ORDER : 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a) Quashing the impugned order of demolition dated 28.08.2017 bearing No.BDA/EM/EO-III/TA-IV/T-11/2017-18, produced herewith as Annexure-F, passed by Respondent No.2 herein. b) and allow this writ petition with costs, in the circumstances of this case. 2. The petitioner claims to be a partnership firm engaged in the business of construction and allied activities. The petitioner had entered into Joint Development Agreements (JDAs) dated 04.09.2014, 27.09.2014, 24.11.2014, 14.01.2015 and 16.01.2015, with the alleged owners of the said lands, for the purpose of residential development, as regards the land covered under Kaneshumari Nos.34/32/35, 35/33/26, 33/31/24, 255/249/193, 19/17/13, 32/30/23, 31/29/22, 31/1/29/22/1, 9/7/5, 15/13/9, 16/1/15/1 and 24/1/22/23/32/30/23. The petitioner had also purchased some of the said lands belonging to the earlier land owners. 3. In pursuance of the aforesaid JDAs the petitioner had approached the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) i.e., BBMP-respondent No.3 herein, for amalgamation of Khatha covered under the aforesaid several JDAs. Accepting the said request, the BBMP amalgamated the Khatha and issued a letter dated 24.08.2017 (Annexure-C). 4. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for building license and building license also came to be issued. The petitioner had erected a temporary shed and a site office in the said properties. It is at this stage that the respondent No.1-Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) had contended that the petitioner has encroached upon a portion of the property belonging to the BDA and as such, called upon the petitioner to remove the construction and vacate the property. 5. In pursuance thereof, a notice came to be issued under Section 462 of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 and 33(2) of Bengaluru Development Authority Act, 1976 on 28.08.2017, calling upon the petitioner to remove unauthorized structures in Sy.No.30/1A and the compound on Sy.No.3/2 of Yellikunte Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru South Taluk, in pursuance of the authorization received from the Commissioner as also the resolution of the BDA bearing No.2025 dated 12.03.1991. It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 6. Sri. S.M.Chandrashekar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that i. the notice which has been issued is as regards Sy.No.30/1A and Sy.No.3/2, which is in no way connected to the properties of the petitioner in Kaneshumari Nos.34/32/35, 35/33/26, 33/31/24, 255/249/193, 19/17/13, 32/30/23, 31/29/22, 31/1/29/22/1, 9/7/5, 15/13/9, 16/1/15/1 and 24/1/22/23/32/30/23. 6. Sri. S.M.Chandrashekar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that i. the notice which has been issued is as regards Sy.No.30/1A and Sy.No.3/2, which is in no way connected to the properties of the petitioner in Kaneshumari Nos.34/32/35, 35/33/26, 33/31/24, 255/249/193, 19/17/13, 32/30/23, 31/29/22, 31/1/29/22/1, 9/7/5, 15/13/9, 16/1/15/1 and 24/1/22/23/32/30/23. Therefore, he submits that the notice is bad in law and it is required to be quashed. ii. By relying upon the objections statement filed by the respondents that the respondents had acquired land measuring 1 acre 17 guntas in Sy.No.30/1A and an award has been passed subsequently on 17.03.1988 and approved by the Deputy Commissioner, BDA on 10.05.1988 for an extent of 2 acres 25 guntas in Sy.No.30/1A of Yellikunte Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, he submits that the acquisition of the land under the final notification is only for 1 acre 17 guntas, there could not have been an award passed in respect of 2 acres 25 guntas. Hence, the claim of the BDA that the land has been acquired is fallacious and as such, the notification has been issued is required to be quashed. iii. Even otherwise the extent of land acquired being 1 acre 17 guntas, there is another 1 acre 8 guntas which has not been acquired and therefore the notice could not have been issued. 7. Sri. B.S.Sachin, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would however submit that i. Sy.No.30/1A of Yellikunte Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk has been acquired, the construction is situated in the said land which has been acquired, as regards which neither the petitioner nor the person who claim to be owners thereof while entering into the Joint Development Agreement or Sale Deed have any right. ii. The respondents have rightly issued a notice since the construction has been put up on the land belonging to the respondent. He therefore submits that the petitioner relying upon the Khatha numbers when the survey numbers have been acquired way back in the year 1988 is completely malafide and the petition is required to be dismissed. 8. None appears for respondent No.3. This Court vide its order dated 21.06.2022 had observed that even if none were to appear for respondent No.3 today, the matter would be taken up for consideration in their absence. It is in that background the above matter is taken up. 9. Heard Sri. 8. None appears for respondent No.3. This Court vide its order dated 21.06.2022 had observed that even if none were to appear for respondent No.3 today, the matter would be taken up for consideration in their absence. It is in that background the above matter is taken up. 9. Heard Sri. S.M.Chandrashekar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. B.S.Sachin, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, perused papers. 10. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner had entered into JDAs and has purchased the lands covered under several Khaneshmari numbers as regards which BBMP has allotted khatha numbers. In pursuance of the same, the JDAs and sale deeds have been produced. 11. A perusal of the JDAs indicates that there is no tracing of title which is detailed therein. Though there are five JDAs which have been entered into, in none of the JDAs the original owners name or any tracing of title has been mentioned. i. In the JDA dated 4.09.2015 except to state that in the year 2012, the owners are said to have acquired title under a gift deed there is no other statement on title made. ii. In the JDA dated 27.09.2014, except to state that the owners are the absolute owners of Khatha numbers there is no tracing of title made. iii. In the JDA dated 24.11.2014, once again apart from referring to a partition deed dated 07.05.2014 there is no tracing of title made. iv. In the JDA dated 14.01.2015 except to state that the owners have acquired the same under the partition deed dated 04.4.2014 there is no tracing of title. v. In the JDA dated 16.01.2015 except to state that the owners of the property having acquired the same under partition deed dated 04.04.2014, there is tracing of title. vi. In the absolute sale deed dated 14.01.2015, the manner of acquisition of title has been shown as a gift dated 28.02.2014. vii. In the absolute sale deed dated 01.04.2015 the manner of acquisition of title has been shown as a gift deed dated 19.01.2015. 12. In all the aforesaid JDAs and absolute sale deeds, the properties are described as Kaneshumari or Khatha numbers without tracing as to in which survey number the said properties are situated in or derived from, needless to say that any particular property bearing Kaneshumari or Khatha numbers is always traceable to a survey number. 12. In all the aforesaid JDAs and absolute sale deeds, the properties are described as Kaneshumari or Khatha numbers without tracing as to in which survey number the said properties are situated in or derived from, needless to say that any particular property bearing Kaneshumari or Khatha numbers is always traceable to a survey number. 13. The respondents have produced a final notification dated 29.10.1986, wherein several lands including the lands under Sy.No.30/1A measuring 1 acres 17 guntas was acquired. The acquisition having occurred in the year 1986 is not in dispute, that the award has been passed in the year 1988, as adverted to above. The documents which have been relied upon by the petitioners had come into being in the year 2012 and 2014, which is much after the acquisition and the award. 14. Shockingly, the petitioner who claims to be involved in Real Estate business, having knowledge of the manner in which real estate transactions are carried out the documents do not even trace out the title of the property, as to who was the original owner, what was the extent of land owned by the original owners, in which survey number the land was situate etc.,. on enquiry if a title report has been obtained, the submission made is that it is not available. 15. Sri. S.M.Chandrashekar, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner by referring to the final notification, as also the award would contend that the extent of the land acquired in the final notification being only 1 acre 17 guntas, the award could not have been passed for 2 acre 25 guntas and therefore he submits that the acquisition has failed. The petitioner claiming on account of the fact that there is a difference between 2 acres 25 guntas and 1 acre 17 guntas there is no acquisition and therefore, no award could have been passed. 16. I am unable to accept the said submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the simple reason that there is no claim laid by the petitioner as regards either Sy.No.30/1A or 3/2 of Yelligunte Village. On enquiry if the petitioner claims that the lands are located in the above survey numbers, the answer provided was that the petitioner only claims as regards certain Khaneshumari numbers allotted by the panchayath and the Khatha numbers allotted by the BBMP and not on the survey numbers. On enquiry if the petitioner claims that the lands are located in the above survey numbers, the answer provided was that the petitioner only claims as regards certain Khaneshumari numbers allotted by the panchayath and the Khatha numbers allotted by the BBMP and not on the survey numbers. This to me appears to be to only try and get over the acquisition, moreso when the BDA claims that the construction put up is in the land acquired and reopen the acquisition. 17. As aforesaid, the documents on which the JDAs and the sale deeds lay a claim are gift deeds of the year 2012 and partition deed of the year 2014, which is much after the acquisition. In that background, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has suppressed the fact by not tracing the title to the concerned survey numbers which the BDA has contended that it relates to and this suppression and deliberate suggestion of false facts relatable to the Khatha numbers is a complete abuse of the process of this Court and is only to reopen the acquisition which is already complete. 