Karnataka High Court
Sweta Singh vs Sri Sai Raghava Developers on 23 October, 2025
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.32509/2024 (SC-ST)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.15309/2024 (GM-POL)
IN W.P. NO. 32509/2024
BETWEEN
1. SWETA SINGH
W/O VISHAMBHARNATH PANDEY
AGED 36 YEARS
NO. DT3,BLOCK D, ITTINA SARVA APTS-I,
4TH MAIN, BEGUR ROAD
HONGASANDRAPOST, BOMMANAHALLI,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560068.
2. JAYASURYA E
S/O.ETHIRAJULU.V.
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
NO.C 72, BLOCK 6, 3RD FLOOR,
CENTRAL SILK BOARD STAFF QUARTERS,
MADIWALA, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA 560068
3. M GOPAL
S/O. LATE G. MAHADEVAN
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
NO. D-3, CBS STAFF QUARTERS,
LALBAGH WEST GATE, BASAVANGUDI,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560004
-2-
4. BHANUMATHI RAVINDRAN
W/O. DR. S.RAVINDRAN,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
NO. 241, 9TH CROSS,
2ND STAGE, SRIRAMPURA
MYSORE, KARNATAKA - 570023
5. VIKRAM SIMHA B S
S/O. B.N. SAINATH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
NO.28, DHANVI BEHIND NAL LAYOUT
JALBHAVAN, JAYANAGAR 4TH T BLOCK,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560041
6. SUPRIYA VENKATESH KADEMANI
W/O. VENKATESH L. KADEMANI
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
NO.80 GURU PRASAD VIVEKANAGAR,
WEST, B-BLOCK, K.K. COLONY.
BIJAPUR, KARNATAKA - 586101
7. VARSHA VINAY NADIGER
W/O.VINAY GUDDU NADIGER
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
NO.102, AUGUSTUS, LODHA PARADISE,
MAJIWADA, THANE WEST
THANE, MAHARASHTRA - 400601
8. ARZIA PRAVEEN
W/O.KAZI EMAM
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
ALI NO. 91/A. 7TH BLOCK, 3RD CROSS,
KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA -560095.
9. LEKSHMI B KRISHNAN
D/O. K B K NAIR.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
-3-
NO.102,CAVEREY COMFORTS,
VENKATAPURA MAIN ROAD,
1ST BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU SOUTH -560034.
10 . PUSHPAVATHI K M
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
W/O.SIDHARTHA REDDY.
NO.1/10, SEVAGANAPALLI(VILL)
AND (POST) HOSUR TALUK
KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT,
TAMILNADU -635001.
11 . N LALITHA
W/O.B.K.JAYASIMHA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
MASURI NO. 891, 1ST C MAIN ROAD,
BDA LAYOUT, 9TH BLOCK 2ND STAGE
NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA -560072.
12 . S VIJAYAKUMAR
S/O.G.SRINIVASA MUDALIAR
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
NO. 454, 40TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK
RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA -560010
13 . RAVI B
S/O.BYREGOWDA.
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
#69, NESARA O.B. CHOODAHALLI VILLAGE
KANAKAPURA ROAD,
BENGALURU -560082.
14 . ARUN NL
S/O.H.N.LAKSHMINARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
-4-
NAIBHI HOSAMANE, AGALAGANDI POST,
KOPPA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR,
KARNATAKA -577139.
15 . SAKTHI DEVI RAMESH
W/O.RAMESH PERUMAL
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
NO. 51, SUJISHRI ILLAM,
CONCORDE HOMES, KUDLU MAIN ROAD,
KUDLU BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA -560068.
16 . V KANAKA DURGA
W/O.DR.V.KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
RAO NO. 102 FRUIT STREET,
SHIVAJINAGAR
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -560001.
17 . DEEPIKA MANOHARAN
W/O.MADHU BABU
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
BHASHYAN , NO. 182, JAY DEEPALLAM,
NEAR VINTAGE ELITE APARTMENT,
BTM LAYOUT, 1ST BLOCK, 4TH STAGE,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU,KARNATAKA -560076.
