Karnataka High CourtBank Officers Co-Operative Housing vs Appellate Authority & Additional on 2 January, 2023Author:S.G. PanditBench:S.G. Pandit1\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU\n\n       DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2023\n\n                       BEFORE\n\n         THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT\n\n         WRIT PETITION No.2040/2015 (LB-BMP)\n\nBETWEEN:\n\nBANK OFFICERS' CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING\nSOCIETY LIMITED (A CO-OPERATIVE\nSOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA\nCO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959)\nHAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT GF-006\n'ACHARYA SANKEERNA', AICOBOONAGAR\n9TH MAIN, II CROSS, BTM II STAGE\nBANGALORE-560076\nREP. BY ITS SECRETARY.\n                                      ...PETITIONER\n\n(BY SRI P.S.RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W\n SRI K PUTTEGOWDA, ADV.)\n\n\nAND:\n\n  1. APPELLATE AUTHORITY & ADDITIONAL\n     CHIEF SECRETARY\n     URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT\n     GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA\n     VIKAS SOUDHA\n     DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI\n     BANGALORE-560001.\n\n  2. STANDING COMMITTEE ON APPEALS\n     BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE\n     BANGALORE-560002\n     REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN.\n\n  3. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANGARA PALIKE\n     BANGALORE-560002\n     REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.\n                               2\n\n\n  4. 4(A) BOJAMMA\n     W/O LATE CHENNAPPA\n\n     4(B) MAHESH\n     S/O LATE CHENNAPPA\n\n     4(C) SURESH\n     S/O LATE CHENNAPPA\n\n     4(D) RAJESH\n     S/O LATE CHENNAPPA\n\n     ALL RESIDING AT NO.391/42\n     LAKSHMI COMPLEX\n     19TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST BLOCK\n     RAJAJINAGAR\n     BANGALORE-560010.\n\n  5. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\n     T CHOWDAIAH ROAD\n     KUMAR PARK WEST\n     BANGALORE-560 020\n     REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.\n\n  6. STATE OF KARNATAKA\n     BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT\n     URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT\n     VIKASA SOUDHA\n     DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI\n     BENGALURU-560001.\n\n  7. D SATHYA MURTHY\n     ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT\n     URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT\n     VIKASA SOUDHA\n     DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI\n     BENGALURU-560001.\n                                    ...RESPONDENTS\n\n(BY SMT. K SHOBHA, HCGP FOR R1 & R6\n SRI K.N. PUTTEGOWDA, ADV. FOR R2 & R3\n SMT. M RAJESHWARI, ADV. FOR R4 (A & D)\n SRI VASANTH, ADV. FOR R5\n R7-SERVED\n V/O DATED 08.11.2022 NOTICE TO R4 (B & C) IS H/S)\n                                  3\n\n\n      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDERARTICLE 226OF\nTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE\nRECORDS LEADING TO THE ORDERS DATED 07.12.2012 AND\n25.09.2014 AND QUASH ORDER DATED 07.12.2012 PASSED BY\nTHE R2 (VIDE ANNEX-AN TO THE W.P.) AND ORDER DATED\n25.09.2014 PASSED BY THE R1 (VIDE ANNEX-AQ TO THE W.P.\nBY ISSUE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND\nGRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.\n\n      THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY\nHEARING IN 'B' GROUP THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS\nDAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-\n\n                           ORDERThe petitioner-Bank Officers' Co-operative Housing\n\nSociety Limited (for short 'the Society') is before this\n\nCourt underArticle 226of the Constitution of India,\n\npraying for a writ of certiorari to quash the order\n\nbearing        No.AhShtaSa/(Kha)/17/2012-13             dated\n\n07.12.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent (under\n\nAnnexure-AN) and order bearing No.NaAhEe 4 MNG\n\n2004 dated 25.09.2014 passed by the 1st respondent\n\n(Annexure-AQ) by which canceling the katha made in\n\nfavour    of   the   4th   respondent   under   order   dated\n\n03.12.2005, is set aside and confirmed the katha in\n\nfavour of 4th respondent.42.   