Karnataka High Court
Sri M Venkatesh vs Bangalore Development Authority on 12 February, 2009
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
Bench: Ajit J Gunjal
J£~3angz3IO;r'e'-2.560 O31)'; ' 1 ...PE"I'ITIONER
j . Prasad & Cc-., Advs.)
J V ' VBangalyOI'e iliéveiopment
Auzhonty; Tchowdaiah Read,
. 'Bé§.ngaiO;fe, by Commissioner. ...RESPONDEN'I'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 12th BAY OF §fI::I3I2'U;g1é*If" %
BEFORE A} A «L %
THE HONBLE MR.
WRIT PETITION ,.NO.w1i2QO7 O'/'vw.~'§
WRIT PETITION NC3.11;23;{4~Qj'--2IDQ7.(BDA)
In w.P.No. 12469,€2QO7
BETWEEN :II I '
Aged about 65. -- .
S/o.Late MmIive11ka:é;ppa,,
Residing at #._€~'i»Z0, Iwfiztfi' CItO5ss_,'
Palace Orchards, " . '
-- Sri.K.N.Putt:egoWda 8:.
1 Sri.V.Y.Kumar, Advs.)
4; .sr:;M.venL:atesh,
In W.P.No.12340l2007
BETWEEN :
Sri.N.R.Poonam,
W/o.D.AIjun,
Age: 24 years,
R/a. 'Shiva Krupa', "
'H' Cross, Tumkur. V = "
(By SI'i.V.Laksh1n;§I1a:r*aya1:%:i,""gi'\:(iv?Q,}.' ""
AND : H
1. The State ofKéfin§??ila3(afsA 4'
Represem:c§i"iJy._its. .' « -- '
Principal Secref_a3:y, " ' _
Urban Developmefiiz " , ._
Qepafllnent,'N£;VS._B'uj1di:1g,V_ §
Bangalore '--'.'f">fi-O 0.0 _
2. The Bangaioxje Developfiizirm
Authority, z*ep1'efseI1tedV'by its
. isisioner, am Park
' '_ We,st',' S2':i3i1{eyRoad,
'--..ABanga1or¢¥5;6Q'020.
' " _3. The Engineeijfig Member,
M ' The Bangaioré: Development
' TAutho1:1ty,«:_Kumara Park West,
" Sankey Road, Ba11ga1oI'e--2().
- __ "'S/'o.Late Mumvenkatappa,
'Aged about 61 years,
'HR/a, No.410, 12*'! Cross Road,
" " Upper Palace Orchards,
Bangalore.
5. Sxivenu,
S/o.M.Ve1:1katesh,
Aged about 39 years,
R/a. No.410, 1231 Cross Road,
Upper Palace Orchards,
Bangalore. ; _A :1 Ad
(By Sri.K.N.Puttegowda, Adv, forVR.2"&
Sri.V.Y.Kumar, Adv. fo'r..s4R'2) ' =
w.p. No.1246o/2o<37fr;s 1'._iIe:§_j<Li;*1Cl4:r'~.AI'€iClCS 226
and 227 of the Constitution or 'E1idia__.dj2i*iti;1V a, prayer to
grant stay the propesefi Vaiietion 'V :5'pmeeecii11gs
contemplated under':-. AI§I1e;{1.3i'e'«.. "F.5_'~..edated 1.8.2007
published in Deeeazi"Hera}d':and\_..c¥_:§1fect» the respondent
not to alietrrxatezfor ereate.._anyis'je,eit.. eef encumbrance on the
schedule pmperty;"* '<.;._ ., "
W.P. "No.123-4Of~2f'QO"?'..__i's.4filed under Articles 226
and 227 of the Cozist:it:1t£of:; of India with a prayer to
quash the noti§iea£i.dn "pufilished in Deecan Heraid
dated 1...?3.2i}.07, so far as it relates to S1.No.2, site
Ne,,'35é~, meastiimg 772.85 square meters of
IR1M,.V;..I_Ind S.tage;._Banga1ore produced as Armexure 'W',
dated 27.52.2007, registered as
document No;'_'Z--'.7i}5/O6«O7 produced as Annexure 'S'
,'=-=eance11adon,.order dated 30.11.2006 produced as
AI-mexure 'R' "and the letter of rescindment dated
-4ff;-}4.I§'1.i.20()5,_produced as Armexure 'N' as illegal,
.: discriminatory and violative of Principles of
IV3'at':_x;*a:1_LIi;1stiee.
" w';I'1'1ese writ petitions eonczing on for prelzmmary' '
in 'B' Group, this day, the Court made the
djfoilowingz
HenVee.;:Vhotvt*ithstanding the fact that there
V. sale deed in favour of the said
V Etangalore Development Authority and
so' regstered sale deed in favour of
by Venkatesh, The Bangalore
Authority has unilaterally rescinded the
"s.ei.Md:"reg'stered saie deed on 2'?*h February 2007. 'I'he
-4-
ORDER
Both these writ petitions are disposed of common order.
2. The Bangalore to the site in question in favour-.___of A. ' petitioner in W.P.No.12460/'20(Zt;f;'~.:l.'§'he Sm parted with the 1' of one Mrs.N.R.Poonam, the /2007.
The Bangaloxfg it appears stumbled according to them wottld ._ allotment in favour of M.Ver1katesh;firendo:f was with fictitious saiidsiiiz is-still peedmg and the State Government toy: ' proceedings. Likewise, the said filed a suit in o.s.No.4249/2005 for a that the sale deed executed by him in favour 'Sfit.N.R.Peenam is null and void and has seught for it e declaration to that effect. Since the sale deed inter se between both the petitioners is pending before the Civil fl said communication is questioned by Venkatesh in W.P.No.12-460/2007, 'I'hereafter, it appears, the site is put up for auction. Tine said auction A' the communication is questioned by in W.P.No. 12340/2007.
3. When the mattefis to my notice that the petitio1:i_e_1ff'/2007 has filed a suit in o.s%s;i€o}3:2%e1Q of City Civil Judge at v°gieelarati_oI1 that she is the er" property and also to the of the deed by the said Venkatesh uferi VO'iZ111€I"V',-'a"(':3ITi6fS. It is not in dispute that as Development Authority are / Autltozfltydtolvhei-*eVo'$:lle dispute resolved in the suits filed by' the peeeeee in both the writ petitions. to 1it'lis.eopen for the petitiotler in W.P.No. 12340/2007 V' ~to"seeVL: an amendment, if it is permissible under law. ,5- Court, I am of the Vi6'W that the dispute inter Se the parties as well as annulling of the sale deed Bangalore Development Authority is 'ii A' 3 decided in the suits filed by defid Smt.N.R.Poonam.
4. Indeed the queetglon be wF{etl1erv"E the Bangalore Development "ut1fle.teral1y revoke the sale de-e:de._ Itgg that before revoking the will have to be had to vthe.V»Stjeefl"iewV--Reiief Act read with Section 17a*ot' 'tl1e' Act. Of course, I do not proposeto upon this inasmuclf/l as it open: including Mr.Ve11katesh, as the Bangalore Development .7- Till then, the communication issued by 3 _V Bangalore Development Authoriiy to Mr.Venka'_fi»:a'sh_' Well as Mrs. Poonam shall not be given effect~to:.:.1:j~.. ' All contentions are left open to Civil Court.
Both the petitions stand of ascsrdifzgiy. SP8