18 . H A SUJAYA BABU
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
S/O.LATE H.N.ATHMARAM
NO. 3, 6TH B MAIN ROAD,
THYAGARAJA NAGAR, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA -560028
19 . INDIRA G
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
D/O.LATE GOPAL.
-5-
NO. 235 B, 13TH A CROSS,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, A SECTOR,
BENGALURU,KARNATAKA -560064
20 . MAHESHWARI B R
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
D/O.B.R.SURYANARAYANA REDDY,
NO. 203, 2ND FLOOR,
CHITRA BLOCK, ASWANISITARA,
RAMAKRISHNAPURA, CHANDAPURA,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -560081.
21 . L CHANDA MOHAN
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
S/O.LATE L.BALAVENGAMUNI.
PRAZA CLINIC, BRAMHIN STREET,
NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE,
SARJAPURA BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA -562125.
22 . SHASHIDHAR M
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
S/O. MANJUNATHA M.
SRI VEERAMAHESHWARAKRUPA 1ST FLOOR,
SARASWATHIPURAM, CHITRADURGA,
KARNATAKA -577501.
23 . SHEWTHA M
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
W/O.VIJAYKUMAR K.S.
SRI VEERAMAHESHWARAKRUPA
1ST FLOOR, 1ST MAIN, SARASWATHIPURAM
CHITRADURGA, KARNATAKA -577501.
24 . R MARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
S/O.RAMA REDDY
NO.38, SUKRUTHANILAYA,
-6-
OPP. SYNDICATE BANK. THILAKNAGAR,
ATTIBELE, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA -562107.
25 . SUDHAKAR BABU N.
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
S/O. NARAYANAREDDY.M.
NO.2/53, NAGAREDDY PALYAM VILLAGE,
ANNIYALAM, DENKANIKOTTAI TALUK,
KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT,
TAMIL NADU -635107.
26 . V ANJIREDDY
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O.SUBBAREDDY
NO.111 TRENDCITYPHASE II,
CHITTANAPALLI, NALLURROAD,
HOSUR, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT
TAMIL NADU -635109.
27 . SUDHEENDRA M V
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O. VIJAYENDRA. M.
NO. 03, 2ND FLOOR, BEHIND STSBAKERY,
RAMANA TRADERS BUILDING,
THILAK NAGAR, ATTIBELE,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -562107.
28 . KOYA SURESH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O. KOYA BHASKARA RAO
NO.PLOT NO.47, SAILAYOUT
SARJAPURA ROAD, ATTIBELE
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -562107.
29 . PURNIMA B R
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
W/O.WILLIAMS T.
-7-
NO.4, 4TH CROSS, CHOWDAIAH BLOCK
R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA 560032
30 . ACHYUT SAVANUR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O. LAXMAN SAVANUR
BANASHANKARI 3RD CROSS,
K R LAYOUT, JP NAGAR 6TH PHASE
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -560078.
31 . P MADHUSUDHAN
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O. LATE MUNIRAMA
NAIDU NO. 1-55, BANDARALAPALLE,
A RANGAMPET (POST)
CHANDRAGIRI(MANDAL)
CHITTOR DISTRICT,
ANDHRAPRADESH -517102
32 . RAMESH BAPU KHOT
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
S/O.BAPURAJARAM KHOT
CHINNAPPA BUILDING, SADASHIVNAGAR,
ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA -562107.
33 . SANGMESH NAIDU MADINENI
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
S/O M. SANKAR NAIDU.
NO.14D,CITYLIGHTAPPT, BELLANDUR,
BENGALURU,KARNATAKA -560103
34 . SHILPA S G
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
W/O. LATE VISHWANATH REDDY. SREE
VEERABHADRASWAMY NILAYA,
BEHIND KEB, SARJAPURA ROAD,
-8-
ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TALUK,BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA -562107.
35 . DILIP MAITY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
S/O.LATE MANMATHA NATH MAITY.
NO.49/5, VENKATESHWARA NILAYA,
SARJAPURA ROAD, THILAK NAGAR,
ATTIBELE, ANEKALTALUK, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA -562107.
