said to have been the plan issued by the Chairman, Improvement Board, Davanagere on 25.04.1979 evidencing the allotment of 109 sites to the Society (Though it is mentioned as 107 in the sketch, on a physical count of the sites coming within the boundaries of the earmarked area the sites allotted number about 109). Annexure-N1 and N3 are again communications for the year 2017 and thereafter as there was no action by the Board, the representations Annexure-P1, P2 & P3 came to be made. On a bare perusal of the representations it is apparent that the society has calculated the total extent of the 9 acres 14 guntas of land and set up the case that it was not mere 111 sites but all such sites lying within the boundaries of the 9 acres 14 guntas were to be transferred to the society as per the oral agreement entered into between the President of the Society and the Chairman of the Improvement Board and that pursuant to such an agreement only, the sum of Rs.4,44,000/- was paid as development charges. That a separate sketch has been prepared by the Improvement Board in respect of the 9 acres 14 guntas and that the demarcation of the sites formed in the said lands was prepared by the Society. That the then Society President approached the Improvement Board and requested that the remaining sites be handed over to which request, it is alleged, that the then Chairman of the Improvement Board is said to have orally assured that he would hand over the remaining sites and hence believing in the assurance they have been waiting endlessly. On perusal of paragraph 9 of Annexure-P1 the case that they have been making out, under these representations, is one for release of remaining sites after the receipt of 111 sites. That when making the earlier representations the society did not know the exact measurement and total number of sites that were formed out of 9 acres 14 guntas. That subsequently they have collected information in this regard and hence the demand. Further on perusal of paragraph 16 it is stated that the information was furnished to them by the Assistant Director of Town Planning. But as per the information furnished by the Davanagere-Harihar Development Authority a separate layout plan had been prepared in respect of the 9 acres 14 guntas alone and that the Board has not handed over the remaining sites, that has been formed in excess of 111 sites. That remaining sites number about 60 and are of different dimensions and the total extent of the 60 sites excluding the road measures 2,33,507.30 Square Feet and that the same is required to be handed over to them and further in paragraph 17 the petitioner has conveyed that it is ready to pay the development charges in respect of remaining 60 sites, Paragraph 17 & 18 reads as under:-
“17. We submit that the Assistant Director and Town Planning of 1st of you also furnished information (iii) in pursuance of the oral direction by the Karnataka State Information Commission in an appeal filed by K.M.Thippeswamy.
According to the said information furnished by the 1st of you there are 60 remaining sites with different dimensions enclosed along with the two lists. True copies of list furnished by the 1st of you furnishing site numbers along with its measurements are herewith produced and marked as DOCUMENT Nos.34 & 35. The total extent of 60 sites furnished by 1st of you comes to 2,33,507.30 Square Feet had to be handed over by the then improvement Board of Davanagere but even to this day the said sites are with the 1st of you. It is relevant to mention here that even after abolition of the said improvement Board, the 1st and 2nd of you are required to hand over the remaining 60 sites totally measuring 2,33,507.30 Square Feet over an area of 9 Acres 14 Guntas in Sy.Nos.116/2, 117/2 & 120/1B to the society since the society had not obtained any compensation from the then Improvement Board of Davanagere & the said lands were not acquired by the then Improvement Board of Davanagere and there was an oral agreement between the society and the then improvement Board of Davanagere that the Improvement Board has to form sites over an area of 9 Acres 14 Guntas in the aforesaid survey numbers & society had to pay development charges to the then Improvement Board, Davanagere & the society had not seek any compensation from the then Improvement Board. The society even to this day has not obtained any compensation from the then Improvement Board of Davanagere or the 1st and 2nd of you but the then Improvement Board had not handed over the entire sites formed over an area of 9 Acres 14 Guntas belonging to the society in Sy.Nos.116/2, 117/2 & 120/1B. The society is ready to pay development charges to 60 sites amounting to 2,33,507.30 Square Feets & the 1st and 2nd of you have to be handing over the remaining sites belonging to the society.
