Karnataka High Court
The Secretary, Committee Of ... vs The Bangalore Development Authority ... on 16 January, 2001
Equivalent citations: ILR2001KAR3034, 2002(3)KARLJ262
Author: Mohamed Anwar
Bench: Mohamed Anwar
ORDER Mohamed Anwar, J.
1. Heard arguments of learned Counsels on both sides.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner-Temple Institution seeks issuance of writ of certiorari and quash the allotment letter dated 3-8-1998 at Annexure-K of respondent 1-Bangalore Development Authority ('BDA' for short), by which the petitioner was informed that an alternative site measuring 467 Sq. Mtrs. for Community Hall, described therein, was allotted to it for Rs. 4,55,325/- instead of the original site measuring 1225 Sq. Mtrs. that was allotted to the petitioner for Rs. 3,67,500/- under its original allotment order dated 9-8-1994 vide Annexure-B for the said purpose. It is further prayed in the petition that respondents be directed to put the petitioner in actual possession of the said original site allotted to it under Annexure-B, order dated 9-8-1994, since all the required legal formalities in this regard have been complied with.
3. It is not in dispute that as required by the relevant rules of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites) Rules, 1989 ('Rules of 1989' in short), an application in the prescribed form for allotment of a civic amenity site in Nandini Layout formed by BDA, for the purpose of Community Hall was made by the petitioner to the BDA authorities. On that application, the site measuring 1225 Sq. Mtrs. was duly allotted by the BDA to the petitioner under its order at Annexure-B, dated 9-8-1994 fixing the price therefor at Rs. 3,67,500A. It is also an admitted fact that the price amount of the said site was also duly paid to the BDA and that the registered lease deed in the prescribed form was furnished by the BDA itself at Annexure-C, dated 22-4-1995. This deed has been executed in accordance with Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Rules. The Secretary of the BDA as a first party to this deed who has also signed the document with his signature and seal in execution thereof. After this stage in the process of allotment of a civic amenity site under the Rules of 1989 was over, then what was required on the part of BDA was to put the allottee in actual physical possession of the allotted site in compliance with Sub-rule (5) of Rule 10, which reads:
"As soon as may be possible after the registered agreement is submitted to the Authority, the possession of the site shall be handed over to the lessee. The lease period commences from the date of registration of the lease agreement".
4. Therefore, in terms of Rule 10(5), the lease in respect of the said allotted site described in Annexure-B order had come into existence from the date of execution of the lease deed at Annexure-C i.e., 22-4-1995 and that the authority was legally duty-bound to deliver possession of the site to the lessee for its enjoyment in terms of the lease deed. Instead of delivering possession of the site to the lessee, in spite of repeated representations given to it vide Annexures-G and J, curiously the BDA after about 4 years proceed to issue another allotment order at Annexure-K, dated 3-8-1998 in petitioner's favour, stating that in lieu of the said bigger site measuring 1225 Sq. Mtrs. shown in Anncxure-B, another smaller site measuring 467 Sq. Mtrs. has been allotted to the petitioner for the purpose of establishing Community Hail on 30 years lease basis. Such an action, according to objection statement filed for BDA, was stated to have been taken on the ground that in the earlier allotment order vide Annexure-B, dated 9-8-1994, the purpose for which the site indicated therein was allotted for the Community Hal, but in the lease deed at Annexure-C executed between parties pursuant to Annexure-B the purpose of allotment is indicated as for Temple which is altogether different from the one mentioned in Annexure-B.
5. It is not the case of the respondent-BDA that the earlier allotment of the bigger site made under its order at Annexure-B, dated 9-8-1994 had been fully cancelled by following the relevant procedure prescribed under Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 ('the Act of 1976' in short) or under any of the relevant provision of the Rules and Regulations made thereunder. In that view of the matter, the allotment of the site made under Annexure-B for all legal purposes stands good. Thus, there was no sufficient legal justification for BDA to take away the said allotted site from the petitioner-lessee and to compel it to accept another smaller site indicated in its subsequent order vide Annexure-K, dated 3-8-1998 in lieu thereof. Therefore, Annexure-K is liable to be quashed as it has been passed without any authority of law.
6. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is allowed. The impugned Annexure-K, dated 3-8-1998 is quashed. Respondents are directed to deliver to the petitioner-lessee the physical possession of the site shown in the BDA's order at Annexure-B, dated 9-8-1994 in terms of the lease deed at Annexure-C, subject to the condition that in Annexure-C the mistaken purpose of allotment shown as "Temple" be rectified duly as the one for the purpose of "Community Hall" to bring it in tune with the allotment order at Annexure-B, dated 9-8-1994.