36 . MADHUSUDHAN MAJI
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O.LATE GOBARDHAN MAJI.
NO.F4, ANANDANIKETAN BUILDING,
MANCHANAHALLI ROAD,
BEHIND KUMAR LAYOUT,
BHUVANESHWARINAGAR, ATTIBELE,
ANEKALTALUK, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA -562107.
37 . K B SIDDAGANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O. BYRAPPA
TARABANAHALLI, NEAR CHURCH,
CHICKBANAVARA POST, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA -560090.
38 . JAYAMAHESWARIA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
W/O.K.S.ASHOK KUMAR
NO.62/35, EAST SENGUNTHAR STREET,
VANGARAMPETTAI, PAPANASAM,
THANJAVUR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU-614205.
39 . PRASHANTH DEVARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
S/O.DEVARAJAPPA BHEEMAIAH
-9-
NO. E 18, 3RD CROSS,
OPP.OLDMARAMMA TEMPLE,
K.G. NAGAR, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA -560019.
40 . G MALATHI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
W/O. G. SRINIVAS
NO.661,BLOCK-45, CPWD QUARTERS,
HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA -560102
41 . LAVANYAKANCHI
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
W/O. UMASHANKAR
KANCHI FLAT NO. 104, AUGUSTUS,
LODHA PARADISE, MAJIWADA HIGHWAY,
THANE WEST, MAHARASHTRA - 400601.
42 . LOGANATHAN SARAVANAN
S/O.LATE M.D.SARAVANAN
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
#46/86, SHANMUGANARSTREET,
TIRUPATTUR, VELORE DISTRICT,
TAMILNADU - 632001
43 . KOMATHI. S.
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
W/O.S.SURESH.
454, 40TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA - 560010.
44 . KRISHNA PRASAD DAS
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O.LATEMANORANJAN
DAS. 1532/2, SARJAPURA,
-10-
OPP. IBP PETROL BUNK, SARJAPURA ROAD
ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA - 562125.
45 . SUBIR KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O.YADUNANDAN PRASAD.
G-04, VANDANA CORAL,
ANUGRAHA LAYOUT,
NEAR MITRA SUPERMARKET,
BELLAKAHALLI, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA - 560076.
46 . CHAYADEVI N
W/O. NAGESH RAO T. R.
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
THADIGOL VILLAGE, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 563135.
47 . R SUMAN
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O. RAVICHANDRAN.
93/94, SAI LAYOUT, JIGALA CROSS,
ATTIBELE, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA - 562107.
48 . KANNAN ARUMUGAM
S/O. L.A. ARUMUGAM.
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
48, KAVINAYAAGAM, CONCORDE HOMES,
KUDLUMAIN ROAD, KUDLU,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560068.
49 . KALAIVANI SARAVANAN
W/O.KANNAN ARUMUGAM
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
48, KAVINAYA AGAM, CONCORDE HOMES,
-11-
KUDLUMAIN ROAD, KUDLU,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560068
50 . MEGHA
W/O.PRAVIN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
G-15,D-BLOCK, SLS SPRINGS,
SOMASUNDARAPALYA, HSRSEC-2
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560102.
51 . MANJUNATH M
S/O MARIYAPPA B
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
67, 3RD CROSS, RAJATHADRI LAYOUT
KOTHANUR DINNE, BENGALURU
KARNATAKA-560076.
SL.NO. 1 TO 51 ARE REP BY THEIR
GPA HOLDER MR. B. RAVI
S/O BYREGOWDA
...PETITIONERS
(BY MR. P S RAJGOPAL., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
MR K PUTTEGOWDA., ADVOCATE )
AND
1. SRI SAI RAGHAVA DEVELOPERS
NO.19, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 15TH CROSS,
LAKKASANDRA, BENGALURU-560030.
IT'S A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER,
SRI. G. SURESH KUMAR.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DISTRICT,
BENGALURU-560009.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION,
-12-
BENGALURU-560009.
4. M/S TERRACON PROJECTS,
NEAR ATTIBELE SCHOOL, JIGALA ROAD,
ATTIBELE, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562107.