Heard Sri P.S. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel\n\nfor Sri K. Puttegowda, learned counsel for the petitioner,\n\nSri K.N. Puttegowda, learned counsel for respondents 2\n\nand 3, Smt. K. Shobha, learned HCGP for respondents 1\n\nand 6, Smt. M.       Rajeshwari, learned counsel for\n\nrespondent No.4 (a) and (d) and Sri Vasanth, learned\n\ncounsel for respondent No.5.     Perused the entire writ\n\npetition papers.3.   Sri P.S. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel for the\n\npetitioner submits that 5th respondent executed lease-\n\ncum-sale deed in the year        1983 in favour of the\n\npetitioner-Society in respect of 30 acres of land in\n\nSurvey Nos.12 and 15 situated at Tavarekere Village,\n\nBegur Hobli, Part of BTM Layout, Bangalore South\n\nTaluk. It is submitted that on 22.01.1993, the Society\n\nwas put in possession of the land and on 28.05.1997\n\nthe entire property was transferred to the petitioner by\n\nway of sale deed in terms of Annexure-C.54.    Learned     Senior       Counsel     would    submit      that\n\npetitioner-Society relinquished its right over the open\n\nspaces, park areas and civic amenity on 13.05.2005 in\n\nfavour of 5th respondent-BDA. The katha in respect of\n\nthe land transferred to the petitioner-Society was\n\neffected in favour of the petitioner-Society. It is pointed\n\nout that under Annexure-M dated 03.12.2005 in respect\n\nof the land measuring 0.39 guntas which stood in the\n\nname of petitioner-Society, katha was effected in favour\n\nof    one   Sri     Channappa-4th          respondent         herein.\n\nChallenging the said action of the respondent-BBMP,\n\nthe    petitioner        was     before      this     Court        in\n\nW.P.No.31183/2010. This Court by interim order dated\n\n10.02.2012 directed the Principal Secretary, Revenue\n\nDepartment to hold an enquiry with regard to the\n\ncircumstances       in     which       the    Special         Deputy\n\nCommissioner        had    issued        permission     for     non-\n\nagricultural use of land in favour of private persons,\n\nidentify the irregularities and illegalities committed by\n\nthe persons, who have acted contrary to law and6procedure, and submit a report to this Court.      It was\n\nalso directed to the Commissioner-BDA to look into the\n\ncircumstances, in which the so called 'no objection\n\ncertificate' has originated in the name of BDA to enable\n\nthe 4th respondent to seek transfer of katha in respect of\n\n39 guntas of land.       In pursuance to the interim\n\ndirection of this Court, the Principal Secretary to the\n\nGovernment      conducted   proceedings    in   terms   of\n\n(Annexure-AD)     bearing    No.AC(S)PR/03/2012-2013\n\ndated 13.06.2012, set aside the order dated 03.12.2005\n\npassed by the BBMP registering katha to an extent of\n\n0.39 guntas in favour of 4th respondent. Thereafter, the\n\nwrit petition was allowed and while allowing the writ\n\npetition it was observed that as the learned counsel for\n\nthe BDA had made a categorical statement that BDA did\n\nnot issue NOC in favour of the 3rd respondent, no need\n\nto examine the aspect of issuing writ of certiorari.\n\nFurther it observed that as the BBMP itself having\n\ncancelled Annexure-B reversing the entry in favour of\n\n4th respondent, there is no need to issue direction or to7quash the change of katha. The said order was taken\n\nup   in   W.A.No.49/2015,   which    was    dismissed   on\n\n09.02.2015 and as against the dismissal of the writ\n\npetition as well as writ appeal, the 4th respondent had\n\ntaken up the same to the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP\n\nNo.3248/2015 and the said SLP was also dismissed by\n\norder dated 06.11.2015.     Review filed in the SLP was\n\ndismissed by order dated 09.03.2016.        Thus learned\n\nSenior Counsel submits that the order of this Court had\n\nbecome final and the BBMP had no jurisdiction or\n\nauthority to sit over the decision of this Court and to\n\npass impugned order (Annexure-AN) dated 07.12.2012,\n\nto withdraw the order dated 13.06.2012 (Annexure-AD).