18. If the submission of Shri S M Chandrashekhar, learned senior counsel were to be taken on face value and accepted, then the petitioner who has no right and who does not claim any right as regards Sy.No.30/1A cannot refer to either the final acquisition notification or the award to contend that there is no acquisition in respect of land, the difference between the land measuring 2 acres 25 guntas and 1 acre 17 guntas. etc., since the same would be irrelevant in so far as the claim of the petitioner is concerned. 19. The petitioner is trying to take advantage of certain lacune in the manner and methodology of numbering adopted by the panchayat, which is completely unacceptable. It is for the petitioner to approach this court with clean hands with full disclosure, in the present case the petitioner has sought to suggest false facts as regards the land of the petitioner being covered under Kanshumari numbers and khatha numbers without reference to survey number. It is for the petitioner to approach this court with clean hands with full disclosure, in the present case the petitioner has sought to suggest false facts as regards the land of the petitioner being covered under Kanshumari numbers and khatha numbers without reference to survey number. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that there are no grounds which are made out and the petition is required to be dismissed by imposing an exemplary cost, I quantify the cost at Rs.1,00,000/-(One Lakh only) payable by the petitioner to the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority within a period of two weeks from date of receipt of copy of this order. 20. In view of the peculiar arguments which have been addressed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner as regards the differentiation between the Khatha numbers, Khaneshumari numbers and survey numbers, I am of the considered opinion that directions are required to be issued to the concerned authorities so that this kind of confusion would not be created in future. 21. It is therefore required for the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka to appoint a nodal officer to coordinate with the Revenue Department, Urban Development Department, the Urban Development Authorities, Town Planning Authorities, Municipal Authorities, Municipal Corporations etc., in association with the e-governance department: i. To consolidate and cross-reference the survey number with sub numbers if any, Khaneshumari numbers, House List number, serial number/ village panchayat khata number, khatha numbers, e-khata number, municipal numbers, Town Municipal khata number / City Municipal khata number, Municipal Khata Number, CTS Number, Chalta Number, BDA/ Urban Development Authority Site Number, Karnataka Housing Board Site Number, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Plot Number, Private layout site number, as already allotted and update the same as and when allotted in future. ii. To have search facility to cross-reference search of each of the above details with each other for example survey numbers to the Khatha numbers, Khaneshumari numbers to Survey number, Khaneshumari numbers to Khatha numbers, Khatha number to Municipal number, Municipal number to CTS number, Survey Number to House list number etc., iii. The matrix of numbering to be such that for any particular property if there are different kinds of numbers or identifiers given, all such numbers and identifiers should be available for everyone to cross-refer. iv. The combined numbering to be web hosted in all concerned departments. The matrix of numbering to be such that for any particular property if there are different kinds of numbers or identifiers given, all such numbers and identifiers should be available for everyone to cross-refer. iv. The combined numbering to be web hosted in all concerned departments. v. Whenever a khatha/Khaneshumari certificate is issued the same to refer to survey number, khaneshumari number, municipal number, CTS number or the like depending on the applicability thereof. vi. The Record of Tenancy and crops to also have such cross references. vii. Tax Paid Receipts to reflect the applicable cross reference viii. Acquisition notifications to have cross references. ix. Any and all documents issued by any authority as regards a property to have all cross-references applicable. 22. In this regard, the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka is directed to appoint a senior officer preferably from the Indian Administrative Service as a nodal officer to coordinate with the Revenue Department, Urban Development Department, the Urban Development Authorities, Town Planning Authorities, Municipal Authorities, Municipal Corporations etc., to prepare a dashboard where all these details are collated and cross-referenced, by taking the assistance of the E-Governance Department. A Detailed Project Report (DPR) to be submitted within a period of eight weeks from today. 23. In view of the above, I pass the following: ORDER : i. The writ petition is dismissed. ii. The petitioner is directed to make payment of cost of Rs.1,00,000/-(One Lakh only) to the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority within a period of two weeks from today. iii. Though the above petition is dismissed, re-list this matter on 26.09.2022 to enable the Chief Secretary and/or Secretary E-Governance to file the Detailed Project Report (DPR).