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI S V BABU
S/O. LATE RAMABADRASHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NO.927, 18TH A MAIN 5TH BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010.
5. SMT. MOTAMMA
W/O. LATE PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
6. SMT. CHANNAMMA
D/O. LATE PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
7. SRI. ANJINAPPA
S/O. LATE PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
8. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
D/O. LATE PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
9. SRI. MANJUNATH
S/O. LATE PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
10 . SRI. SRINIVAS
S/O. LATE PAPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
-13-
RESPONDENT NOS. 5 TO 10
PRESENTLY R/A JAMBAVA NAGAR
HOSUR BAGILUANEKAL TOWN
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562106.
11 . SRI. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O. PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
PRESENTLY R/A JAMBAVA NAGAR
HOSUR BAGILU, ANEKAL TOWN
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562106.
12 . SRI. ANANDAPPA
S/O. MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEAERS
PRESENTLY R/A JAMBAVA NAGAR
HOSUR BAGILU, ANEKAL TOWN
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562106.
13 . SRI. SHAMANNA
S/O. MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEAERS
PRESENTLY R/A JAMBAVA NAGAR
HOSUR BAGILU, ANEKAL TOWN
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562106.
14 . SRI. SRINIVAS
S/O. MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEAERS
PRESENTLY R/A JAMBAVA NAGAR
HOSUR BAGILU, ANEKAL TOWN
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562106.
15 . SRI. RAMESH
S/O. YALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEAERS
PRESENTLY R/A JAMBAVA NAGAR
HOSUR BAGILU, ANEKAL TOWN
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562106
16 . SRI. YELLAPPA
S/O.VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEAERS
PRESENTLY R/A JAMBAVA NAGAR
HOSUR BAGILU, ANEKAL TOWN
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562106
17 . SRI. NARAYANAPPA
S/O. LATE NAGAPPA
PRESENTLY R/A JAMBAVA NAGAR
HOSUR BAGILU, ANEKAL TOWN
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562106
18 . SRI. LAKSHMANA
S/O. LATE NAGAPPA
R/A SHAMSUNDAR BUILDING
ATTIBELE, ANEKAL ROAD
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562106.
19 . SRI. CHANDRAPPA
S/O. LATE NAGAPPA
R/A SHAMSUNDAR BUILDING
ATTIBELE, ANEKAL ROAD
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562106.
20 . SMT. KOTHA KRISHNA KUMARI
W/O. K NAGA MALLESWARA RAO
R/O KODIHALLI EXTENSION H A L II STAGE
BENGALURU-560008.
21 . SRI. A. SATHYANARAYANA
S/O TATHAIAH
R/A NO.1227 4TH CROSS
HAL 3RD STAGE NEW THIPPASANDRA
BENGALURU-560075.
22 . SRI. KIRAN KUMAR
S/O. N. M. VEERA JANENDRA (RETD. C E)
R/A NO.581 12TH A MAIN
J P NAGAR 2ND PHASE
BENGALURU-560078.
23 . SRI. MUNISWAMAPPA
S/O. VENKATARAMAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS
PRESENTLY R/A JAMBAVA NAGAR
HOSUR BAGILU, ANEKAL TOWN
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562106
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MR SRIRANGA S, ADVOCATE FOR R1
MR VIJAY V BAJENTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3
MR PUNEETH K, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 20.11.20 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT
IN WP 14163/2013 AT ANNEXURE-H AS IT WAS OBTAINED BY
PLAYING FRAUD ON THIS HONBLE COURT AND ALSO BECAUSE IT
IS NOT BINDING ON THE PARTIES AND DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS TO NOT INTERFACE WITH THEIR COLLECTIVE
PEACEFUL POSSESSION OF LAND MEASURING 2 ACRES 25
GUNTAS, ORIGINALLY IDENTIFIED AS SURVEY NO. 173, NOW RE
NUMBERED AS SURVEY NO. 214, SITUATED IN IDNLABELE
VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK AND ETC.