\n\nFurther learned Senior Counsel would submit that the\n\nStanding Committee of the BBMP has no jurisdiction to\n\npass orders in respect of katha of property and the\n\nsame is without jurisdiction. The Standing Committee\n\ndecided to withdraw the order dated 13.06.2012 only on\n\nthe ground that the withdrawal of katha issued in\n\nfavour    of   respondent   No.4    under   order   dated803.12.2005 could not have been withdrawn after long\n\nlapse of time and thus it is hit by law of limitation. He\n\nsubmits that the question of limitation would not arise\n\nsince the katha effected in favour of 4th respondent was\n\nbased on a fraudulent document of NOC said to have\n\nbeen issued by the respondent-BDA and that BDA itself\n\nhad made a statement that it had not issue such NOC.\n\nIt is also the contention of the learned Senior Counsel\n\nthat Annexure-AN is without notice to the petitioner-\n\nSociety. When the katha was standing in favour of the\n\npetitioner-Society no adverse order could have been\n\npassed against the petitioner-Society without issuing\n\nany notice    nor affording any opportunity to the\n\npetitioner-Society.5.   Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the\n\nCommissioner-BBMP      under     Annexure-AB   by   letter\n\ndated 20.06.2013 forwarded the impugned resolution\n\npassed by the Standing Committee to the Government\n\nto cancel the resolution in exercise of its power under\n\nSection 72 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations9Act, 1976 (for short 'the 1976 Act').            The 1st\n\nrespond9ent Government under order (Annexure-AQ)\n\ndated 25.09.2014 disposed off the appeal only on the\n\nground that BBMP has failed to submit or justify its\n\nproposal. Learned Senior Counsel would draw attention\n\nof this Court to Section 72 of the 1976 Act and submits\n\nthat it was for the government to pass orders on such\n\nreference and could not have rejected the proposal only\n\non the ground that BBMP has failed to justify the\n\nproposal. Thus learned Senior Counsel would pray for\n\nallowing the writ petition and to issue a direction to the\n\nrespondent-BDA to maintain it as a park.6.   Sri   K.N.   Puttegowda,     learned   counsel    for\n\nrespondents 2 and 3 would not dispute the fact of\n\nearlier proceedings attaining finality even up to reaching\n\nthe Hon'ble Apex Court. Learned counsel is unable to\n\npoint out the power or authority of the Standing\n\nCommittee to interfere in the matter of katha.         He\n\nsubmits referring to the records, that no notice was\n\nissued to the petitioner-Society while passing impugned10order at Annexure-AQ dated 07.12.2012. Sri Vasanth,\n\nlearned counsel for Sri K.Krishna, learned counsel\n\nsubmits for the 5th respondent that the land in question\n\nmeasuring 0.39 guntas was marked as park in the\n\nsanctioned plan and the BDA has undertaken to\n\nmaintain it as park in W.P.No.12663/2018 and he\n\nprays for passing appropriate order in the matter.\n\nSmt.M.     Rajeshwari,     learned        counsel    appearing\n\nrespondents No.4(a) and (d) would submit that the 4th\n\nrespondent had taken the matter up to Hon'ble Apex\n\nCourt    against   the   orders    passed     in    the    earlier\n\nproceedings which attained finality and thus she also\n\nprays for passing appropriate order in the matter.7.    On hearing the learned counsel for both the\n\nparties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the\n\nonly point that falls for consideration is as to :"Whether the respondent-BBMP subsequent\n\n      to the    order passed by this Court                in\n\n      W.P.No.31183/2010           dated     09.12.2012,\n\n      could pass impugned order at Annexure-AN11dated 07.12.2012 to cancel the order dated\n\n     13.06.2011,     withdrawing     order   dated\n\n     03.12.2005 effecting katha in favour of 4th\n\n     respondent".8.   Answer to the above point would be in the negative\n\nand action of the respondent-BBMP in passing the order\n\n(Annexure-AN) dated 07.12.2012 is without jurisdiction\n\nand contrary to the earlier orders passed by this Court.9.   Undisputed facts are that, in the year 1983 lease-\n\ncum-sale deed was executed by BDA in favaour of the\n\npetitioner in respect of 30 acres of land situated in\n\nSy.Nos.12 and 14 of Tavarekere Village, Begur Hobli,\n\nBTM Layout, Bangalore South Taluk, and subsequently\n\nby sale deed dated 28.05.1997, the entire property is\n\ntransferred to the petitioner-Society.   