- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8872 WP No. 11886 of 2022 C/W WP No. 7748 of 2019 WP No. 20055 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 11886 OF 2022 (BDA) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 7748 OF 2019 (LA-BDA) WRIT PETITION NO. 20055 OF 2021 (BDA) WRIT PETITION NO. 21311 OF 2021 (BDA) IN WP No. 11886/2022 BETWEEN: SRI. J. NAGENDRA KUMAR, S/O LATE B. JAYASHEKAR SWAMY, AGED 49 YEARS, R/A NO.258, 6TH MAIN ROAD, 'C' BLOCK, 1ST STAGE, J.P. NAGARA, MYSURU - 560 008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.V. SHANKARA NARAYANA RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. VISWESWARAIAH K.C, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020. (REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER) 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NO.2, SOUTH SUB DIVISION, BDA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 020. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NO.2, SOUTH SUB DIVISION, Digitally signed by ROOPA R U Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8872 WP No. 11886 of 2022 C/W WP No. 7748 of 2019 WP No. 20055 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER BDA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 020. 4. M/S VISHWABHARATHI HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.35, RATHNA VILAS ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU - 560 004, REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959. (REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY) 5. SMT. B. BASAVARAJU, S/O LATE BHADRAPPA, AGED MAJOR, R/A 352/A, IST MAIN, AVALAHALLI, BADA LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 026. 6. SMT. VIJAYA, W/O NARASIMHAIAH, AGED MAJOR, R/A NO. 98, BHADRAIAH BUILDING, 22ND CROSS, NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE, GOVT. ELECTRICAL FACTORY, BENGALURU - 560 026. 7. SMT. N. SAROJA, W/O LATE LAKSHMI PATHI, AGED MAJOR, R/A NO 106, 80 FEET ROAD, BSK 3RD STAGE, HOSAHALLI CROSS BENGALURU - 560 085. 8. SMT. L.M. HEMAVATHI, W/O LAKSHMANA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/A NO.63, 'PAVAN RESIDENCY' 2ND MAIN, 1ST CROSS, AVALAHALLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 026. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE AND SRI. B.S. SHRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R4; - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8872 WP No. 11886 of 2022 C/W WP No. 7748 of 2019 WP No. 20055 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER SRI. SHIVAPRASAD K.B, ADVOCATE FOR R8 R5 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED VIDE ORDER DATED 30.05.2023, NOTICE TO R7 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER BEARING NO.BDA/EE-S/CC/T-114/21.22 DATED 22.12.2021 (ANNEXURE-W) ISSUED BY THE R2,WHILE DECLARING THE SAME TO BE ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND NON. EST IN LAW, AND CONTRARY TO THE BINDING RESOLUTION DATED 25.05.2011(ANNEXURE-C) AND ETC., IN WP NO. 7748/2019 BETWEEN: 1. DR. H.B.PHANIRAJU S/O. H.C. BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 2. SIDDARATH P. RAJ S/O. DR. H.B. PHANIRAJ, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 62, 4TH CROSS, 10TH MAIN, BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VENKATARAMANA K.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY, BENGALURU DISTRICT, CHAMRAJPET, BENGALURU - 560 018. 3. VISHWANA BHARATHI HOUSING BOARD CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES LTD., RATHNA VILAS ROAD, BASAVANGUDI, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8872 WP No. 11886 of 2022 C/W WP No. 7748 of 2019 WP No. 20055 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER BENGALURU - 560 004, BY ITS PRESIDENT. 4. K.S. KANTHARAJU, S/O. LATE. SUBBANNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RA/T NO. 6, 100 FEET RING ROAD, HOSAKEREHALLI, BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.B. CHANDRA CHOUD, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N, HCGP FOR R2; SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVCATE FOR R3; SRI. N.S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PAPER NOTIFICATION DATED 2.7.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-G ISSUED BY R-3 IN RESPECT OF PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AND ETC., IN WP NO. 20055/2021 BETWEEN: SRI. H.C. ANANTHASWAMY, SON OF LATE H.K. CHIKKA HANNE GOWDA, AGE 65 YEARS, NO. 61, POORNAPRAGNA LAYOUT, 3RD MAIN, 5TH CROSS, B S K 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 085. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. SIRI R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020. (REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER) - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8872 WP No. 11886 of 2022 C/W WP No. 7748 of 2019 WP No. 20055 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NO. 2, SOUTH SUB DIVISION, BDA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU. 3. M/S. VISHWABHARATHI HOUSE BUILDING CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO. 35, RATHNAVILAS ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU - 560 004, (REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY) 4. SMT. BHADRAMMA, MAJOR, W/O LATE KASHIPATHI, NO. 39, 2ND CROSS, AVALAHALLI, GEF POST, BENGALURU - 560 026. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ENDORSEMENT DATED 15.06.2021 ANNEXURE-Q AND ORDER DATED 03.07.2021 ANNEXURE-R ISSUED BY THE R2 WHILE DECLARING THE SAME TO BE ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND NON EST IN LAW AND ETC., IN WP NO. 21311/2021 BETWEEN: SRI. K.S. SATHYA NARAYANA, SON OF LATE K. SHIVARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 2, 80 FEET ROAD, J.P. ROAD, GIRINAGAR 2ND PHASE, BANGALORE - 560 085. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. SIRI R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8872 WP No. 11886 of 2022 C/W WP No. 7748 of 2019 WP No. 20055 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU - 560 020. (REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER) 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NO. 2, SOUTH SUB DIVISION, BDA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU. 3. M/S. VISHWABHARATHI HOUSE BUILDING CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO. 35, RATHNAVILAS ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU - 560 004, (REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY) 4. SMT. BHADRAMMA MAJOR, W/O LATE KASHIPATHI, NO. 39, 2ND CROSS, AVALAHALLI, GEF POST, BENGALURU - 560 026. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.S. SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED 03.07.2021 ANNEXURE-M ISSUED BY THE R-2 WHILE DECLARING THE SAME TO BE ARBITRARY ILLEGAL AND NON EST IN LAW AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8872 WP No. 11886 of 2022 C/W WP No. 7748 of 2019 WP No. 20055 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER ORAL ORDER WP.11886/2022 1. Petitioner in W.P.No.11886/2022 claiming to be the son of one B. Jayashekara Swamy, who had been allotted and in whose favour a deed of sale was executed in respect of a site bearing No.1049, forming part of the residential layout formed by respondent-Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society Limited is before this Court seeking following reliefs: i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Order bearing No.BDA/ EE-S/CC/T-114/21-22 dated 22.12.2021 (Annexure-X) issued by the Respondent No.2, while declaring the same to be arbitrary, illegal and non- Est in law, and contrary to the binding resolution dated 25.05.2011 (Annexure - C); ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to Respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein to forthwith comply with the directions (as per Paragraph No.43) passed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.18496/2007 (BDA) [Annexure-Q], and also the Order passed in W.P.No.5666/2021 (Annexure- T) by the Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court in its letter and spirit without brooking any further delay in the matter in respect of Petition Schedule Property; iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to Respondent No.1 to implement the Board Resolution dated 25.05.2011 (Annexure C) which is passed in pursuance to the Order and Judgement dated W.P.No. 18496/2007 (BDA) (Annexure Q) without brooking any further delay in the matter; - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8872 WP No. 11886 of 2022 C/W WP No. 7748 of 2019 WP No. 20055 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER iv) To issue any other writ or order or directions, as this Hon'ble Court deemed fit and appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. W.P.No.7748/2019 2. Petitioners in W.P.No.7748/2019 claiming to be the allottees of a site bearing No.849, forming part of the residential layout formed by respondent-Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society Limited are before this Court seeking following reliefs: i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned paper notification dated 22/07/2018 vide Annexure-G issued by third respondent in respect of petitioners are concerned. ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents 1 to 3 to consider the notice issued by the petitioners as per vide 20/08/2018 vide Annexure-H issued by petitioners herein. iii) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstance of the case, to meet the ends of justice. W.P.No.20055/2021 3. Petitioner in W.P.No.20055/2021 claiming to be the son of Smt. Paravathamma, a purchaser of a site bearing No.529 forming part of residential layout formed by respondent-Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8872 WP No. 11886 of 2022 C/W WP No. 7748 of 2019 WP No. 20055 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER Society Limited from one Smt. M.R Uma, who had been allotted the said site and in whose favour a deed of sale was executed by the respondent-Society is before this Court seeking following reliefs: i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Endorsement bearing No. BDA/AEE-2 (S)/50/2021-22 dated 15.06.2021 [Annexure-Q] and Order bearing No. AEE/71, dated 03.07.2021 [Annexure-R] issued by the Respondent No. 2 while declaring the same to be arbitrary, illegal and non est in law. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein to forthwith comply with the directions (as per Paragraph No. 43) of the Order/Judgement dated 16.11.2010 passed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.18496/2007 (BDA) [Annexure JJ, in its letter and spirit without brooking any further delay in the matter in respect of Petition Schedule Property. iii) To issue any other writ or order or directions, as this Hon'ble Court deemed fit and appropriate under the facts and circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. WP.21311/2021 4. Petitioner in W.P.No.21311/2021 claiming to be the purchaser from one Sri. Madhav Shet. G, who had been allotted a site bearing No.193/25 (new No.752/1) and in respect of which a deed of sale was executed by respondent- Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society Limited is before this Court seeking following reliefs: - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:8872 WP No. 11886 of 2022 C/W WP No. 7748 of 2019 WP No. 20055 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER i) To Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order ог direction quashing Order bearing No.AEE/70/dated 03.07.2021 [Annexure-M] issued by the Respondent No.2, while declaring the same to be arbitrary, illegal and non est in law. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to Respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein to forthwith comply with the directions (as per Paragraph No.43) given by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide order/judgement dated 16.11.2010 passed in W.P.No.18496/2007 (BDA) [Annexure-A], in its letter and spirit without brooking any further delay in the matter in respect of Petition Schedule Property. iii) To issue any other writ or order or directions, as this Hon'ble Court deemed fit and appropriate under the facts and circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 5. Since the above writ petitions raise common facts and issues for consideration, the same are taken for analogous hearing and disposal. 6. Brief background of these petitions is that respondent- Society had formed a private residential layout consisting of various sites for the benefits of its members in the land measuring 80 acres and 30 guntas forming part of Sy.Nos.16, 17, 18 and 19 of Gerehalli Village and Sy.Nos.101, 103/1, 103/2, 104/1, 104/2, 105 and 106 of Hosakerehalli Village. That the said respondent-Society had allotted the sites, issued - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:8872 WP No. 11886 of 2022 C/W WP No. 7748 of 2019 WP No. 20055 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER possession certificates and had even executed deeds of sale in favour of its members. It appears subsequently the aforesaid lands were acquired by the respondent-BDA. Thereafter, in terms of the Government order dated 04.10.2007, it was resolved to give back the aforesaid lands by means of bulk allotment to the respondent-Society, which aspect of the matter was considered, confirmed and approved by this Court in its order passed in W.P.No.6945/2008 that was filed by the respondent-Society. One of the conditions of the bulk allotment was to obtain approval to a fresh layout plan from the respondent-BDA. The fresh layout plan so obtained was substantially similar to the one that of the earlier layout plan. That after obtaining such fresh layout plan, the respondent- Society had assigned new numbers to the sites which were already formed and which were already allotted to its members. 7. Several writ petitions were subsequently filed before this Court, concerning the illegalities in the process of bulk allotment as per the orders of the Government, non-payment of acquisition and development charges, irregularities in the allotment of the sites by the respondent No.3. Accordingly, the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:8872 WP No. 11886 of 2022 C/W WP No. 7748 of 2019 WP No. 20055 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER said writ petitions were placed before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 16.11.2010 passed in writ petitions in WP.No.18496/2007 and connected matters, at paragraph No.43 had held as under: "43. As is clear from the aforesaid facts set out above, the schedule land has been the subject matter of litigation for more than four decades. Various proceedings were initiated in various Courts. Various interim orders and final orders are passed. Taking advantage of these orders if persons who are not entitled to site, persons who have no right to the site, persons who have encroached upon the property, entered upon schedule lands, put up construction on the schedule lands, certainly they would not be entitled to the allotment of sites either by virtue of the Government Order or by virtue of this order. Therefore, possession of such sites have to be taken over by the BDA in accordance with law and after clearing such encroachers, the said land is to be handed over to the society for being distributed to the genuine senior members. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the BDA to initiate appropriate action against such persons and in terms of the bulk allotment order to be made in favour of the society to make available the said lands as that would be a part of the subject matter of bulk allotment." 8. It appears, pursuant to the aforesaid directions respondent-BDA had conducted an enquiry and had verified the records submitted by the respondent-Society which had identified about 117 persons as unauthorised occupants, list of - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:8872 WP No. 11886 of 2022 C/W WP No. 7748 of 2019 WP No. 20055 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER which was forwarded by it to the respondent-BDA. On further verification, the respondent-BDA had apparently found that the respondent-Society had earlier formed a layout without getting approval of the plan from the competent authority and had allotted sites to its members. It had further found that while obtaining the approval to the fresh layout plan, the respondent- Society had assigned new numbers to the very same sites, which formed part of the earlier layout plan and which had already been allotted to its members. Thus after approval of the fresh layout plan, allotted the same sites with the new numbers to the different persons. The respondent-Society had thus executed Deeds of Sale both in the names of the persons who had been allotted sites prior to the approval of the layout plan and subsequent thereof. The petitioners are the persons who claimed to have been the allottees/purchasers of the sites, have sought for eviction of alleged unauthorised occupants of their sites and for a direction to put the petitioners back into the possession of their sites. 