Site news


Picture of System Administrator
by System Administrator - Monday, 6 April 2015, 12:15 AM

By: M.S.Yatnatti: Editor and Video Journalist Bangaluru: Once the Government issued final notification UDD -629-MNX-97 DATED 06-10-1997 . about the same land and the early notification what so ever will be stands null and voidvoid with reference to preliminary notification remaining same in the both notification...The 1994 old final notification and its award and Mahzar etc became null and void and BDA cannot claim any rights over old final notification its award and Mahzar etc .In the similar way new final notification was issued by Government in respect of Arkavathi Layout gazetted onJune 18, 2014 making old final Notification issued on 2004 its award and Mahzar etc became null and void and BDA cannot Claim any rights over old final notification. and BDA cannot claim any rights over old final notification its award and Mahzar etc., it is further submits that, in accordance to the 1997 final notification 101/2B, does not feature in new final notification hence it is not a BDA property BDA officers engineers and contractor are criminal trees passers .

BDA gets title of the property only through Final Notification .Land owners do not need go to any court order to enforce final notification. Sri Krishna Murthy AEE Housing project is facing PCR No 12777/2014 and Lokayukta case in 3026/2014. Let BDA stop construction in S.No 101/2BValgerahalli Kengeri Hobli Bangalore South Taluka & wait final outcome in OS NO 26334/2014 as status quo order was issued for both and vacated for both and it is not clearMeans both were asked to maintain status quo and now both are free not to maintain status quo which is technically impossible to implement and case is admitted in OS NO 26334/2014 and Lis is pending . Kengeri police should restrict Sri Kishna Murthy AEE Housing project and stop construction if any carried out by Gowri construction. Sri Kishna Murthy AEE Housing project is in hurry and repeating same blunder what housing division has committed in other similar cases and Sri Kishna Murthy AEE Housing project cares too hoots to the order ofhonourable MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY in WRIT PETITION NOS. 12962-12970 of 2012 (LA-BDA). Somehow he want to finish off the 200 core project and vanish from the place without caring rule of law and go back to his parent PWD department leaving BDA in deep financial mess .Land acquisition officer has to defend in the court but here he himself has taken the responsibility of land acquisition officer and defending the case illegally. In a similar case by BDA housing department and same Gowri construction contractor continued the work and completed the work during the pendency of the case but the case went against the BDA. BDA is not learning any lessen even though in similar case in the high court of Karnataka at Bangalore in its order dated 14 th day of February 2014 bythe honorable MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDYin WRIT PETITION NOS. 12962-12970 of 2012 (LA-BDA) had allowed WP. It is also to be seen that the BDA has plunged ahead with the project and erected building even during the pendency of this petition - unconscious of its folly or may be even brash indifference as to the consequences if any. It is not in doubt that the petitions, however, would succeed in the light of the above infirmity and are accordingly allowed. The BDA was directed to put the petitioners in possession of lands of similar nature and extent as were the subject matter of acquisition. This case should open the eyes of BDA. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the lands of the petitioners do not form the subject matter of the second final notification dated 16.9.1997 or the third final notification dated 7.10.1999. The lands of the petitioners have evidently not been acquired by the BDA or Government. In this view of the matter, the action of the BDA in attempting to put up construction illegally in the lands of the petitioners or their earlier attempts to auction the property, are illegal and without the authority of law. The Mahazar, if any, sought to be drawn , is by a Revenue Inspector and obviously, as has been the routine, some strange signatures said to be those of villagers, without any particulars, would be vaguely found in any such Mahazar prepared in the office of the BDA, to falsely claim that BDA has taken possession. Moreover, when the lands of the petitioners do not form the subject matter of any final notification legally or factually, the question of the BDA passing any award or claiming that they have taken possession of the said lands, does not arise.M.Mahesh s/o Late Mahadevaiah is fighting case against BDA afresh as BDA has got an high court order in 40011/2002 by fraud and suppressing final gazette notification UDD -629-MNX-97 DATED 06-10-1997 which prominently did not include the land in S.No 101/2BValgerahalli Kengeri Hobli Bangalore South Taluka . Hence it is not a BDA Property.Resjudicata not applicable to the orders obtained by fraud: If an advocate is damaging the case by suppressing the facts and getting adverse order by fraud such order does not become Resjudicata and such order can be challenged in the court of law again by putting in all facts and orders can be reviewed and fresh orders can be passed by judiciary. Courts have held that "The earlier writ petitions got dismissed on making factually incorrect submissions by the learned Counsel who appeared for the fourth respondent's society. That apart, this Court has not gone into the merits of the earlier writ petitions. Therefore, dismissal of earlier writ petitions of the petitioners do not come in the way of maintainability of these writ petitions.”.It is worthwhile to extract the relevant paragraphs of the above decisions of the Apex Court as the same, with all fours, applicable to the fact situation in support of the case of the petitioners.."7. The High Court, in our view, fell into patent error. The short question before the High Court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case. Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the Court. The High Court, however, went haywire and made observations which are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High Court that "there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to Court with a true case and to prove it by true evidence". The principle of 'finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest, litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands, we are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.