BETWEEN
M/S SRI SAI RAGHAVA DEVELOPERS
REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT
NO.19, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 15TH CROSS,
LAKKASANDRA, BENGALURU-560 030
REP. BY ITS PARTNER
SRI G. SURESH KUMAR
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. SUSHEELA S., SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SHIVARAJU M.K., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND IGP
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 002
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
BENGALURU CITY, INFANTRY ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001
3. THE SUPERINTENDING POLICE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
BENGALURU - 560052
4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
ATTIBELE POLICE STATION,
ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TALUK-562106
5. M/S. TERRACON PROJECTS,
REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT
NEAR ATTIBELE SCHOOL, JIGALA,
ATTIBELE, BENGALURU - 562 107
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, S. V.BABU,
S/O. LATE RAMABADRA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 927, 18TH 'A' MAIN,
5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 010.
6. SWETHA SINGH
W/O VISHAMBHAR NATH PANDEY
#DT3, BLOCK D, ITTINS SARVA APTS-1
4TH MAIN, BEGUR ROAD,
HONGASANDRA POST
BOMMANAHALLI
BENGALURU-560068.
REP. BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
DR.R.NO.SINGH
7. VIKRAM SIMHA B S
S/O. B.N. SAINATH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
NO.28, DHANVI BEHIND NAL LAYOUT
JALBHAVAN, JAYANAGAR 4TH T BLOCK,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560041
8. RAVI B
S/O BYREGOWDA
NO.35, 2ND MAIN, PP LAYOUT
KATHRIGUPPE WATER TANK
BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE
BENGALURU-560085.
9. V KANAKA DURGA
W/O.DR.V.KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
RAO NO. 102 FRUIT STREET,
SHIVAJINAGAR
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -560001.
10. MAHESHWARI B R
D/O.B.R.SURYANARAYANA REDDY,
NO. 203, 2ND FLOOR,
CHITRA BLOCK, ASWANISITARA,
RAMAKRISHNAPURA, CHANDAPURA,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -560081.
11. ABSHISHEKA N
S/O NARASIMHA REDDY M
NO.2/18, VARADHAREDDY PALYAM VILLAGE
KENDIGANAPALLI, DENKANIKOTTA TALUK
KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT
TAMILNADU -635107.
12. G MALATHI
W/O. G. SRINIVAS
NO.661,BLOCK-45, CPWD QUARTERS,
HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA -560102.
13. SUDHEENDRA M V
S/O. VIJENDRA. M.
NO. 03, 2ND FLOOR, BEHIND STS BAKERY,
RAMANA TRADERS BUILDING,
THILAK NAGAR, ATTIBELE,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -562107.
14. MANJUNATH M
S/O MARIYAPPA B
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
67, 3RD CROSS, RAJATHADRI LAYOUT
KOTHANUR DINNE, BENGALURU
KARNATAKA-560076.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ARUNA G.S, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4
SRI S. BASAVARAJ, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. TRIVIKRAM S. ADVOCATE FOR R5
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR L., ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R14)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 TO
4 TO GIVE AND GRANT POLICE PROTECTION TO THE PETITIONER
AGAINST THE R5 AND ITS HENCHMEN, WHO ARE MAKING ILLEGAL
AND FRANTIC ATTEMPS TO MEDDLE WITH THE PEACEFUL
POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE PETITIONER OVER THE
PROPERTY IN QUESTION I.E. ALL THAT PIECE AND PARCEL OF THE
CONVERTED LAND BEARING SY. NO. 214, MEASURING 2 ACRES 25
GUNTAS SITUATED AT INDLABELE VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, TILL THREAT
PERSIST AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 01.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, R.DEVDAS. J., MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
CAV COMMON ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS)
Writ Petition No.15309/2024 is filed by M/s.Sri Sai
Raghava Developers against M/s.Terracon Projects and others
with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing
respondents No.1 to 4 - police to give protection to the
petitioner against respondent No.5 - M/s. Terracon Projects
and its henchmen, protecting the petitioner from illegal
attempts of interference in respect of the petition schedule
property viz., land bearing Sy.No.214 of Indlabele village,
Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District,
measuring in all 2 acres 25 guntas of converted land. After
the said writ petition was filed, some of the respondents,
along with many others who claimed to have purchased
individual residential sites formed in the petition schedule
property, filed W.P.No.32509/2024 with a prayer to
review/recall the order dated 20.11.2020 passed in
W.P.No.14163/2013, on the ground that the same is not
binding on them. The petitioners have also prayed for a writ
of mandamus directing M/s.Sai Raghava Developers and the
legal heirs of the original grantee, not to interfere with the
collective peaceful possession of the petition schedule
property, enjoyed at the hands of the writ petitioners.
