Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Steels vs The Bangalore Development Authority on 7 March, 2012
Equivalent citations: 2012 AIR CC 1734 (KAR), 2012 (2) AIR KAR R 642, AIR 2012 (NOC) (SUPP) 948 (KAR.), AIR 2012 (NOC) (SUPP) 851 (KAR)
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, K.Govindarajulu
HIGH CUUKI UF KAKNAIAKA HIGH CVUKIE UF KRAKNAIABKA PMIGr CUURL UF KRARNAIANRA MIUr CUURE UF RANRNAIARA MIU CUYVURE VF RARNAIARA FHT |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 7" DAY OF MARCH, 2012.
PRESENT _--
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L. MANIUNATH
AND.
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAIULU Sot
BETWEEN: --
1 KARNATAKA STEELS ~
A PROPRIETARY CONCERN
26, B, OOSMANKAHAN ROAD
BNAGALORE-2 7
REP. BY SURESH...
CHANDR: AGGARWAL, PROPRIETOR
2 MARUTI STEEL & HARDWARE
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
NO.2, 1ST CROSS, POTTERS COLONY
NEW BAMBCO BAZAAR
_. BANGALORE-2
a Rep. SANJAY GUPTA, PARTNER
a DAMUDI STEEL
A PROPRIETARY CONCERN
. MILLIA BLDG
N.R.ROAD, BANGALORE-2
REP. BY ABDUL RAHIM DAMUDI
4 GUPTA TOOLS & ALLOY STEEL SYNDICATE
A PROPRIETARY CONCERN
29, STH MAIN, STH BLOCK
43RD CROSS, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-41
REP. BY VDAY KUMAR GUPTA
,
dl
aWSEE
IGH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH CUUKI OF KAKNAIAKA HIGH LCUUKL UP RARNAIARA THUN CUVURE Ur RARMAIARA THO SVU Ur nanan rt
STEEL SALES CORPORATION
A PROPRIETARY CONCERN
10/2, GANGAMACHARI STREET
NEW BAMBOO BAZAR ROAD
MOTINAGAR, BANGALORE-2
REP, BY MR. PURUSHOTTAM LAL RUNGTA S By
PROPRIETOR
MODI INTERNATIONAL
A PROPRIETARY CONCERN >
NO.3/1, MUNESHWARA, INDL. ESTATE os
TUMKUR ROAD, PEENYA,
BANGALORE-58, REP. BY SURESH KUMAR
MODI, PROPRIETOR 7
BALAJI TUBE CORP.
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
F14/3 SADARPATRAPPA ROAD
BANGALORE-2.
REP, BY RAKESH. KUMAR GUPTA
PARTNER
MEENAKSHI STEEL TRADERS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
63/1, 2ND CROSS"
N.R.ROAD, MOTINAGAR
" BANGALORE-2
REP. BY MR. SATISH KUMAR
PARTNER |
_ JYOTHI STEEL CORPORATION
A PROPRIETARY CONCERN
NO.18, S.P.ROAD, BANGALORE-2
~ REP. BY PRITAM CHAND
~~ PROPRIETOR
C R REVENNA GURUSIDDAPPA
A PROPRIETARY CONCERN
NO.20/1, S.P.ROAD
BANGALORE-2
REP. BY C.R. SHANTHARAJU
ey
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CUURI UF KAKNAIAKA MIGH CUUR! UP KRAKRNAICNRA MIGO CVURE UP RARNAIARA MIGM 6
11
12
13
14
PROPRIETOR
SOUTHERN STEEL CORPORATION
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
64, NEW BAMBOO BAZAR
BANGALORE-2
REP. BY TRILOK CHAND AGGARWAI. |
PARTNER = =~
MAHENDRA STEEL SALES CORPORATION
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM -- oe
9/2 H NEW BAMBOO BAZAR CROSS,
BANGALORE-2
REP. BY MOHAN LAL HISSARIA, PARTNER
UNITED STEEL SUPPLIES
A PROPRIETARY CONCERN
25, GANGAMMACHARI § STREET
MOTINAGAR.. * |
BANGALORE-2 0"
REP. BY YASH GUPTA, PROPRIETOR
MEENAKSHI STEEL CORPORATION
A PARTNERSHI? FIRM
NO.28/1, NEW GANGAMMACHARI STREET
_. MOTINAGAR, BANGALORE-2
S, REP. BY RAMKUMAR GOEL, PARTNER
| GYAN TRADING CORPORATION
17, REW GANGAMMACHARI ROAD
-. MOTINAGAR(NEW BAMBOO BAZAR)
BANGALORE-2
REP. BY GYANCHAND BHANDARI
PA HOLDER
MARUTI STEELS
A PROPRIETARY CONCERN
30, NEW GANGAMMA STREET
MOTINAGAR
BANGALORE-2
REP. BY ROSHAN LAL GUPTA, PROPRIETOR
a
iGH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUKI OF KARNAIAKA HIGH COUKE UF KAKNAIARA MIGH CU:
17
18
19
20
SANKAR STEELS
& PROPRIETARY CONCERN
NO.14, GANGAMMACHARI STREET
MOTINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 002
REP. BY B.V. SATHYA MURTHY
PROPRIETOR
MANDOT STEEL CORPORATION. _
A PROPRIETARY CONCERN.
