RUDDRAIAH?SC MATTER:
MAIN POINTS DRAFT;
1. R PURCHASED SITES, 25 AND 26 AT BANGALORE FROM SMT LAKSHMAMMA IN 1997.
2. THIS LADY FILED A CIVIL CASE OS.3046/1977?.IN THE FIRST MUNSIFF CIVIL COURT AT BANGALORE FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST BANGALORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AS BMC WANTED ATTEMPTED TO FORM A ROAD AND OPEN SEWERAGE DRAIN ON PROPERTY AT SITE NOS.25 AND 26 WHICH PROPERTY IS OWNED BY HER AS ABSOLUTE OWNER.
3. THE MUNSIFF COURT DISMISSED HER SUIT OS3046/1977 ON 25.6.1979.
4. AGGRIEVED, SHE MOVES APPEAL UNDER RA/599/1980 BEFORE CITY CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE. COURT ALLOWS HER APPEAL AND PASSED DECREE OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION ON 9.12.1982.
5. INJUNCTION AGAINST BMC IS IN THE FORM OF A DECREE FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
6. RUDRAIAH, THE NEW OWNER OF HER ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP PROPERTIES AT SITES 25 AND 26, SINCE PURCHASED UNDER A SALE DEED DULY REGISTERED ON 29.1.1993, ON THE BASIS THAT SHE OBTAINED PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST ?BMC?, IN HER RA/599/1980 AND GRANTED INJUNCTION ON 9.12.1982.
7. RUDDRAIAH AS SUCCESSOR TO THE PROPERTY HAS TO MOVE EXECUTION OF DECREE, IN 1997 AGAINST ?BMC? AS IT AGAIN OBSTRUCTED HIM FROM MOVING HIS BUILDING MATERIALS TO THE SITES 25 AND 26 BY ITS OFFICERS AND WORKERS.
8. RUDDRAIAH MOVES EXECUTION PETITION NO.1019/1997 AGAINST IN THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE COURT ON 20.9.1997, WITH DUE AFFIDAVITS TO PROTECT HIS PROPERTY AS NEW OWNER SINCE 29.1.1993.
9. THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE TREATS ?BMC? AS ?JuD?, ENFORCES THE DECREE.
10. BMC MOVES APPLICATION U/S.151 OF CPC, RAISING ALL FRIVOLOUS REASONS, and asking the court to prepone THE CASE 5.11.1998 TO 23.10.98, BY FILING AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 16.10.1998 FOR ?EQUITY? UNDER ITS OBJECTIONS:
1. EXE. PETTITION OF RUDDRAIAH 10/19/1997 AS NOT MAINTAINABLE,
2. EXECUTOR AS THE THIRD PERSON,
3. LAKSHMAMMA, ORIGINAL DECREE HOLDER DID NOT RAISE OBJECTION TO JuD (BMC) FOR LAST 20 YEARS..,
4. RUDDRAIAH (DECREE HOLDER) CLAIMED COMPENSATION, AND NO ACTION OF BMC AND SO HE MOVED EXECUTION OF DECREE,
5. RUDDRAIAH CLAIMED FALSELY THAT ?BMC OFFICIALS STOPPED HIM TO PUT UP COMPOUND WALL?,
6. BMC NEVER ATTEMPTED TO INTERFERE WITH POSSESSION OF DECREE HOLDER,
7. BMC NOT MADE ANY ATTEMPTTO INTERFERE IN ANY WAY.
8. BMC NEVER DISOBEYED COURT ORDER OF 9.12.1982,
9. BMC SHOULD BE DISCHARGED FROM BEING ?JUDGEMENT DEBTOR?, ETC?
11. THE COURT DOES NOT ACCEPT THE JuD? ? BMC?s STAND.
12. Dhr MADE OUT THE GROUNDS THAT JuD IS NOT JUST TO REQUEST TO RECALL SHOW CAUSE NOTICE OF COURT.
13. Dhr HELD THE JuD ? BMC DISOBEYED COURT ORDER OF 9,12.1982 ? ?DECREE OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION? GRANTED IN RA/559/1977,
14. JuD ? BMC FILED A MEMO ON 18,2,99 BY DUE VERIFICATION IN EXE.1019/1997, THAT,
1. ITS ASST ENGINER , MALLESHWARAM, S.P SUBMITTED THAT LAND MEASURING 16? X 60 FEET BELONGING TO DECREE HOLDER HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR SEWERAGE PUEPOSE AND ALREADY SANITARY PIPE LINES IN THE SAID LAND AND KICCHA ROAD IS EXISTING ON THE LAND.
2. (RECOMMENDED COMPENSATION OR ALTERNATE LAND IS GIVEN TO Dhr.) IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES JuD already utilized the sites of Dhr, the action will be taken for proposal for alternate land (site) or compensation.
3. JuD prayed the court be pleased to dismiss EXE. PETITION NO.1019/1997 ON 18/2.1999.
4. Dhr in his Memo Exe. On 23.10.1998 agreed for recall of Notice.
5. Exe. Court in its Order on 17.6.99, passed..
?Perused Memo filed by both Dhr and JuD. The E.P is cleared is subject to the grant of alternate site to Dhr
By JuD. It is made clear that Dhr is entitled to initiate fresh Execution proceedings in case the JuD do not provide alternate site within a reasonable time.??
Sd/- XXVII ADDNL.CIVIL COURT JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.
15. JuD ? BMC PASSED A MUNICIPAL RESOLUTION NO.41(370) IN JANUARY 2000 READING AS UNDER TO CONVEY THAT IT WOULD PROVIDE ALTERNATE SITE AT MALLESHWARAM.
