Karnataka High Court
Smt Sunitha vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 January, 2012
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
-3- No.PCR No.l65/07-08, dated 7.5o2.0'0,%~:VV~VVa:fifi1-'. No.32/A/05--06, dated 28.08.2005' vide. Ari~r]1_ex'u.r.esi-.P 0 & Q and quash the possessi-on? Certii'i-eatles Vide Annexures-P andgete. C " l " ' 0' This writ petition Cormng or'r._ford this day, the Court passed the yfollovving: 9 For they for'mation :of.._an" 'i.rjv1»ri_erV~ road connecting Indira to land of the petitionersl"'V.yi)as;,;_ by the Bangalore ' in lieu of payment of Compensation', to the petitioners. sites beai'irig.Nos.l3?i_7lBl and 32«C, each measuring 100 x 100 at Hosur~Sarjapur Road SeCtor~lIl layout. .'_l"l-lie dated 10.11.2000 issued are as at A'nI1eXtiresj;A & B. Possession of allotted sites was delivered to the petitioners on l5~2~200l, as at Annexures C & Cl. Correct dimension reports having Called for, was submitted by Jurisdictional -4- Engineers to the authority on Annexures~D & D1. Thereafter. sale deeds" allotted sites were executed in favour tr.he.;pet'ii_1oner's on 16.1.2001, as at Annexures~E 'F, Pe't_itio'nersr.'were registered kathedars of the two sites 1n_t.=he'.i~eoords of the BDA. HSR Seeto1'§I11 layotupti been"'h'a;nded over to the BBMP, petit'ioners'v"'lw:ere:_:v:'is'sued with katha certificates the property tax of the In respect of the allotted' No.32--C, there were roads towards East, North and South. :"Lo1'1g after the date of ailotment and the CO-f1\/.éy'ifi§é.,d_5f"\"'the said two sites in favour of the pet.'i.tio:,1ers;:""3O feet wide road situated between the sites . allotted" and conveyed in favour of the petitioners and site 1 "'Nos;A31--A and 32--A was made use of by the BDA for the "formation of two additional sites, i.e.. site Nos.32»A and 1/ l/A. T writ petitions have been filed ythe formation and consequential allotment of lsauidftwcl) sites made in favour of respondents and 4 al_s(;.Vtol'diVrecty '
the BDA to maintain the 30 feet?__wid_e road' southern boundary of petitioners' Cl~fi'E§C:I"'ib€d in Schedules ~A & B of the writ_.ple'ti.tions. .
3. BDA filed There is no denial of eillcjtrrient 32-C in favour of the only with regard to the road on the southern boL1nd7ary«of i.e., Schedules--A & B to the writ _petition_ » Accortlingf to BDA, spot inspection revealed b_ounAdary...of site No.32/B is wrongly mentioned pplieéncle-.----_was decided to take action to rectify the 'defect wh'ir:h occurred in the matter of issuance of if f " 'epetpitiolners. X of title of the two sites in favour of the /' r -6-
4. The 41" respondent represented by Sri Rajaram, learned Advocate, submitted that the allotmentj'rn:'ade~ the BDA in favour of 4"' respondent is legal and 5_ 3rd respondent has rerniaineclluVnrepres_en.tfed. f
6. Sri V.Lakshniin_arayana..__ 'Counsel' appearing for the petitionersweiontendedl'ihateiithe BDA having allotted the pjlzlymentt of cash Compensation extent of land of the of inner ring road c:onnec:ti1'1g. road and Ko ram angala and delivered possession and executed the 'sale which show the existence of 30 ..roadllltowards the southern boundary, is not pljeustifiedinl"rnalfrlng use of the road measuring 100' x 30', forhlthe of two new sites bearing Nos.32-A and l/A, "WlI1lCl'l were subsequently allotted in favour of re_sp"ondents 3 and 4. Learned Counsel submitted that \L/ ' .
the original layout plan approved by the _AVu-tiyhority provides for the said road and the road wasf_.al's0V_'fQrm_ed and that the layout plan has been altered Planner Member, without any autyhorifiyléfopf .1.aw7a'r;.q the action of respondent .in-..__making" useaof e>g;ist/inguv road for the formation or tylyoyfarlditioiiallnsiteis bearing Nos.32AA and l/A arifdfitrheifr at-llot:'m_'e:n"t.yis highly arbitrary and illegal. that in View of the title lépejtitioners in respect of the two sites: schedules of the writ.
petition, }3DAWto alter or use the 30 feet wide road'-- sittiatecl.2don:x"the southern boundary for the formation of additiorialfsites.