Therefore, since the subject matter of both the writ petitions
arise out of the petition schedule property, the matters were
clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this
common order.
2. Undisputed facts leading to the two writ petitions
are that 2 acres and 25 guntas of land in Sy.No.173 of
Indlabele Village was granted to Sri Venkataramanappa under
the provisions of the Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888, in the
year 1936-37. The said land was renumbered as Sy.No.214,
after phodi and dhurasth. The said Sri Venkataramanappa
sold 1 acre of land in favour of Sri Shukoor Sab under
registered Sale Deed dated 20.04.1966. Sri Shukoor Sab sold
it in favour of Sri Nagappa. Sri Nagappa got the land
converted to non-agricultural purposes on 25.06.1994. It is
interesting to notice that the other extent of 1 acre 25 guntas
which were retained by Sri Venkataramanappa were also
converted on the same day i.e., 25.06.1994. The legal
representatives of Sri Venkataramanappa sold 1 acre 25
guntas in favour of Sri Sai Raghava Developers, through a
Power of Attorney holder. Sri Papanna and Sri
Narayanaswamy, legal heirs of Sri Venkataramanappa initiated
proceedings under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain
Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'the Act'), seeking a declaration
that the sale deeds executed in favour of Sri Shukoor Sab and
Sri Sai Raghava Developers are null and void and accordingly
sought for resumption and restoration of lands in favour of the
legal heirs of Sri Venkataramanappa. The Assistant
Commissioner allowed the petition and directed resumption
and restoration of lands in favour of the legal heirs of Sri
Venkataramanappa. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the
appeal filed by Sri Sai Raghava Developers. Aggrieved, M/s.Sri
Sai Raghava Developers filed W.P.No.14163/2013. In the
meanwhile, the legal heirs of Sri Venkataramanappa sought
for permission to sell the property and the State Government
issued directions to the Deputy Commissioner, granting
permission to sell the property in favour of Sri S.V.Babu on
17.05.2013. On the Strength of the permission accorded by
the Government, in terms of Section 4(2) of the Act, the legal
heirs of Sri Venkataramanappa sold the petition schedule
property in favour of M/s.Terracon Projects, Proprietory
concern of Sri S.V.Babu, under registered sale deed dated
21.06.2013, during the pendency of W.P.No.14163/2013. On
20.11.2020, W.P.No.14163/2013 was allowed while setting
aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and
the Deputy Commissioner.
3. M/s. Terracon Projects challenged the order in
W.A.No.612/2021 and the same was dismissed on
24.09.2021. M/s.Terracon Projects filed Special Leave Petition
(C) No.10517/2022 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the
same was dismissed, without issuing leave, on 24.02.2023.
However, M/s.Terracon Projects filed a review petition in Diary
No.51362/2023 and the review petition was also dismissed on
03.04.2024. It is pointed out that the petitioners in
W.P.No.32509/2024 (house site owners) also filed an SLP in
Diary No.23838/2024 and the same was dismissed on
22.07.2024.
4. It is in this background that Sai Raghava
Developers are before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus
directing respondents No.1 to 4 - police to provide protection,
to enable the developers to form a layout. On the other hand,
the petitioners in the other writ petition are contending that
they have purchased residential sites at the hands of M/s.
Terracon Projects. It is contended that there are 51
petitioners in W.P.No.32509/2024, who are in lawful
possession of individual residential sites purchased under
registered sale deeds, which have been produced at Annexure-
G to G53. It is contended that the local authority - Village
Panchayat has issued katha certificates in favour of the
individual site owners. It is therefore contended that the
prayer made by Sai Raghava Developers, for police protection,
should not be granted.