18. We submit that as per the information furnished by 1st of you as per document nos.33,34 & 35, the 1st,2nd & 3rd of you are liable to hand over the remaining 60 sites with total measurement of 2,33,507.30 Square Feet formed over an area of 9 Acres 14 Guntas in Sy.Nos.116/2, 117/2 & 120/1B belonging to the society after collecting the Development Charges of remaining sites from the society. The society is ready to pay development charges to the 1st of you and after obtaining development charges the remaining 60 sites measuring 2,33,507.30 Square Feet has to be handed over to the society since the 60 sites belonging to the society and hence this representation.”
and concluded the representation with a demand that the remaining 60 sites measuring 2,33,507.30 square feet be handed over to them after collecting the development charges. That despite the repeated representation addressed to the Davanagere-Harihar Urban Development Authority and its Chairman and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Govt. of Karnataka having not elicited any reply or favourable action, the petitioners are constrained to approach this court.
9. This court taking note of the strange nature of the agreement propounded directed the respondents to file their statements. The second respondent filed its statement of objection into court on 18.06.2019. It was contended on behalf of the second respondent that the writ petitions are highly misconceived and is liable to be dismissed in limine and that society has no legal or statutory right to seek the relief as prayed for. It was contended by the learned counsel for the second respondent that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed solely on the ground of delay as the society is seeking to reopen the issue which was concluded way back in the year 1980 and that the claim of the petitioners is highly belated and after the passage of more than 3 ½ decades. That the issue, even as per the petitioners has attained finality in 1980 itself and would place reliance on the ruling rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Municipal Council, Ahmednagar & Another vs. Shah Hyder Beig and Others reported in (2000) 2 SCC 48 and would place reliance on the observations of the Hon’ble Apex which reads as under.
“The High Court has thus misplaced the factual details and misread the same. It is now a well- settled principle of law and we need not dilate on the score to the effect that while no period of limitation is fixed but in the normal course of events, the period the party is required for filing a civil proceeding ought to be the guiding factor. While it is true that this extraordinary jurisdiction is available to mitigate the sufferings of the people in general but it is not out of place to mention that this extraordinary jurisdiction has been conferred on to the law courts under Article 226 of the Constitution on a very sound equitable principle. Hence, the equitable doctrine, namely, “delay defeats equity” has its fullest application in the matter of grant of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The discretionary relief can be had provided one has not by his act or conduct given a go-by to his rights. Equity favours a vigilant rather than an indolent litigant and this being the basic tenet of law, the question of grant of an order as has been passed in the matter as regards restoration of possession upon cancellation of the notification does not and cannot arise. The High Court as a matter of fact lost sight of the fact that since the year 1952, the land was specifically reserved for public purposes of a school playground and roads in the development plan and by reason therefore, the notification to acquire the land has, therefore, been issued under the provisions of the Act as stated above.”
The learned counsel for the respondent further place reliance on the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C. Jacob Vs. Director of Geology & Mining and Another reported in 2008 AIR SCW 7233 and taking court through paragraph 10 which reads as follows:-
“We are constrained to refer to the several facets of the issue only to emphasize the need for circumspection and care in issuing directions for ‘consideration’. If the representation is on the face of it is stale, or does not contain particulars to show that it is regarding a live claim, courts should desist from directing ‘consideration’ of such claims”.
That the learned counsel would strenuously contend that the right now being trumpeted by the petitioners is not a live claim and even assuming there is a right the same stands defeated on account of the inordinate delay. He would further contend that the writ petitions are a case of factual misrepresentations. That the attempt is nothing but an attempt to grab the land which otherwise the petitioners are not entitled to.
10. The learned counsel would fairly admit that the Board had formulated a scheme for the formation of a residential layout called as Sri. D.Devaraja Urs Layout.
That the scheme was implemented over the 171 acres after the scheme was sanctioned by the Government. He would invite the attention of the court to Annexure-R1. The final notification dated 07.09.1977 is produced as Annexure-R1 and he would submit that the lands of the petitioners have been subjected to acquisition and the acquisition has been completed in all aspects and award has also been passed and the compensation of Rs.1,41,335/- was also awarded but the same was not received by the Society and in lieu of the same, the Society requested that in lieu of compensation the sites be handed over after collecting the development charges. That in lieu of the request, 111 sites were identified calculated as appropriate compensation and were to be allotted to the society and that the said 111 sites was spread over an extent of 2,22,000 square feet and the development charges has fixed @ 2/- per square feet. That the society without any demure or protest accepted the same and also paid the development charges. They deposited the entire development charge and pursuant to the same 111 sites were released in favour of the society in 1992 itself.
