IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NO.6955/2019(CS-RES) BETWEEN:
MR. E. SHIVASHANKAR S/O S. ETHIRAJ AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1355 AECS LAYOUT, “D” BLOCK SIR M.V. NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 037.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK BENGALURU – 560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2. THE AIRCRAFT EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD SITUATED AT NO.15 1ST “C” CROSS, 3RD FLOOR C.K.C. GARDEN OPP: B.I.O. HOSPITAL K.H. ROAD (DOUBLER ROAD) BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI. A.V. NISHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED:01.02.2019 VIDE ANNX-D PASSED BY THE R-2 DIRECT THE R-2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DTD 10.01.2019 VIDE ANNX-C AND THEREBY TO EFFECT NECESSARY RECTIFICATION IN THE SALE DEED DATED:21.06.2002 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AS SOUGHT FOR IN THE REPRESENTATION VIDE ANNX-C.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Though matter is listed for orders, by consent of learned Advocates appearing for both parties it is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard Sri. Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner, Sri. K. Krishna, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. A.V.Nishanth, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 10.01.2019-Annexure-C and thereby effect necessary rectification in the sale deed dated 21.06.2002 contending interalia that petitioner was allotted a site bearing No.1223/F in ‘A’ Block by 2nd respondent -Society and pursuant to same, sale deed dated 21.06.2002 came to be executed. It is also contended that based on same khatha also came to be issued by Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike as per Annexure-B and when this was the factual scenario, there was a change effected in the layout plan and as such boundaries reflected in sale deed of the petitioner got changed and as such they were required to be rectified. Hence, petitioner is said to have submitted a representation on 10.01.2019-Annexure-C to 2nd respondent seeking rectification of sale deed and after considering said representation, second respondent – Society has rejected the same by impugned order dated 01.02.2019 vide Annexure-D on the ground that impugned stay had been passed in W.P.No.50216- 18/2012 on 13.12.2012. Hence, this writ petition.
4. Sri. Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court that issue involved in the present petition is similar and identical to the issue resolved in W.P.No.18329/2016 disposed of on 04.11.2016 and the matters alike as per Annexures- E, G and H and as such he has prayed for similar orders being passed in this writ petition also.
5. Under similar circumstances Coordinate Bench while disposing of W.P.2006/2016 (BDA) vide Annexure-E has observed as under:
“The interim order passed in W.P.Nos.50216-50218/2012 dated 8.2.2013 does not bar the 2nd respondent Society from executing the deed of rectification for rectifying the boundaries of the sites already allotted and sold by it to its members. This Court has only restrained the Society from lodging for registration any instrument of conveyance, alienation or encumbrance on the properties belonging to the Society. Therefore, the endorsement at Annexure-G dated 9.5.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent is hereby quashed and the 2nd respondent is directed to consider execution of the deed of rectification in respect of the aforesaid site in favour of the petitioner in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly”.
6. Sri. A.V. Nishanth, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 does not dispute the fact of prayer sought for in this writ petition being similar and identical to the prayer which came to be granted by Co-ordinate Bench under Annexures- E and G.
7. In the light of similar endorsements having been quashed by Coordinate Benches as noticed hereinabove, petitioner would also be entitled to similar relief in this writ petition.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (1) Writ petition is allowed.
(2) Endorsement dated 01.02.2019-
Annexure-D issued by respondent No.2 is
rectification in respect of aforestated site bearing No.1223/F in ‘A’ block at Kudlu village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District in favour of the petitioner and in accordance with law.
(3) No order as to costs.
SD/- JUDGE RU