5. Learned Senior Counsel Smt. S.Susheela,
appearing for Sri Sai Raghava Developers submitted that
Terracon Projects filed the Writ Appeal in the year 2021,
raising a challenge to the orders passed in the writ petition
and raised all contentions, including the fact that it purchased
the petition schedule property after obtaining prior sanction, in
compliance of Section 4(2) of the Act. However, the Division
Bench of this Court did not accept such contentions, since
admittedly the lands were purchased during the pendency of
the writ petition. The SLP filed at the hands of Terracon
Projects was also dismissed by the Apex Court. Such being
the position, there should be no impediment for this Court to
direct respondents No.1 to 4 to provide police protection.
6. Learned Senior Counsel Smt. S.Susheela,
submitted that even before the first proceedings were initiated
at the hands of Sri Papanna and Sri Narayanaswamy in the
year 2004, seeking resumption and restoration, admittedly the
lands were converted to non-agricultural purposes in the year
1994. It is submitted that a Full Bench of this Court, in the
case of Sri Munnaiah And Others /vs./ The Deputy
Commissioner and Others - 2021 SCC OnLine KAR
14869, has held that if the granted lands are converted from
agricultural to non-agricultural purposes, the provisions of the
PTCL Act will not be attracted. It is submitted that Terracon
Projects were aware of the fact the lands were converted in
the year 1994 and Sri Sai Raghava Developers had purchased
converted lands and the writ petition filed by Sri Sai Raghava
Developers was pending consideration before this Court.
Under such circumstances, when this Court and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court have rejected such contention raised at the
hands of Terracon Projects, the subsequent purchasers of
individual sites have been set up to file one more writ petition
seeking to re-open the decided issues. It is submitted that the
subsequent purchasers will have no say in the matters arising
out of the PTCL Act.
7. Learned Senior Counsel submits that under similar
circumstances, a Division Bench of the this Court, in the case
of Mr.Umar Khatri /vs./ Mr.Bettaiah and others in W.A.
No.88/2020, dated 13.09.2022, noticed such contention
that during the pendency of the appeal before the Deputy
Commissioner, the legal heirs of the original grantee obtained
permission from the State Government and sold the property
in favour of respondent No.1 therein. The Division Bench
therefore held that the lands were purchased pendente lite
and by law a purchaser pendente lite is bound by the orders
passed in the proceedings which were pending consideration
as on the date of the transaction. It is submitted that a co-
ordinate bench of this Court, in the case of Mr.H.R.Suresh
/vs./ State of Karnataka and others in
W.P.No.13200/2023 and connected matters, has
imposed costs of Rs.10,00,000/- on the State Government for
granting permission to sell the restored lands, during the
pendency of the writ proceedings. It was held that the root
cause of the trauma and damage caused to the prior
purchaser is the permission granted by the Government,
without verifying the facts and the pendency of the litigation.
8. Reliance is also placed on A.Nawab John and
others /vs./ V.N.Subramaniyam - (2012) 7 SCC 738,
where it was held, "It is settled legal position that the effect of
Section 52 is not to render transfers effected during the
pendency of a suit by a party to the suit void; but only to
render such transfers subservient to the rights of the parties
to such suit, as may be, eventually, determined in the suit. In
other words, the transfer remains valid subject, of course, to
the result of the suit. The pendente lite purchaser would be
entitled to or suffer the same legal rights and obligations of his
vendor as may be eventually determined by the court."
9. That being the position, it is submitted that the
claim of the subsequent individual site purchasers to review
and recall the orders passed by this Court, which have been
confirmed at the hands of the Apex Court, is required to be
rejected. For the same reason, since the matter has attained
finality, the private respondents are not entitled to cause
interference with the peaceful possession of the petition
schedule property and therefore appropriate directions should
be issued to respondents No.1 t 4 - police to provide
protection to the writ petitioner - Sri Sai Raghava Developers.