11. He would invite the attention of the Court to Annexure-R2, being the list of sites handed over to the society. He would further invite the attention of the court to Annexure-R8 which is also produced by the petitioners and is dated 10.02.1995 and would contend that the instant claim is an after thought, as a bare reading of the said representation would show that the petitioners had no grievance to the number of sites that have been allotted in lieu of compensation and that the only grievance expressed by the petitioners was the demand of 12½ % of the market value as allotment price for the purpose of transfer of khata and issuance of building plan and license.
12. It is further contended that the society never had a grievance with regard to the allotment of the other sites formed in the said survey numbers to third parties and that they never protested the same. That even in the representation dated 06.03.2010 the society only sought for demarcation of the marginal land and fixing of boundaries of the sites bearing No.146, 147, 180 and claim was made with regard to the marginal lands adjoining the three sites. That even in the legal notice dated 25.05.2012 there is a categorical reference to the understanding with the Board for release of 111 sites only in lieu of compensation for the acquisition of the lands and that the petitioners having accepted the compensation in the form of 111 sites and having kept quiet for more than 35 yeas are now estopped from contending otherwise.
13. It is submitted that instant writ petitions are motivated and is made with the ulterior motive of unjustly enriching themselves. That apart from the 111 sites certain civic amenity sites and park have also been formed in the said 9 acre 14 guntas and that the said sites have been handed over to the Davanagere City Corporation. That the lands have been subjected to acquisition and the acquisition having attained finality and the acquisition notification not having been called in question the attempt under the garb of instant writ petitions is to be severely condemned. That the instant writ petitions is nothing but an attempt to take advantage of magnanimity shown by the Board by allotting 111 sites in lieu of the compensation awarded pursuant to the final notification dated 07.09.1977. That the claim of the petitioners that they are entitled to the remaining lands or that the Board is required to hand over 60 sites are wholly without any legal basis and neither are any legal provision cited which enables such an arrangement nor does the law in respect of acquisition of lands provide for such compensation by way of transfer of the entire extent of land after collecting development charges. The acquisition having become final the highly belated claim of the petitioners is unsustainable in law. That apart it came to the notice of the Board that the society had executed a registered sale deed in favour of one K. M. Basavarajaiah pertaining to a marginal land by concocting documents and that the marginal land/sites are part of the Sri. D.Devaraja Urs Badavane, ‘B’ Block. That despite the legal notice dated 25.05.2012 the petitioner has done precious little to reverse or cancel the said sale as demanded. He would contend that the instant writ petitions are nothing but an attempt to grab the land. More particularly the land reserved for public purposes like parks, amenities etc. and would pray for dismissal of the writ petitions with exemplary costs.
14. The first respondent has filed into court statement of objections dated 25.06.2019. It is contended by the learned Govt. Pleader that the scheme proposed by the development authority consisted of 1,356 sites of various dimensions and an extent of 9,28,250 square feet was proposed to be reserved for commercial purposes and an extent area of 1,20,000 square feet was reserved for service industries and 10% of the sites being proposed to be reserved for allotment to the economically weaker section category. That the proposal for the said scheme was proposed in the year 1976 and the first respondent by proceedings dated 27.04.1977 accorded sanction to the scheme under Section 17 of the Karnataka Improvement Boards Act, 1976. It is submitted that the award also came to be passed in favour of the petitioner and that from the record it appears that the society has approached the Improvement Board and requested that the aim and objective of both the Board and society being the same, they be alternatively granted sites in lieu of the land acquired and that they were also prepared to pay the development charge. That the Board fix the development charge @ 2/- per square feet after calculating the value of the land and value of the developed sites. That neither the arrangement entered into between the Board and petitioner society was informed to this respondent nor was the concurrence of the Govt. or approval of the Government, obtained by the Board prior to entering into such an understanding. That the mutual understanding/agreement has no bearing nor is binding on this respondent.
