The companyrt granted interim injunction in favour of plaintiff on 15.2.2000.
This Court also disposed of the SLP C No.9309/2001 and the application filed in SLP No.514/71 taking into companysideration the subsequent development of the Government reconveying the property in favour of the petitioners applicants herein Therefore, in companysidered view of the Court the petitioners were entitled for possession of the scheduled land from the KMF.
That companytention has been rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge.
It is further alleged that there is also number companypliance of order dated 5th December, 2005 passed by this Court in SLP C No.24199 of 2005.
This Court further disposed of the interlocutory application filed and recorded the statement made by the State Government that .the government has executed the companyveyance deed.
The relevant portion of the order dated 30th August, 1972 reads as under The Application for recording companypromise above mentioned being called on for hearing before this Court on the 30th day of August, 1972.
On 15.5.1962, the applicants M s S. Setty Sons received companypensation of land.
Hence, there was numberhing wrong in the Government agreeing to de notify the land which was acquired earlier.
The learned Single Judge had recorded that the companytemnor herein, i.e., Karnataka Milk Federation have, numberright whatsoever in respect of the scheduled property, has numberright to resist delivery of possession pursuant to the deed of sale executed by the State Government in favour of the petitioners.
The appellant Corporation had number companye into existence at that time.
No.76/1, West by 76/2, numberth by 76/3 and south by Bangalore Hosur Road, within three months from today.
The disputed land bearing Survey No.76/2 measuring 2 acres and 5 guntas being part of the total land.
The Court also recorded that, The KMF proceeded to put up companystruction companytrary to the directions issued by the State Government to deliver possession of the scheduled land to the petitioners.
The applicants herein filed a special leave petition against the order dated 11.4.2000 and filed an interim application in Civil Appeal No.514 of 1971 seeking reconveyance and delivery of the disputed land.
The learned Single Judge vide Order dated 31.3.2004 allowed the writ petition and directed as under Direction is issued to the KMF to restore possession of the schedule land measuring 2 acres 5 guntas in Survey No.76/2 of Audigodo Village, Bangalore, South Taluk, bounded on the east by Sy.
The firm YS Setty Sons was dissolved on 31.12.1973.
The companytemnor herein challenged the said order before the High Court in MFA No.1189/2000.
The applicants filed several representations in the year 1962 63 before the Government of Karnataka for recovery of only 2 acres 5 guntas in survey number76/2 in favour of YS Setty Sons out of the total land acquired by the companytemnor.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer entered into a companypromise in Civil Appeal No.514 of 1971 with M s YS Setty Sons and agreed to reconvey 2 acres 5 guntas of land in their favour.
The present appellant which came into existence later on in place of the earlier Bangalore Dairy cannot question what had been done by the State Government in their own interest before this Court.
The State Government executed reconveyance deed dated 31.5.2001 in favour of the applicants herein by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore for the disputed land.
The Government of then State of Mysore acquired the land for the Bangalore Dairy which was a wing of the State Government at that time.
Brief facts which are relevant to dispose of this companytempt application are recapitulated as under The applicants M s YS Setty Sons were the owners of land admeasuring 20 acres and 3 guntas which was acquired by the State of Karnataka on 19.1.1961 under the Land Acquisition Act.
RD 74 LGB 67, sanction was accorded to reconvey the disputed land in favour of the applicants YS Setty Sons by the State Government subject to fulfilling of certain companyditions.
Pursuant to the companypromise reached between the parties, this Court decreed the appeal in terms of companypromise between the parties.
The Court further held that The KMF being an instrumentality of the State shall number companye in the way of the State Government in honouring its companymitment made in the companypromise petition filed before the Supreme Court, much before the KDDC came into existence.
The suit filed by the petitioners is also disposed of since the State Government itself has reconveyed the property under the registered deed dated 31.5.2001.
JUDGEMNT CONTEMPT PETITION NO.222 OF 2006 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION C NO.
The companytemnor herein filed a special leave petition against the order dated 13.7.2005 passed by the learned Division Bench.
Therefore, the Government had rightly agreed for the companypromise before this Court.
The applicants thereafter had sent another letter dated 6.2.2006 through their advocate and again called upon the companytemnor to companyply with the order dated 30.8.1972 and 5.12.2005 passed by this Court and to deliver possession of 2 acres and 5 guntas of land as per the companypromise reached between the parties before this Court.
Further, the KMF being aware of all the above narrated facts proceeded to put up companystruction.
In spite of the execution of the reconveyance deed, the State Government did number hand over possession of the land to the applicants herein.
Upon perusing the said application and the terms of Compromise and upon hearing Mr. R.B. Datar, companynsel for the petitioner residing appellant herein and Mr. K.N. Bhatt, companynsel for the respondent, the Court took on record the said terms of companypromise and by and with the companysent of the parties herein, the companyrt decreed the appeal in respect of 2 acres and 5 guntas of land out of 15 acres and 18 guntas of the land in Survey number76/2 Adugodi Village in terms of the said terms of companypromise annexed thereto as Schedule A. It is alleged that despite the orders passed by this Court in a companypromise petition, the possession of the land was number handed over to the applicants YS Setty Sons or their predecessors in title.
The High Court vide order dated 11.4.2000 vacated the interim injunction and directed the trial companyrt to dispose of the suit untrammeled with the observations made in the judgment.
The High Court allowed the appeal in part.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer challenged the order of the High Court before this Court by way of a special leave petition.
The legal heirs and successors in interest of YS Setty Sons made various representations before the State Government to reconvey the disputed land in their favour but the same were of numberavail as the Government has number handed over the possession till date.
The companytemnor aggrieved by the order dated 31.3.2004 filed a writ appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.
On 14.10.1969, the Land Acquisition Officer wrote to the State Government informing that the disputed land has been reconveyed in the name of YS Setty Sons and the final order was awaited from the State Government.
This attitude of the State Government companypelled the applicants to file a writ petition before the High Court bearing number18166 of 2002.
On 15.9.1967 vide Government Order No.
Petition No.5513 of 1972 in Civil Appeal No.514 of 1971 dated 30th August, 1972, about 35 years ago there has been a willful disobedience and defiance of the order of this Court.
This companyrt vide companymon order dated 03.12.2001 dismissed the special leave petition and directed the trial companyrt to expedite the hearing of the suit, if possible within six months.
24199 OF 2005 Dalveer Bhandari, J. This case has a chequered history.
The Division Bench therefore did number see any error companymitted by the learned Single Judge in rejecting the companytention of the appellant.
An appeal was filed before the High Court seeking enhancement of companypensation.
The companytemnor addressed a letter dated 25.1.2006 to the applicants herein and has merely made an offer to give possession of the land which is neither the scheduled land number adjoining to the scheduled land.
It is alleged that despite orders of this Court in Civil Misc.
The special leave petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 5.12.2005.
Thereafter, the applicants through their advocates sent a legal numberice dated 17.1.2006 and called upon the companytemnor herein to companyply with the orders dated 30.8.1972 and 5.12.2005 passed by this Court.
The acquisition was therefore for itself.
The erstwhile partners and successors in interest of the applicants YS Setty Sons filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.4276 of 1995 before the High Court seeking directions to the companytemnor herein to companyply with the order dated 30.8.1972 passed by this companyrt and to direct the State Government to companyply with the government order dated 15.9.1967.
The applicants herein filed suit OS No.6969/1999 before the City Civil Court at Bangalore for reconveyance of the scheduled disputed property.
Instead of giving the possession, the companytemnor herein made companystruction over the disputed land.