NO.14/15, HYDARSHA COMPELX
1ST CROSS, N.R.ROAD, MOTINAGAR _
BANGALORE-560 002, REP.BY =
M. NARENDRA KUMAR, PA HOLDER/PROPRIETOR
AASHA ENTERPRISES |
A PROPRIETARY CONCERN =
NO.63, N.R.ROAD, IST CROSS -
MOTINAGAR, SANGALORE-2°
REP. BY LALITKUMAR JAIN
PROPRIETOR/AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
VIKRAM STEELS
A PROPRIETARY CONCERN
38, NEW GANGAMMACHARI STREET
MOTINAGAR BANGALORE-2
_. REP, BY RAMESH KUMAR JALAN
PA HOLDER
SRINIVAS TRADING CORPORATION
A PROPRIETARY CONCERN
~. NG.63/1,MOTINAGAR
N.R. ROAD, 2ND CROSS
BANGALORE-2
REP. BY SARALA GUPTA PROPRIETRIX
D V STEEL CORPORATION
4A PARTNERSHIP CONCERN
4, MOTINAGAR, NEW G C STREET
BANGALORE-2
REP. BY KARAN GUPTA, PARTNER
ey .
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH |
23
24
25
26
VARUN IRON AND STEEL PVT. LTD
NATIONAL STEEL COMPLEX
NO.63, MOTINAGAR, 1ST CROSS
N.R.ROAD, BANGALORE-2, REP. BY ae
PRAMOD KUMAR CHOUDHARY, DIRECTOR.
MADHAV STEEL
A PROPRIETARY CONCERN
NO.63, NATIONAL STEEL COMPLEX
1ST CROSS, N.R.ROAD, MOTINAGAR
BANGALORE-2 ' |
REP. BY LAXMI PAT DOSH!
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY _
STEEL HOUSE Be
A PROPRIETARY CONCERN mT!
NO.36/1, POTTERS COLONY | r
BEHIND NEW BAMBOO BAZAR
REP, BY MAHANDER KUMAR GUPTA
PROPRIETOR i |
KRISHNA ENTERPRISES
A PROPRIETARY CONCERN
9/2, fi POTTERS COLONY
__ NEW BAMBOO BAZAR
_ BANGALORE-2, REP. BY SITARAM SULTANIA
PROP,
STEEL CENTRE
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
81, GANGAMMACHARI STREET
MOTINAGAR BANGALORE-2
~., REP. BY ANIL AGARWAL, PARTNER
ws - 28
BERIWAL STEELS
A PROP. CONCERN
NO.37, G.C. STREET
MOTINAGAR
BANGALORE-2
REP. GOPAL BERIWAL, PROP.
ov
IGH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH CCURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COl
29
30
31
32
33
AK STEELS
NO.44/3, NEW GANGAMMACHARI STREET | |
MOTINAGAR, BANGALORE-2 ;
REP. BY RAJKUMAR GUPTA, MANDATE HOLDER
SOUTHERN STEEL PRODUCTS
& PROP. CONCERN, NO.114/B
J.C.ROAD CROSS(BEHIND SHIVAI! TALKIES) ---
BANGALORE-2 ao
REP, BY RAJINDER KUMAR MITTAL, PROP.