9. In view of the aforesaid controversy, Commissioner-BDA had formed a Committee consisting of Deputy Secretary, Law Officer, Executive Engineer (South), - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:8872 WP No. 11886 of 2022 C/W WP No. 7748 of 2019 WP No. 20055 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER Revenue Officer (South), under the Chairmanship of the Secretary, BDA. The said Committee had apparently conducted the proceedings on various dates between August, 2019 and March, 2021 and while rejecting the representations made by the petitioners herein has resolved as under: 1. "BDA is not the owner of the land, but it belongs to Vishwabharathi Housing Co-op. Society Ltd., and moreover BDA is not the competent authority to adjudicate the title of the sites and hence the process like issue of notices to the allottees, collecting and verifying the documents and concluding who is the original owner of the sites. Etc… does not arise. 2. The said layout is a private layout, allottees of sites have to be members of the society and the sites are allotted by the society itself, which is a private layout and hence BDA cannot identify the unauthorised occupants in the layout. 3. If any disputes arise in the private layout regarding genuinity of allotment, they have to approach the Registrar of Co-operative societies for verification of allotment". 10. In the meanwhile, respondent-Society had issued paper publication listing out the names of persons who according to the respondent-Society were unauthorised occupants and had called upon them to voluntarily hand over/surrender the sites by cancelling the documents. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:8872 WP No. 11886 of 2022 C/W WP No. 7748 of 2019 WP No. 20055 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the rejection of their representation by the respondent-BDA and publication of the notification, the petitioners are before this Court. 11. Sri. B.V. Shankarnarayana Rao, learned Senior counsel appearing through video conferencing vehemently submits that the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court at paragraph No. 43 extracted herein above is clear, categoric and mandatory. In that, he submits that exclusive responsibility was casted on the respondent-BDA to identify the unauthorised occupants, remove them and to place the senior members of the respondent-Society after ascertaining the genuineness of their claim. It is submitted that the respondent-BDA without discharging the obligation casted on it by the impugned order has rejected the representation on a trivial ground proposing to relegate the petitioners to resolve their disputes under the provisions of the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act, 1959, which is not acceptable. 12. Learned Senior counsel further submits that though at the first blush such recourse appears to be acceptable, further probe into the matter would make it clear that such an alternative remedy is not efficacious. He insists that the - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:8872 WP No. 11886 of 2022 C/W WP No. 7748 of 2019 WP No. 20055 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER respondent-BDA has not shown its willingness to implement the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. Learned Senior counsel further submits since the petitioners are genuine Senior members having been allotted the sites, there is no question of relegating them to another round of litigation at the instance of some unauthorised occupants who were required to have been removed from the possession of the sites by the respondent-BDA. 13. Reference was also made by the learned Senior counsel to the communication which had been issued by the respondent-BDA produced at Annexure-C wherein, the respondent-BDA had resolved in one of its meeting No.185/11 to discuss the matter with regard to encroachment and to remove the encroachment. Hence, he seeks for allowing of the petition and quashing of the impugned order. 14. Sri. Venkataramana K.S, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP.No.7748/2019 submits that the petitioners in the matter aggrieved by the publication issued by the respondent-Society, listing their names as unauthorised occupants, he submits that the petitioners have already filed a - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:8872 WP No. 11886 of 2022 C/W WP No. 7748 of 2019 WP No. 20055 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER suit for injunction against respondent No.4 who in turn claims to be the genuine member. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners in WP.Nos.20055/2021 and 21311/2021 have filed these petitions aggrieved by the rejection of representation. 16. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA on the other hand submits that the respondent-BDA had, in full compliance to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, indeed constituted a Committee and conducted the enquiry to ascertain the genuineness of the persons claiming to be the members of the respondent-Society and that in this regard, called for the reports and details from the respondent- Society who had forwarded the names of 117 persons who according to the list published by the respondent-Society were unauthorised occupants and on further verification, the said 117 persons in turn claimed to be the allottees of the sites from the very same respondent -Society. Learned counsel has filed a memo dated 17.01.2025 along with a statement showing details of notices issued, earlier site Numbers, corresponding new site numbers, allotment made by the respondent-Society to the earlier allottees and the present allotment, date of reply - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:8872 WP No. 11886 of 2022 C/W WP No. 7748 of 2019 WP No. 20055 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER received and other details in respect of said 117 persons to whom the respondent-Society referred as unauthorised occupants. 17. He further submits that since there all rival claims between the very members claiming to be the allottees under the respondent-Society, the respondent-BDA for want of jurisdiction cannot go into the matter to determine the genuineness of the said claims based on the documents which were admittedly issued by the very same respondent-Society. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent-BDA further submits that the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court cannot be read to expand the jurisdiction of the BDA with regard to consideration of the right, title and inter-se disputes amongst the members of the respondent-Society. 19. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the complexity involving the matter, the respondent-BDA came to the conclusion of directing the petitioners to approach the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies to have resolution of their dispute. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the writ petitions. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:8872 WP No. 11886 of 2022 C/W WP No. 7748 of 2019 WP No. 20055 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER 20. Learned HCGP at this juncture submits that currently the Administrator has been appointed with regard to the affairs of the respondent-Society and as such he is representing the said Administrator. On instruction, learned HCGP submits that there appears to be disputes amongst the members of the respondent-Society, all of them claiming to be the allottees and under the allotment said to have been made by the respondent-Society. He further submits that appropriate enquiry with regard to the claims of the members would be made under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and appropriate order in this regard will be passed in a time bound manner. 21. Heard and perused the records. 22. The arguments of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in essence is that in view of the directions contained in paragraph No.43 of the order dated 16.11.2010 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WP.No.18496/2017 and connected matters. Whereby, the respondent-BDA had been directed to take the possession of the sites from the persons, who have encroached/entered upon the subject property, put up construction thereon without - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:8872 WP No. 11886 of 2022 C/W WP No. 7748 of 2019 WP No. 20055 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER having any rights and after clearing such encroachers, the said lands needs to be handed over to the respondent-Society for being distributed to its genuine members, there cannot be any other options left open to the respondent-BDA but to comply with the directions so issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the said order. 23. But, the facts emanating in the instant case would reveal something else. In that, one set of persons are claiming to be allottees of sites from the respondent-Society, in terms of the allotment that was made prior to the approval of the layout plan. While another set of persons are also claiming to be the allottees of the very same sites albeit with different site numbers by the very same respondent-Society subsequent to the approval of the layout plan. Therefore, the dispute would take the different flavor and if without adjudication of such dispute, by a Competent Authority, the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court is sought to be implemented as being vehemently insisted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, same would result in its gross misuse, inasmuch as the dispute would just not remain as one between the persons occupying/encroaching upon the sites - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:8872 WP No. 11886 of 2022 C/W WP No. 7748 of 2019 WP No. 20055 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER without any right, title and interest and the persons with legal rights. It would thus be a case requiring determination of inter-se dispute between the genuine members and who have been allotted the sites. 24. Perusal of the impugned order passed by the respondent-BDA would indicate that apart from enquiry conducted by the committee constituted by the Commissioner- BDA and upon the information furnished by the respondent- Society, it was found that the so called unauthorised occupants of the sites were claiming their right over the site in their occupation in terms of the allotment made by the very same respondent-Society and on the basis of Sale Deeds executed by the very same respondent-Society, which is contrary to the subsequent claim made by the persons like that of the petitioners in these petitions. This in the considered opinion of this Court would not fall within the purview of the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court in its order at paragraph No.43 referred to hereinabove. Expecting the respondent-BDA to implement the order of the Division Bench of this Court treating one set of claimants to be unauthorised occupants as against the other set of claimants, both of whom - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:8872 WP No. 11886 of 2022 C/W WP No. 7748 of 2019 WP No. 20055 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER are claiming their rights under the very same respondent- Society may not be justified. Persons claiming to be allottees of the respondent-Society, who are now alleged to be the unauthorised occupants, at the instance of some other persons also claiming to be the allottees of the respondent-Society is a matter requiring adjudication under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, inasmuch as it is the respondent-Society which has to answer this question recognizing which of these two groups are the genuine members of the respondent-Society and the same cannot be expected to be adjudicated at the hands of the respondent-BDA under the guise of discharge of its obligation pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. 