Karnataka High Court
H N Raghunatha vs The Bangalore Development Authority on 24 November, 2012
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
IN Ti IF H1( 1 I (()LRT OF KARNAfAKA A F BAN(ALORE
DATET) THIS TIlE 24111 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011
BEFORE
TIlE HQNBLE MR JSTTCE AcHOK B. HINCHIGERI
RIT PETIT ON NO33 52 OF 2009JAj
BETWEEN:
IfNRaghunatha.
S/o Late Sri Naravana Acliar,
Aged about 70 years.
Residing at No83.
Am igrali a 2 ( (ross.
lilA Main Road.
Hosakerchallv,
Banashankari III Stage,
III hae. 71 Stage.
Bangalore 560 085 P titioner
(By Sr ridhar \d at
I L rel)
un a P rk Wes
3 5(o 0(
it€d b i )C, P at
(l3 Sri Mu jEr for
Sii( a aIG
Is \Hlt T)(utiOfl 15 i1d J 1(I 'f1
1i' 1Fi
1
srStSI ' 1!1' a1L I
i ti(i r r
5
j (1 i1 tjjs t1 ri
a a i i EaF ' I
-2-
Stage. 4th B Block, measurIng 12 x 18 mtrs. vide
Annexure-D, etc.,
This writ petition, coming on for preliminary
hearing in B Group, this day, the Court made the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner, who Is the senior citizen (aged about 72 years), is agitating for the determination of the fair allotment consideration for the marginal land.
2. The facts of the case In brief are that the 3zcI respondent allotted site bearing No.883, 2nd C Cross. A Main, Banashankarl III Stage, II Phase, 7th Block, Bangalore -- 85 In Hosakerehalli layout. The site was allotted in 1978 and the sale deed was executed In 1981. The petitioner constructed the house and he has been residing therein. Adjacent to the said site, there lies a strip of land measurIng 13" x 30", which Is known as marginal land In the general parlance. The petitioner was given to understand that the marginal land would be allotted to him at the consideration to be 3- worked out as per the norm prescribed in Rule 5(b) of Bangalore Development Authontv (Disposal of Cot net Sat'-. i-U. 1 Rules. 1Cth4 (flu short ilte saul Rulcsl Hew°' r, the respondents did not illot the marginal land to die pet Itlot icr: it was given to one Sri Venkatesh Shetty Aggrieved by the said allotment in favour of 'enkatesh Slietty. the petitioner had flied WI' "io.24 151/1994. which came to be dismissed by the lrarntd Smglr Judge 5v his ordei dated 03.09.1997. The petitioner filed V.A.No 5825/1997. 1h Dnisw it Bench disposed t of by its judgment dated 10.12 1999 recording the re%pnhlde n' s memo that I' tI i cl'uii .ii. at t at 's na' I Sben' 1% briii rt 'wwed 1 I'c l)i'. !sor Bep ii Prr'i.t Ibt-d Ft it an I ' in tIm t t it cciii nt
--'ill) 'LiI it 'iCW Vi I ( Jut tatil hen. ft t lit ortlt 1 c a 4ted f,:jff;jj I. 'jt rick ')U',,t'd cit nc ri. Ii It I n it 1 "il it- 1 j ''C' - l( •1'(" :ir --
it, ip a 4 ; .,: I £ r 1 1 -4-
land. Aggrieved by the Inaction of the respondent In the matter. the petitioner filed W.P.No.3930l/2003 seeking a writ In the nature of mandamus to the respondent to give the marginal land. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by its order, dated 24.02.2005 directing the respondent to pass the orders In the light of Rule 5 of the said Rules.