On 13.05.2005\n\nadmittedly the petitioner-Society had relinquished its\n\nright over the park and civic amenity areas in favour of\n\nthe BDA.     Thereafter, BDA handed over the entire\n\ndeveloped area to the BBMP for its maintenance. When12the property was vested with the respondents 3 and 5\n\nauthorities on acquisition and conveyed the same to\n\npetitioner-Society, the BBMP had no jurisdiction or\n\nauthority to issue or pass order, changing the katha in\n\nfavour of 4th respondent-Sri Channappa under order\n\n(Annexure-M) dated 03.12.2005. Challenging the action\n\nof the respondent-BBMP in changing the katha in\n\nfavour of the 4th respondent - Sri Channappa, the\n\npetitioner was before this Court in W.P.No.31183/2010\n\nincluding issuance of No Objection Certificate (for short\n\n'the NOC') dated 18.05.2011 by the BDA. This Court\n\non 10.02.2012 passed interim order directing the BBMP\n\nas well as the BDA to conduct enquiry in respect of\n\npermission granted for non-agricultural use of the land\n\nin favour of private person which had vested in the\n\nState Government and also with regard to issuance of\n\nNOC by the BDA. Relevant portion of the interim order\n\nat paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 reads as follows:-"20.   It is therefore a direction is hereby\n     issued to the Principal Secretary in the\n     Revenue    Department.       Government     of13Karnataka, to hold an enquiry with regard to\nthe circumstances under which the Special\nDeputy Commissioner had issued permission\nfor non agricultural use of the land in favour\nof private person which had vested in the\nState Government, way back in the year\n1978,     identify   the        irregularities      and\nillegalities committed     by persons who have\nacted contrary to law and procedure and\nsubmit a report to this court within six weeks.21.   Likewise, the Commissioner, Bangalore\nDevelopment     Authority       to   look    into   the\ncircumstances in which the so called 'no\nobjection certificate' has originated in the\nname of BDA to enable the third respondent\nto seek transfer of khata in respect of 39\nguntas.22.   The Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore\nMahanagara Palike is also directed to hold a\nproper    inquiry    and         look       into    the\ncircumstances in which change of khata is\nused as a device or a tool by unscrupulous\nthird parties to lay claim on the properties\neither by producing certificates of change of\nkhata or such other document which may not\nhave sanctity in law."1410.   On the basis of the above interim order passed by\n\nthis Court the Joint Commissioner-BBMP conducted\n\nproceedings     (Annexure-AD)      bearing     No.AC(S)PR\n\n/03/2012-13 dated 13.06.2012 and withdrew the order\n\ndated 03.12.2005 effecting katha in favour of 4th\n\nrespondent in respect of the property bearing survey\n\nnumber 14/13 of Tavarekere Village, Begur Hobli, BTM\n\nLayout, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 0.39 guntas.\n\nThe operative portion of the order reads as follows :-"(a) The order dated 03.12.2005 passed by\n      the 1st petitioner in respect of registration of\n      katha of property bearing No.Sy.No.14/13,\n      Tavareke Village, Begur Hobli, BTM Layout,\n      Bangalore measuring 0.39 guntas is hereby\n      withdrawn."11.   Thereafter, the writ petition No.31183/2010 was\n\ndisposed off by order dated 09.11.2012 and while\n\ndisposing off the writ petition, this Court at paragraph\n\n19 observed as follows :-"19. In the wake of the submission placed\n      before this court by the learned counsel15appearing for the BDA that the authority did\n      not issue "No Objection Certificate" in favour\n      of the 3rd respondent, no need to examine this\n      aspect   for   issuing   a    writ   of   certiorari.\n      Likewise the BBMP itself having cancelled\n      annexure-P reversing the entry in favour of\n      the 3rd respondent as per Annexure P as per\n      its order dated 13.6.2012, there is no need to\n      issue directions or quash Annexure P."12.   