Bangalore Club: It’s over to the courts

Bengaluru: It’s D-day for the Bangalore Club coming Tuesday as the High Court will hear a detailed argument on the decision on the club’s future ahead.

Following the Bangalore club filing the amended writ petition before the High Court on Thursday, the court has directed the respondents (revenue department) to file objections to the amended petition and adjourned the matter to Tuesday.

The court has also asked the authorities to continue to  abide by the 'gentleman's agreement' which the government had agreed on Wednesday.

“We had filed an application to amend the writ petition challenging the order passed by the government, and the amendment has been allowed by the court, which will hear a detailed argument on Tuesday,” K.G. Raghavan, senior counsel for Bangalore Club told Deccan Chronicle.

“The government order appears to be wrong according to the club as the property is solely owned by the club for nearly 150 years since 1873 and the government has no rights over this property. The Retrocession Act stories that the revenue department is bringing up are all irrelevant to the case,” Raghavan said. “It’s obviously an ‘undefensible case’ for the government which will find it very difficult to defend and they have to answer the court on why did they keep quiet for 150 years. It’s the civil court who will decide on the title of a property, and if such actions by government continues – tomorrow, the government can come to your house and take possession of it since you do not possess a mother sale deed,” he added.

However, N. Mahesh Babu, the Assistant Commissioner Revenue (North) told that they are confident about taking over the possession of the century-old club from its management, keeping up with the gentleman agreement that was decided at the High Court that no government officials would step into the club premises for the next seven days.

Recalling the recent developments, Babu said “We had issued them (club management) four notices and given them four hearings in the span of five weeks’ time to respond with valid documents of the club ownership titles, but they (the club management) failed, producing only the notarized sale deed. The defence estate officer (respondent 2) was made ex-parte in this order due to not filing the documents and not attending the hearings.”

“Simultaneously, the revenue court had taken information from various departments such as Assistant Director Land Records (ADLR) city survey, Archives Department, BBMP, District Registrar For Cooperatives, District Registrar For Stamps And Duties from where the information was collected and the court came to a conclusion to pass such an order.

“The district administration is fully aware of the developments and is confident about contesting the case successfully,” Babu added.