3. The respondents Issued the demand notice, dated 10.7.2008 (Annexure-A) to the petitioner calling upon him to pay t26,90,206/-, at the rate of t43,237/- per sq. metre, towards the allotment consideration of the marginal land. The petitioner represented to the respondent to revise the demand notIce, as the amounts were erroneously noted. The petitioner also sought certain Information invoking the relevant provisions of. the RIght To Information Act. The communication, dated 31.01.2009 (Annexure-E) issued by the respondent states that the average auction rate Is nsa 28,62/ per sqmetre in Ilosakerehalli and 2l 368/ in Banashankari 3 Stage 4 1 hc i spondent r cvis d th demand down cu ds by ailing upon the petitioner to pay 22 6729 7/ at the rat of 36 400/ per sqmetre towards the allotment onsideration vid notice dated 20 022009 Annexure B) 1'h said notice further states that the earlier notice, dat d 10 0 72OO8 is uathdraun and that the sam be r turned to the respondent s office ) N( t ontent with the marginal du. hon f urn urits h pet ti )r r ubmith I i ro r i . e ci r t 1 substance of the endorsement is that the status quo ante is restored Let, the petitioner was asked to pay 26 90,206/ as per the BDA notice, dated 1007 2008 (nnexure A arid not 22 67 297/ as demanded by the respondents subsequent notice, dated 2aO22OO9 (Annexure B), The two demand notices and the endorsement are impugned in this petition 6 Sri Sridhar, the learned counsel lot the petitioner submits that none of the thre impugned communications give the basis for thc determination of hit. amounts demanded front tht petitioner He submits hat if th amounts payable are . ik ulated in cordan c. vith Ruk ab) of the saic Ruk s thc xt to r bibt o p y a o ild c. i th te it cr Ut S it at tic 0: -7-
7. The learned counsel for the respondents stibmits that as no auctions have taken place in the layout In question (Hoskerehalli layout). the rates are taken from the auctions conducted in the nearby layouts.
8. The submissions of the learned counsel have received my anxious consideration. The impugned notices, dated 10.07.2008 and 20.02.2009 (Annexures A and B) give no clue, much less the details of how the amounts are determined by the respondents. The demand noticesare not accompanied by any work-sheet or memo of calculations.
9. As per the requirement contained in Rule 5(b) of the said Rules, the average auction rate has to be worked out on the basis of the rates at which the sites have been sold at previous auctions in the locality In which the site is situated. In the instant case, no auction particulars whatsoever are mentioned in the impugned notices. On the short ground of the notices ASH -8- being non-spealdng and deficient in every respect, they are liable to be quashed and accordingly they are quashed.
10. The third Impugned communication smacks of the arbitrariness, to say the least. It contains no reason for withdrawing the demand for 22,67,297/- and re imposing the demand of ?26,90,206/-. The petitioner has made his position worse off by giving the representation to reduce the amount from fl2,67.297/-. No reason whatsoever is assigned for withdrawing the downwardly revised demand notice and reviving the earlier demand.