.3M:r"."Raja1*ani, submitted that the 4m respondent 'is.'a'bo11fafideVallottee and he has been unnecessarily dralgged into the litigation and if for any reason the faliotmeliltr of site No.32/A by the BDA were found to be luarblitrary or illegal. BDA may be directed to allot an / /' -8- alternate site in the same area or in the immediate vicinity i.e.. in a developed layout.
8. In View of the rival Contentions and"-thefI'e(l':ord-- the writ petition, the points for
(i) whether there _.e_xistedA:l3O feel;.twilde"*:lroadap towards the sou-.th"e.rn boundary two' sites allotted in ofvthehpetitioriers?
(ii) whether is making use of the V30' --'for"».:lforrnatioi1 of two flI"1V'fi~'\"1::E'1VVV'$a':']::1vv§-/«A)t\tiI'1g the same in
1.. 'ia'v.ou--r- at 'regs-po'n_delni:lS 3_ and 4? to the allotments made as per'--Ari11exures}A'"8gl"'Bx' possession certificates as at Anne.xu1'es?'C &' issued to the petitioners. There ap"peaf.St to be a mistake in showing the site numbers in C1. The boundaries as appearing in An«n_exu~ref'('3ought to have been shown for site bearing N().32--=B"a1'1d the boundaries appearing in Annexure-- ll ought to have been shown for site bearing No.32~C. *7.
.--9* However, the fact remains that. bot;hH__th.e are adjacent to each other and Wh€1?."féik€U as cornp.actl'b'loc'k, b roads existed on the three wide road, towards Nortvh'l_60_' wide roadb..v South 30' wide road. It islrelev_antlt'o that the allotment made as jointalvlotment in favour of Smt. Suiiitha-.lanti Reddy. The correct & D1, were prepared ':.l8,.'3.2000, prior to the execution of petitioners, show the existe:i1ce-- of l\Iorth and South of the two sites, which in favour of the petitioners. Based on the ..c_orrect dimension reports and the original 1al§:}'()11fEsAl.lI:3¢1~i:1'i~._which had been approved by the Authority, 'the the two sites were executed in favour of three boundaries, noticed supra.
the petlvitioln,-ers. which also show the existence of roads on V/.
-10-
10. Without any proposal being submitted___to the Authority and a resolution being passed by the the original layout plan was modified Planner Member, i.e., to form two addit'/ionVal'e--lsite's. sited' Nos.32/A and l/A. measurir1gi'«3O§§4'(l The existing road on soul'Lh_e1"n V '-.bou'ri'dary of petitioners' sites andato the-~-lno*rthei'nlboundaxy of site Nos.32/A and 31A had 'of. for the purpose of formatyionppvofwl-'No 32/A and l/A, which ::all.otted in favour of respondeiltlsifg lslfapparenty that the action of the authority in the matter of formata1on"*olf'vtwVov._ aiddit-ional site bearing Nos.32/A and 1/.Al7<is_fiyitvhoutyllthesanction by the BDA. No record has been to establish that a proposal was mooted forllamendrnent/modification of the layout plan ie. to make" of the road which was lying to the southern boundaiy of the petitioners sites i.e., to form two ",/ -11- additional sites. The layout plan ll modified as per the deeision'llllof"the« T()w'1;;._ Ivjlanner Member. Any Change in the 'layout 'plan, to be effected, the same canfbe with.__ti1"ie_<:on'eu'rrenee of the BDA. which is not the "Ey_en_EothenNise, the two sites having petitioners with southern boundary same could not have bec§'iillm:ade:luse additional sites and same to respondents 3 and not only arbitrary but also ..jurisdietio1'1 in the matter of making lof._a--n existing road to form additional site , &_ Nosi.,32l/'AV and 'l /VA_.__¢ , the writ petition is allowed. The ord.erS.__v'ofvlA.l3ll)A as at Annexures--P 8: Q dated 7.5.2007 and 23.06.2005 are quashed. BDA is directed to maintain feet wide road lying between site Nos.32--B and llB2--C and 31 /A and 2/A as a road OUR:
/, K -17- Since the allotments made in favour of respondents 3 and 4 cannot be sustained, there is an obligation-vvon the part of BDA to allot alternative sites to and 4, either in the same layout or vin7flanl'y'v_':otherI developed layouts.
Since a mistake BDA in showing the site "certificates issued, as at in the sale
deeds, as 'aft: boundaries having of site No.32--B having been of site No.32--C and vice versa.
BDA necessary rectification docurrients i'n_"resp'ect of boundaries pertaining site V' l'J.Qs.32-B .a"nd 32-C are concerned. compliance is three months from the date of copyfof this order become available to BDA. \y ~.