In pursuance of the interim direction of this Court\n\ndated 10.02.2012, the respondent-BBMP conducted\n\nproceedings and withdrew the order effecting katha in\n\nfavour of 4th respondent. Further the BDA had made a\n\ncategorical statement before this Court that it had not\n\nissued 'No Objection Certificate' in favour of the 4th\n\nrespondent for registration of katha. Taking note of the\n\norder passed by the BBMP and categorical statement\n\nmade by the BDA as above, this Court felt that there is\n\nno need to examine the aspect of quashing the orders\n\nwhich were under challenge. This Court also took note\n\nof the affidavit filed by the Commissioner (Annexure-AE)\n\ndated 14.06.2012 wherein the Commissioner had made16it clear that, he passed a detailed order on 13.06.2012,\n\nwhich      withdrew      order   dated    03.12.2005    directing\n\nregistration of katha in favour of 4th respondent. After\n\nthis Court accepted the order dated 13.06.2012 passed\n\nby   the     Joint      Commissioner,     wherein      the   Joint\n\nCommissioner withdrew the registration of katha in\n\nfavour of 4th respondent, the Standing Committee of\n\nBBMP could not have taken up the issue of katha at the\n\ninstance     of   4th    respondent-Sri    Channappa.         The\n\nStanding Committee had no jurisdiction or authority to\n\nsit over the orders passed by this Court, which was\n\nconfirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The only reason\n\nassigned by the Standing Committee to set aside the\n\norder dated 13.06.2012 was that after lapse of six years,\n\nSection 114A of 1976 Act would not permit cancellation\n\nof katha.     Admittedly the katha in favour of the 4th\n\nrespondent was directed to be registered in his favour\n\non 03.12.2005 on the basis of the NOC said to have\n\nbeen issued by the BDA, but later it has come on record\n\nthat the BDA had not issued such NOC.                  When the17transaction itself was fraudulent and was based on the\n\ndocument, which was not issued by the BDA, the\n\nquestion of limitation would not come in the way of the\n\nJoint Commissioner exercising his power in terms of\n\nSection 114A of the 1976 Act and interim order passed\n\nby this Court on 10.02.2012.13.   Section 444 of 1976 Act provides appeal from\n\nCommissioner to Standing Committee, which reads as\n\nfollows :-444. Appeal from Commissioner to Standing\n      Committee.-(1)An appeal shall lie to the Standing Committee\n      from,-(a)    any     notice    issued   or   other   action\n      taken        or     proposed      to    be     taken\n      by the Commissioner,-(i) under sections 138, 247, 248, 249, 252, [xxx]\n      322(1), 323(1), 328(1), 329, 330, 337, 345, 347,\n      354, 355 and 358;(ii)   under      any   bye-law   concerning   house\n      drainage or the connection of house drains with18corporation drains; or house connection with\ncorporation water supply or lighting mains.(b) any refusal by the Commissioner to grant\npermission       to    construct    or   reconstruct   a\nbuilding under Section 301 or 315;(c) any refusal by the Commissioner to grant a\npermission under Section 135, 234, 326 or 354;(d) any refusal by the Commissioner to grant a\nlicence under Section 346, 353, 365 or sub-section (2) of section 372; or(e) any order of the Commissioner made under\nsub-section (4) of section 443 suspending or\nrevoking a licence;(f) any other order of the Commissioner that may\nbe made appealable by the rules made under\nSection 421;(2)   If,   on   any    such   appeal,    the   standing\ncommittee reverses or substantially modifies any\naction taken or proposed to be taken by the\nCommissioner or any order passed by him, he\nmay, within sixty days of the date of such\ndecision, refer the matter to the corporation, and\npending the decision of the corporation on such\nreference, the Commissioner shall not be bound\nto give effect to the decision of the standing\ncommittee.19(3) The decision of the standing committee or\n      where the matter has been referred to the\n      corporation as aforesaid, the decision of the\n      corporation shall be final.14.   A perusal of the above provision makes it clear\n\nthat no appeal is provided from an order passed by the\n\nCommissioner under Section 114A of the 1976 Act.\n\nWhen the Standing Committee is not conferred with\n\npower to interfere or entertain appeal against an order\n\npassed under Section 114A of the 1976 Act, the\n\nStanding Committee could not have passed any order\n\nmuch less, impugned order under Annexure-AN dated\n\n07.12.2012. Thus I am of the opinion, that the\n\nimpugned order dated 07.12.2012 is one without\n\njurisdiction.15.   