11. It is trite position in law that the action is to be judged by the impugned orders and not by the reasons shown for the first time either by way of affidavit or the statement of objections. In this regard, it is beneficial to refer to the Apex Court judgment in the case of Mohlnder SIngh Gill & Anr. vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & On. reported 9 in (1978) 1 SOC 405. The relevant portion is extracted het eunder 8 Ihe sa ond equally relevant matter is that when a statutory juncrioriary makes an order based on certain qrnunds. Its validity must be judged by the reasons so 'nention.ecl arid cannot be supplemented by iresh reasons in the shape of affidavit otherwise. Otherwise. wi order bad In the beginning may. by the time It comes to Court on curount of a challenge. get vall4ated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the bservaaons of Bose. .1. in (lordhanclas BhanjL Pt blic nick is. publicly w 1 zde. in eerctse 01 a sic tutortj aid-ic ritz 1 c in tot be 'vnstrucd in zhc light qJ the cvplunraions suhscqLwrLtzy ie 1 t jtccrrnl-iz Ic ncr I 1 he meant. nv 'ehi'. iea in hi' ,nuiL or .z szt Pu 'n ci dc I to di I'uhlu ('rile s 'nacc ly' hi ii 'rae a'r d11 at ru) 4ft'• I •u'cl C'?. ii 1k rub (I to qjcc' nit' tlttzcjfl, ii (ci L'(tS I tiC %'-4-'gJ dJ (• i •L% lit' (t ''L4c(! '14cs .13 f
-10 with rejercnce to the language used in the order itse(I. Orders are not like old wine becuntirty better as tile!, grnu' nick',
12. Yet another aspect of the matter winch earmot be lost sight of is that, even after the disposal of W.P No.39301/2003 I, this Court oil 24.02.2005. the respondents took three years to take a decision in (lie matter. I'he respondents seiit tile demand notice only on 10.07.2008. Ii the rcspondent were to take a decision in 2005 oi Inmiechately 'ilter 2005 fl"diig the peutioner\ 1iibffitv to pay the cousideranor based rn itt rites lctcli d a ti-c. luvtI( rm c )ncluc cd or h ee otnons lit )ut(olne rnld i n beer lifter r . I k tots t a >psiii aicni' her:spcrid. ittokc r tit. math i pi ndiLct for tl.e' ye it "c! thc ii in. rn n. lb. raft lxt'..-d iMI i.,hai ii t cU' ti'JII% k'L(IWI'l !ii 2OO 2OS • p1 t114 tX Iii s''ni' .iiljci t,e.ilities I r 1L1
13. 'fillS cc to aU anotme the dutY nt of the :
pndC at Eitt he 1 p ofld 0 fllt cc the a t llo t me' dera ü ° tht 6 1 a strK'tW lE 0 acC stb'I of j4 'pe Rule the reSl)Oti 4 eilt o take the tch' in the sazEiC ocaUtY the 1W is situated If it i the caSt of resP om flo aUCtWT wbats 'Cr o to '11W aucdO rate r6 eteh' in a fl comp j the nde afhl nt auV dilW" In rtt'4 a ,ta b 0 tsm tilt from the t cot f0 fLc'. to. sS ut' thInøb to be tall to tb' the w' tS the (flfl%i JSCta bJM'6 fl in tht •iuctIO l" ted 'flU" eV SC 1 1 iU 12
completed within two months from the date of the issuance of tht certified copy of today's order
16. Ac the pet Iriouci (W lit) Is a 'mini i It lien) 1% driven to the Court for no fatilt on hi' 1 part and on account of the whimsical and inconsistent attitude of the respondent. I find that this is a fit case for the imposition of cost. The learned counsel for the respondents has been pleading with me not to impose the c ost Hh p rsuaslon has made me not to impose any exempl w cost The respondents shall pay the cost of ?1,00( / to he petitioner within onc month from tuda".
1 lh. ifl r' is a cor lmtzly c isposed of a ) C. '3 AIIJ: WP.NO.34252J2009 1BD31 22 5 2012 QBDR QNJ.AJ112 On hewing the learned advocate'. I direct that the office note preamhh poiti n be zict bed hfl% 14 1 i 'rt In 1ueti rt a'. Xo.883/A. 2 C Cm'.'.. III- 1aIn Road, Efosakerehally Banashankaii Ill Stage. II Phase. 71. Block. Bangalore 360 08..
Thc second error, which has crept In olfice note is that the canctilation order was sought to be quashed. On thc other hand. what was sought to be quashed Is the demand notices at kiincxUic. .
t
4.Band Both the errors pointed out ai ordeird to be c orren.e(l I A. 1/12 for rt c tification is allowed acc'oidlng,lv Offict i dir ned to issur the rectified ordet copy gijhn'it In1sung fri' the pavnwnt of the o'.t ee th op. pph atic hr iii )tit a"
i)fl s
1!v '.til. ists at S Sn G S.ha'iie i t s--Pfli C' onnscl
44) ailL ha ie r wc Jfl t1t. Lh( d 'a 1 01 is
I flij lied i
,Ja.
1 ; t 'I 'jt. ! (.1't Ni rdllc n• ." I h-eL if hi'
ii it C It t it iC 0 & ' t C
era c Vt s'" Lii ill fl liflt. -- .J .'
•f i' l-•"
k.