15. That the controversial arrangement came to light and knowledge of the first respondent only after the resolution dated 28.06.1990 and when a controversy arose pursuant to the levy of development charge @ 12½% for transfer of Khatha and the same was protested to by the allottees. The understanding to handover 111 sites in lieu of compensation and that the alleged mutual understanding or arrangement entered into by the petitioners and the then Chairman of the Board has no legal sanction and has no legs to stand on. That neither the Act nor the rules permit for such an arrangement and that even acquisition by consent is permissible only with the previous approval of the Government. He submits that the provisions of Section 34, 37 read with Section 57 of the Karnataka Improvement Boards Act, 1976 authorises the Board to enter into an agreement with the owner of any land or to sell or transfer the property of the Board with the previous approval of the Government only. That no such prior approval has been granted as mandated under the Act. Hence, on that count alone the petition is liable to be rejected.
16. The learned Govt. Pleader would also contend that the Board has honoured an understanding which had no legal basis and 111 sites have already been handed over in terms of the resolution of the Board dated 23.09.1978. That the State Govt. even way back as on 29.08.1991 had sought clarifications from the Improvement Board to clarify which provision of the Act and Rules enables the Board to allot 111 sites to society or to make a bulk allotment of 111 sites to the society in one go. That the same was replied to by the Board that the arrangement was entered into as the lands of the petitioners were lying in the midst of the sanction scheme and that the resolution had been passed by the Board resolving to allot 111 sites as compensation subject to the society paying the development charges. That subsequently the illegal allotments were proposed to be regularized by the Government by imposing a development fee at the rate of 12½ % of the market value in respect of the 111 sites and that the Board had also in fact categorically admitted the lapse on its part in making a bulk allotment of 111 sites to the society, in lieu of compensation.
17. He would also reiterate that the present writ petitions are nothing but an attempt to grab public land. That the approval for collection of the development fee at 12½% was made keeping in view the public who had purchased the sites from the society. It is vehemently contended that the Board much less the Chairman had any power to enter into an oral contract as is possible between two private individual. That neither was any written contract executed between the parties and the records available clearly demonstrate that the Board had only agreed to release 111 sites in lieu of compensation for the lands of the petitioners acquired for the execution of the sanctioned scheme. That the State Govt. has also issued a circular to all Urban Development Authorities not to enter into any sort of agreement with any society for the purpose of making bulk allotment of sites in favour of the society as the same is contrary to the provisions of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987.
18. Learned Govt. Pleader lastly contend that the writ petitions are highly belated and vitiated by delay and laches and on the said ground alone the writ petitions require to be rejected.
19. Having adverted to the multifold contentions canvassed by the parties this court is of the opinion that the point that falls for consideration is as to whether the petitioner has demonstrated a legal right enabling this court to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing delivery of 60 sites as prayed for in the representations?
20. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the lands of the petitioners have been acquired and that the extent is 9 acres 14 guntas and that the said extent is part and parcel of the total extent of 171 acres notified for acquisition and acquired by the second respondent for the execution of the scheme called Sri. D.Devaraja Urs Badavane, Davanagere. In fact acquisition was completed in 1977 and the scheme was also implemented, thereby implying the layout formation/sites were also completed and sites have already been allotted to various applicants.
21. It is also the case admitted by the respondent that the 111 sites have been identified, earmarked and handed over to the petitioner in lieu of the compensation for the land of the petitioners acquired by the second respondent for the formation of the above said layout. The petitioner has also admitted the allotment and handing over of the 111 sites.
22. The dispute presently appears to be a manufactured one and has it is moorings in the communication and representation made in the year 2007. Apparently there is no written contract or agreement evidencing the claim of the petitioner. A reading of Annexure-C evidences the fact that on the date the society sought approval of a layout plan with the Director of Town Planning, the lands of the petitioners had already been earmarked and subjected to acquisition for formation of Sri. D.Devaraja Urs Layout. Further a combined reading of Annexures-D, D1, E and F clearly demonstrates that the Board had offered 111 sites out of the layout to be formed had agreed to make a bulk allotment of 111 sites out of the layout to be formed subject to the petitioner paying development charge @ Rs.2 per square feet and in all totally Rs.4,44,000/-. Annexure-F clearly obviates and discussion with regard to the fact that the society had agreed to relinquish its right and title in the lands pursuant to the resolution of the Board vide Annexure-E and has also paid the development charge as resolved by the Board on 23.09.1978. Having impliedly agreed to the allotment of 111 sites alone it is not open for the petitioner to turn around and to claim the entire sites or the so called additional 60 sites alleged to have been formed in the lands of the petitioner.