10. Per contra, learned Senior Counsels Sri Vivek
Subba Reddy and Sri S.Basavaraj, appearing for the writ
petitioners in the connected writ petition No.32509/2024
(individual site owners) and M/s. Terracon Projects, submitted
that at no point of time have Sri Sai Raghava Developers
questioned the permission granted by the State Government,
although they were aware of such permission granted by the
Government in the year 2013. Even after Terracon Projects
filed the writ appeal, questioning the orders passed in
W.P.No.14163/2013, Sri Sai Raghava Developers did not raise
a challenge to the permission accorded by the State
Government. Moreover, Terracon Projects has proceeded to
form a residential layout and has sold individual sites in favour
of several purchasers, including the petitioners in
W.P.No.32509/2024. Registered sale deeds at Annexures-G
to G53, executed and registered between the years 2017 to
2018 have been produced along with the writ petition. Under
such admitted circumstances, this Court should not grant the
prayer made by Sri Sai Raghava Developers. On the other
hand, since admittedly the individual site owners were not
impleaded as party respondents in the writ petition filed at the
hands of Sri Sai Raghava Developers or the writ appeal filed
by M/s.Terracon Projects, they are entitled to seek review of
the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.14163/2013.
11. Heard the learned Senior Counsels Smt. Susheela,
Sri Vivek Subba Reddy and the learned Counsel Sri Basavaraj,
and perused the petition papers.
12. On facts, it is necessary to notice that although it is
true that during the pendency of the writ petition filed by Sri
Sai Raghava Developers, in W.P.No.14163/2013, by order
dated 17.05.2013, permission was granted by the State
Government to the legal heirs of Sri Venkataramanappa to sell
the petition schedule property in favour of Sri S.V.Babu,
Proprietor of M/s. Terracon Projects. No steps were taken by
Sri Sai Raghava Developers, to question such permission
granted by the Government and in no proceedings declaration
is made regarding the validity of the permission granted by
the Government. Neither the sale deed dated 21.06.2013 by
which M/s. Terracon Projects purchased the petition schedule
property nor the individual sale deeds executed and registered
in favour of the petitioners in W.P.No.32509/2024 have been
declared void.
13. This is probably the reason why the Apex Court,
while dismissing the SLP filed by M/s.Terracon Projects in
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.10517/2022 dated 24.02.2023
made it clear that the SLP is dismissed in the peculiar
circumstances and on the ground of delay and laches only and
not on the ground whether the prior permission was necessary
or not. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has not decided the issue
regarding the subsequent permission granted by the
Government in favor of the legal heirs of Sri
Venkataramanappa, to sell the property in favour of Sri
S.V.Babu. The learned Senior Counsels are therefore right in
their submissions that since the validity of the sale permission
granted by the Government is not questioned and the
subsequent sale deeds, be it the sale deed executed in favour
of M/s. Terracon Projects nor the individual sale deeds
executed in favour of the site purchasers have not been
declared void by any authority or court, this Court cannot
assume that the sale deeds are void. The judgment cited by
learned Senior Counsel Smt.S.Susheela in A.Nawab John
(supra) reiterates the position that the effect of Section 52 of
the Transfer of Property Act, is not to render transfers effected
during the pendency of a suit by a party to the suit void. The
provision seeks to render such transfers subservient to the
rights of the parties to such suit, as may be, eventually,
determined in the suit. The Apex Court has declared that the
transfers remained valid subject to the result of the suit.
14. The situation here is further complicated by the
permission granted by the State Government, having regard
to the express provisions contained in Section 4(2) of the Act.
The issue as to whether the State Government could have
accorded permission during the pendency of the writ petition
cannot be gone into in these proceedings. On the other hand,
while deciding such an issue, the competent court will have to
take into consideration the subsequent developments and
third party rights created even before such an action is
questioned.
15. This Court is also of the considered opinion that the
prayer made by the individual site owners in
W.P.No.32509/2024 to review and recall the order dated
20.11.2020 in W.P.No.14163/2013, cannot be acceded to.
However, all contentions are left open for the writ petitioners
in both the petitions and the private respondents to work out
their remedy in accordance with law.
16. Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed
of.
17. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(R DEVDAS)
JUDGE
KLY
CT:JL