The Commissioner-BBMP rightly held that the\n\nimpugned resolution or order (Annexure-AN) dated\n\n07.12.2012 passed by the Standing Committee is\n\ncontrary to the provisions of the 1976 Act and rightly\n\nforwarded the same to the Government for taking action20under Section 72 of the 1976 Act.          Section 72 of the\n\n1976 Act reads as follows :-"72. Obligation laid on remaining municipal\n     authorities to carry out resolutions of the\n     corporation.- The committees constituted under\n     this Act and the Commissioner shall be bound to\n     give effect to every resolution of the corporation\n     unless such resolution is cancelled in whole or in\n     part by the Government: Provided that, if, in the\n     opinion of the Commissioner any resolution of the\n     corporation or a committee constituted under this\n     Act contravenes any provision of this Act or any\n     other law or of any rule, notification, regulation or\n     bye-law made or issued under this Act or any\n     other law, or of any order passed by the\n     Government or is prejudicial to the interests of the\n     corporation he shall, within fifteen days of the\n     passing of the resolution, refer the matter to the\n     Government for orders and inform the corporation\n     or the committee, as the case may be, of the\n     action taken by him at its next meeting and until\n     the orders of the Government on such reference\n     are received, the Commissioner shall not be\n     bound to give effect to the resolution."The above provision requires the Commissioner to give\n\neffect to every resolution of the Corporation, unless21such resolution is cancelled in whole or in part by the\n\nGovernment: Provided that, if, in the opinion of the\n\nCommissioner any resolution of the Corporation or\n\nCommittee constituted under the Act contravenes any\n\nprovisions of the Act or any other law or of any Rule,\n\nnotification, the regulation or bye-law made or issued\n\nunder the Act or any other law or of any order passed by\n\nthe Government or is prejudicial to the interest of the\n\nCorporation, the Commissioner shall within 15 days of\n\nthe passing of the resolution refer the matter to the\n\nGovernment for orders.           In the instant case, the\n\nCommissioner was of the opinion, that the resolution or\n\norder   dated   07.12.2012       passed      by   the    Standing\n\nCommittee was prejudicial to the interest of the\n\nCorporation     and   referred        the   resolution    to   the\n\nGovernment for canceling the resolution or order passed\n\nby the Standing Committee.             When such proposal is\n\nforwarded to the Government, it is for the Government\n\nto examine such proposal and resolution as to whether\n\nit is contrary to any law or bye-law or any order passed22by the Government or whether it is prejudicial to the\n\ninterest of the Corporation.       The Government failed to\n\nexercise its power under proviso to Section 72 of the\n\n1976 Act and failed to examine the resolution or order\n\ndated 07.12.2012, as to whether it is prejudicial to the\n\ninterest of the Corporation. The Government has failed\n\nto exercise its statutory power.16.     It is also brought to the notice of this Court, the\n\norder      passed   by   this   Court   in   26.11.2021   in\n\nW.P.No.12663/2018 wherein the BDA had submitted\n\nthat the area in question i.e., 0.39 guntas was marked\n\nas park in approved lay out plan dated 11.01.1984 and\n\nfurther the BDA had undertaken to maintain it as park.17.     For the reasons recorded above, the following\n\norder :-a.      The writ petition is allowed.\n\nb.      The   impugned     order     (Annexure-AN)   bearing\n\nNo.AhShtaSa/(Kha)/17/2012-13            dated   07.12.2012passed by the 2nd respondent and order (Annexure-AQ)23bearing No.NaAhEe 4 MNG 2004 dated 25.09.2014\n\npassed by the 1st respondent are quashed.\n\nc.   Consequently respondents 3 and 5 are directed to\n\nmaintain the land in question i.e., 0.39 guntas situated\n\nin survey number 14/13 of Tavarekere Village, Begur\n\nHobli, BTM Layout, Bangalore South Taluk, as park.Sd/-JUDGE\n\n\n\nNG*\nCT:bms