23. The petitioner having not protested to the resolution of the Board dated 23.09.1978 and having acted in compliance of the same cannot now assert a right contrary to the consent by acquiescence. This is the only inference that can be drawn by this court. The acquiescence to the allotment of 111 sites alone, is further clarified by the petitioners own representation dated 10.02.1995 wherein it has protested only to the imposition of the development charges @ 12½ % and has requested that the imposition be waived and khatha be transferred in favour of the society.
24. To describe present attempt as a mere mischief, is to use a lesser word and appears to be a well thought out strategy to grab the lands. More particularly, marginal lands and the civic amenity sites and park areas under the garb of an alleged oral understanding. In fact Annexure-M produced by the petitioner itself falsifies the case of the petitioner and on the contrary fortifies the inference drawn by the Court. The alleged plan is signed by the Chairman of the Improvement Board and the boundary of the sites allotted in bulk to the petitioner is shown in pink colour. The said sketch is dated 25.04.1979. If that be the case and if the understanding was that the entire developed area lying within the extent of 9 acres 14 guntas ought to be handed over to the petitioner, then the petitioner would not have remained a silent spectator and would have asserted its right or at least protested to the same as it has done in the year 1995 pursuant to the imposition of the levy @ 12½ %. Having not done so and having not even whispered a word a protest, as contended by the learned counsels, the present attempt is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches alone.
25. The present attempt in the opinion of the court is an abuse of process of the court. As rightly contended by the second respondent the petitioner is attempting to mask its attempt to grab the land under the garb of an oral understanding which is not evidenced by any material rather which stands falsified by the material produced by the Petitioner itself.
26. Further the Annexures-R3, R7, R10, R12 and R13 produced by the second respondent clearly falsifies the claim. In fact under Annexure-R2, the then Board has taken cognizance of this bulk allotment and has termed it as an irregularity committed by the Board in the matter of allotment of sites in the layout. R3 clearly records the understanding to release 111 sites alone in favour of the society in lieu of compensation for the lands acquired. It is categorically recorded that only 111 sites of different dimensions have been resolved to be handed over to the society pursuant to resolution dated 23.09.1978. All these records are undisputed much prior to the first attempt in 2007 by the petitioner.
27. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner has nowhere identified the 60 sites or the alleged extent of 2,33,507.30 square feet. The instant writ petitions are masked as an innocent attempt for consideration of a non existing right. Leaving no option to this court but to infer that it is nothing but an attempt to grab the land in which the title of the petitioner stood divested even way back as in 1977 and the present attempt after passage of 40 years is to be presumed as an abuse of the process of the court.
28. A reading of Annexures-G, G2, H, H1-H3 and Annexures-K1-K3 gives the impression that the petitioner was trying to build records and establish a non existing right and thereby unjustly enrich itself. This conclusion of the court is further fortified by the acts of the society whereby the society has even proceeded to alienate certain lands and which have been protested by the second respondent by legal notice dated 25.05.2012 and demand has been made to have the sale deed executed by the Society in favour of the third parties be cancelled. The material on record clearly goes to show that the relief sought for in the writ petition is not as innocuous as it is made to appear but a blatant and glaring attempt to hoodwink and snatch public property which belongs to the public and to the private persons. If such attempts are condoned without being visited by exemplary cost it would only encourage such nefarious designs to abuse the process of the court and thereby manipulate and achieve their nefarious ends. Prima-facie this court believes that the respondents are right in contending that this is an attempt by the petitioner to unjustly enrich itself by grabbing lands that have been vested with the State authorities and statutory bodies.
Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitions are liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost. Accordingly, the petitions stand dismissed with cost quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only). Costs to be paid within eight weeks, failing which, the Registry shall take appropriate measures to recover the same.
Chs* CT-HR Sd/- JUDGE