16. BUT JuD ? CONTINUED TO DILLY AND DALLY AND IT SAID THAT IT WOULD SEND FOR APPROVAL OF GOVERNMENT UNDER SEC. 98(3) OF KMC ACT, 1976.
17. GOVERNMENT DID NOT GRANT APPROVAL AT ALL AND DhR ? RUDDRAIAH MOVES A WRIT PETITION NO?41759/2002(LR-RES)??..FOR MANDAMUS, AT KARNATAKA HIGH COURT.
18. COURT ORDERS TO PROVIDE ALTERNATE SITE ?WITH IN Two weeks FROM THE DATE OF ORDER 28/6 2005??WITH LIBERTY TO FILE WRIT APPEAL IF ALTERNATE SITE NOT PROVIDED BY JuD ? BMC:
High Court Order reading as under:
?The State government is directed to take action as regards the Resolution of the Corporation to hand an alternate site to the petitioner in accordance with the undertaking-Annexure ?C? in any event with in a period of TWO WEEKS from today.
Copy of the Order may be made available to the respondents? (the commissioner of Bangalore Mahanagar Palike) and the Under secretary (UDD)Gvt of Karnataka)
19. GOVERNMENT PASSES again AN ORDER.
UDD/136/MNG/2004 DATED 12.8.2005 CANCELLING THE MUNICIPAL RESOLUTION DELIBERATELY AND VEXATIOUSLY, TO FRUSTRATE MANDAMUS ORDER OF HIGH COURT. This order is passed 12.8.2005, say about 2 weeks earlier to the Court Order, against the principle that the matter is already resting under the Writ filed in 2002 and hence no order can be passed when the matter is ?sub judice?. So the government acted arbitrarily again without any legal authority, just to counter and fail the High Court judgement
20. DhR FILES WRIT APPEAL NO.230630/2005 ON THE BASIS THAT GOVERNMENT CANCELLED MUNICIPAL RESOLUTION OF 2000 BY ITS ORDER: UDD/136/MNG/2005 DATED 12.8.2005 TO FRUSTRATE THE COURT ORDERS TO PROVIDE ALTERNATE SITES already agreed by an Affidavit with city civil court at Bangalore in 1999, vide the JuD Affidavit in the Exe Petition filed in OS/1019/1997. A clear violation of principals of natural justice and of Rule of Law. A clear case of contempt of court right from civil court and the High Court of Karnataka.
21. COURT PASSES AGAIN WRIT ORDERS DATED 30.8.2006 , IN THE Writ appeal 23063/2005(LB-RES) SETTING ASIDE THE GOVERNMENT ORDER UDD/136/MNG/2004 DATED 12.8.2005 AND DIRECTS THE GOVERNMENT, THAT THE GOVERNMENT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT SETTING ASIDE ITS ORDER OF 12.8.2005, IT SHALL DO NATURAL JUSTICE, ORDER RUNS AS FOLLOWS:
22. THE GOVERNMENT AGAIN REVIVES ITS ORDER UDD/136/MNG/2004 DATED 12.8.2005, SINCE SET ASIDE BY THE HONORBLE HIGH COURT AND THUS DENIES ALTERNATE SITE WHICH HAD BEEN AGGREED IN MUNICIPAL RESOLUTION NO.41 (370)/2000 DATED?..JANUARY 2000, IN TOTAL DISRESPECT OF THE COURT?S ORDER OF 30.8.2006, IN ITS ORDER DATED 7.7.2007.
23. AGGRIEVED RUDDRAIAH- DhR SENDS AGAIN NOTICE TO GOVERNMENT AND BMC TO RESTORE MUNICIPAL RESOLUTION OF 2000 TO PROVIDE HIM ALTERNATE SITE AT LOCATION, ALREADY ORDERED BY CITY CIVIL JUDGE IN 1999 AND AGAIN BY HIGH COURT ORDERS.
24. THE GOVERNMENT AGAIN PASSES ORDER ON 9.4.2008 REJECTING COURT ORDERS AND AGAIN CANCELS MUNICIPAL RESOLUTION 41(370) OF 2000 BY FURTHER RESTORING ITS UDD/136/MNG/2004 DATED 12.8.2005 IN UTTER DISREGARD TO HIGH COURT ORDERS dated 28.6.2005 and 30.8.2006. Again attempting a contempt of court orders.
25. THE GOVERNMENT COMMITS CONTEMPT OF COURTS BY DISRESPECTING ALL COURTS ORDERS.
26. FINALLY RUDDRAIAH SENDS FINAL NOTICE DATED 31.8.2009 TO GOVERNMENT, TO PROVIDE HIM ALTERNATE SITE AS FOUND IN MUNICIPAL RESOLUTION NO.41 (370) /2000 DATED JANUARY 2000, since revived by high court order dated 30.8.2006. FAILING WHICH HE WILL BE CONSTRAINED TO MOVE SUPREME COURT FOR EQUITY AND NATURAL JUSTICE UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF INDIAN CONSTTUTION.
27. IN THE MEAN TIME RUDDRAIAH APPEAL TO LOK ADALAT OF KARNATAKA. The matter is still pending with Lok Ayukta, due to a heavy back log of cases.
28. In the meantime C. Ruddraiah is advised to file another Writ Appeal as also Contempt proceedings against BBMC and Principal secretary(UDD) of government of Karnataka, in Karnataka High Court, with a liberty to file damages suit against government of Karnataka and BBMC.
No comments:
Post a Comment