25. In fact, the Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 16.11.2020 passed in W.P.No.18496/2007 and other connected matter had framed four points for its consideration, the Second and third points relevant for the present are as under: ''ii). How the interest of genuine members who had made applications for allotment of site earlier, are to be protected in the matter of allotment. - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:8872 WP No. 11886 of 2022 C/W WP No. 7748 of 2019 WP No. 20055 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER iii) How the persons who have unauthorisedly occupied the any portion of land are to be dealt with. '' 26. While answering the point No.2, at paragraph No.39 of its Order the Division Bench of this Court had issued following direction: ''39. The order passed by the Government is a conditional one, it is made keeping in mind the interest of genuine members of the society who had applied for sites at the earliest point of time. Therefore, it is made very clear that BDA should ensure that the bulk allotment of land made to the society is not misused and benefit of that order should go to genuine senior members of the society in order to ensure that BDA applies its mind and prevent any illegality, it is necessary that BDA should have requisite information before them. Therefore, it is obligatory on the part of the respondent-Society to prepare a list of its members with membership number, date on which they became members, date on which they applied for sites, date on which they have made payment towards allotment of the sites and if any allotment of site is already made, date on which the allotment is made and if possession certificate is granted, the date on which the possession is given with full particulars of the possession certificate and if sale deeds are executed, the particulars of the sale deeds. Respondent-Society is also directed after preparing such list of genuine members, according to seniority with all those particulars shall furnish the copy of the same to the respondent-BDA. ... If a dispute arises regarding geniuses of the membership regarding seniority of membership as directed by this Court in earlier proceedings, all such dispute shall be decided by the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies and his decision is always - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:8872 WP No. 11886 of 2022 C/W WP No. 7748 of 2019 WP No. 20055 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER subject to appeal and other remedies which are made available to the said parties. '' (Emphasis Added) 27. As seen above clearly even the Division Bench of this Court has indeed indicate resolution of dispute regarding genuineness of the membership by the Registrar of Co- operative societies. 28. Though the apprehension is expressed vehemently by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that if they were relegated to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for resolution of their dispute, same would in a way amounts to rendering the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court otiose. This Court cannot find any force to accept the said submission, particularly, in view of the nature of the dispute which has been found by the respondent-BDA after conducting the enquiry pursuant to the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court and in the light of very direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court at paragraph No.39 of its order as extracted hereinabove. 29. As regard the reference made by learned counsel for the petitioner to the Communication issued by the respondent- - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:8872 WP No. 11886 of 2022 C/W WP No. 7748 of 2019 WP No. 20055 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER BDA produced at Annexure-C being its resolution with regard to removal of encroachment, it is seen that same is dated 25.05.2011, apparently much prior to the enquiry that was held by the respondent-BDA, pursuant to the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court. As already noted above even the Division Bench of this Court in its order while adverting to point No.2, had indeed indicated resolution of dispute inter-se regarding genuineness of membership claim is required to be adjudicated through the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The order of the Division Bench of this Court at paragraph No.43 of its order has to be read in the light of the directions contained at paragraph No.39 of the order as extracted hereinabove. 30. In view of the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter and in the light of the rival claims being made by the persons claiming to the members of the respondent-Society, this Court do not see any ground being made out by the petitioners to interfere in the matter, no fault and error can be found in the order passed by the respondent-BDA relegating the parties to have recourse under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. Accordingly, petitions are disposed of with the following directions: - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:8872 WP No. 11886 of 2022 C/W WP No. 7748 of 2019 WP No. 20055 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER ORDER 1. Petitioners are at liberty to approach the Registrar, Co-operative Societies under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, by filing necessary applications raising the dispute within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 2. Upon such application/claim being made by the petitioners, Registrar-Co-operative Society shall hold enquiry in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders after affording opportunity to the persons concerned within an outer limit of six months thereafter. 3. It is made clear that liberty is also reserved to the allottees or their transferees to avail such remedies as may be available and permissible according to the directions as given hereinabove. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE PK