Karnataka High Court
Smt Padma vs The Commissioner on 25 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:23343
WP No. 24114 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO. 24114 OF 2021 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
SMT. PADMA,
WIFE OF SRI. B.G. VISHWANATH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO.2585, 11TH MAIN,
'E' BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 010.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.M. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER,
THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST
Digitally
signed by V BENGALURU - 560 020.
MANJUSHA
BAI
Location: 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY - 4,
High Court of BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
Karnataka
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU - 560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. VACHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS OR SUCH OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:23343
WP No. 24114 of 2021
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO ALLOT AN ALTERNATIVE
SITE BEARING NO.3353 OF 7TH BLOCK ARKAVATHY LAYOUT
CARVED OUT OF SY.NO.55/8 OF JAKKURU VILLAGE AND TO
EXECUTE SALE DEED AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS IN
FAVOUR OF PETITIONER AS PER THE REPRESENTATION DATED
26.7.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-Q, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING /
PHYSICAL HEARING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The Bangalore Development Authority (for short, 'the BDA') allotted a site No.157 in Arkavathy Layout to the vendor of the petitioner. Subsequently, the said site was cancelled and site No.1139 was allotted to the vendor of the petitioner. Thereafter, an absolute Sale Deed was also executed in favour of the vendor of the petitioner by the BDA in respect of the said site in Arkavathy Layout. Subsequently, the vendor of the petitioner by way of a registered Sale Deed dated 10.10.2018, sold site No.1139 of Arkavathy Layout in favour of the petitioner herein. The khata was also issued in favour of the petitioner. However, due to certain malfeasance and misfeasance committed by the BDA in formation of Arkavathy Layout, the land where -3- NC: 2024:KHC:23343 WP No. 24114 of 2021 site No.1139 is situated was de-notified, because of which the petitioner has been deprived of her valuable right to the property. The BDA in turn, promised to allot an alternative site to the petitioner and in the process, decided to allot site No.3353 to the petitioner. However, in the meanwhile the Hon'ble Justice Keshava Narayana Committee was constituted in respect of verifying the correctness of de-notifications as well as the allotment of sites to the landlosers and the BDA is said to have taken a decision to first allot the sites based on the recommendations of the Hon'ble Justice Keshava Narayana Committee to the landlosers and thereafter, if any sites remain the same to be allotted to the allottees and in case no sites remained in Arkavathy Layout, the allottees have been promised sites in subsequent layouts like Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout. For the said reason, the BDA unsure of whether site No.3353 which is promised to be allotted to the petitioner herein, will be available or not as per the recommendations of the Hon'ble Justice Keshava Narayana Committee, has kept -4- NC: 2024:KHC:23343 WP No. 24114 of 2021 the allotment of the said site in abeyance. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she is a bonafide purchaser of the BDA site for a valuable consideration and it is the actions of the BDA which has deprived her of a valuable right to the property and that the BDA having promised her to allot site No.3353 of Arkavathy Layout is bound to allot the same.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the BDA submits that no promise was made to the petitioner as alleged, but site No.3353 was identified as a site that can be allotted to the petitioner but in the meanwhile as the BDA is duty bound to first allot the sites to the landlosers, it is not sure whether site No.3353 will be allotted to the landlosers or not. However, the learned counsel for the BDA is not in a position to deny that is the mischief played by the BDA which has resulted in the petitioner losing her valuable right to the property.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:23343 WP No. 24114 of 2021
4. Admittedly, the BDA is liable to allot an alternative site to the petitioner herein. However, as per the several decisions of this Court, the BDA has to first meet the needs of landlosers in Arkavathy Layout and is required to allot the sites to them. Hence, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to direct the BDA to allot site No.3353 to the petitioner in case the said sites remains un-allotted to any of the landlosers as per the recommendations of the Hon'ble Justice Keshava Narayana Committee. In case site No.3353 becomes unavailable, the BDA shall allot an alternative site to the petitioner without any delay in subsequent layouts, preferably in Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout. Hence, the following:
ORDER i. The respondent-BDA is directed to allot site No.3353 of Arkavathy Layout to the petitioner if, after allotting the sites to the landlosers in Arkavathy Layout as per the recommendations of the Hon'ble -6- NC: 2024:KHC:23343 WP No. 24114 of 2021 Justice Keshava Narayana Committee, site No.3353 still remains not allotted to any landlosers.
ii. In case site No.3353 Arkavathy Layout is allotted to the landlosers, in that event, the respondent-BDA shall allot without any delay a site of equal value to the petitioner in any subsequent layout, preferably in Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout.
iii. The Writ Petition is hereby disposed off accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42 CT: BHK