AJAY STEEL INDUSTRIES |
A PROP. CONCERN
NO.16, 1ST CROSS KIADB ROAD
PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, iST PHASE
BANGALORE-58, REP. AJAY KUMAR BHOTIKA,
PROP. _ ae
KANODIA ALLO' 4 STEEL CORPORATION
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
2ND FLOOK, 193, $ P ROAD
BANGALORE-2 -
REP. BY SHIV RATAN KANODIA, PARTNER
VIJAY STE: TRADERS
_. A PROP, CONCERN
299, 1ST PHASE, PEENYA
34
BANGALORE-58
"REP, BY DINESH GUPTA, PROP.
GS. STEELS TRADERS
A PROP. CONCERN
178/C, D.R. LANE
- SJP ROAD CROSS
35
~~ BILORE-2
REP. BY ITS PROP.
TUBES AND FITTINGS MFG. CO.,
A PROP. CONCERN
4/2 DRESSER RAJAPPA LANE
SJP ROAD CROSS
ey'
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH (¢
36
37
38
39
7
BANGALORE-2
REP. BY AJAY KUMAR KHEMKA, PROP.
CALCUTTA TUBE CENTRE
A PROP. CONCERN
12/3 SP ROAD
_BANGALORE-2
REP, BY SAWARMAL AGARWAi, PROP. ee
UJINI STEELS
A PROP CONCERN .
150, SADAR PATRAPPA ROAD |
BANGALORE-2
REP. BYCR KUMARA SWAMY, | PROPRIETOR
SOUTH INDIA STEELS
A PROP. CONCERN
8/4 POTTERS COLONY ©
NEW BAMBOO BAZAR -
BANGALORE-2
REP. BY VINAY is @urTA, PROP.
KARNATAKA STEEL SUPPLIERS
A PARTNERSHIP CONCERN
64/2, OOSMAN KHAN ROAD
_ BANGALORE-2
REP. KARMDIT RAI
40
a SINGHAL, PARTNER
KAUSHALESH AGENCIES
». A-PROP, CONCERN
153, GANGAMMACHARI STREET
MOTINAGAR
., BANGALORE-2
REP, BY SUNIL AGARWAL, PROP.
AMBIKA SALES CORPORATION
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
32, GANGAMMACHARI STREET
MOTINAGAR, BANGALORE-2
REP. BY SACHIN AGARWAL, PARTNER
€7
IGH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH CQURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COU
42
43
44
45
46
"-." REYOM NO. B,'2 FLOOR, 155, 5 P ROAD
47
HARSH ENTERPRISES
A PROP. CONCERN
NO.76, SILVER JUBILEE PARK ROAD
BANGALORE-2
REP, BY SUDHIR GUPTA, PROP.
NANDIKISHORE TUBES =----i«ws
A PROP, CONCERN : a
124/4, SADARPATRAPPA ROALD
BANGALORE-2 }
REP.BY SATISH KUMAR GUPTA
PROP.
KAMAL STEEL AND METAL "CORPORATION
A PROPRIETARY CONCERN
1/8, RAMAKRISHNA BUILDINGS,
N.R.RCAD CROSS
BANGALORE-2, REP. BY KAMAL KUMAR GUPTA
PROPRIETOR.
STEEL AND SCRAP HOUSE
NQ.33, BOK ROAD, PANGALORE-2
REP, BY VINOD GUPTA, PARTNER
GOYAL SPAT PVT LTD
RANGALORE-2
"REP, BY RAMESH GOYA, DIRECTOR |
STANDARD SCREWS INDUSTRIES
38/1, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB
YESWANTHPUR, BANGLAORE
~, REP. BY BK AGARWAL
~~" PARTNER
«es APPELLANTS
(By Sri :VAMSHI & SRI.GANAPATHI HEGDE, ADVs.
FOR APPELLANTS)
AND:
1 THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY -
KUMARAKRUPA WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE- 20"
REP. BY ITS COMMR.
2 GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
SINGLE WINDOW AGENCY.
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR ©
MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES
AND COMMERCE |
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE --
3 GLOBAL TELECOM CITY DEVELOPERS PVT LTD
OFFICE AT NO.1i, NORRIS ROAD
RICHMOND TOWN -
BANGALORE-25 . .
4 THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT
GOVERNMENT CF KARNATAKA
47H FLOOK, M.S.BUILDING
BANGALORE
REP, BY THE SECRETARY
oe .. RESPONDENTS
(By Srl: { KRISHNA FOR R1;
" SRLSANGAMESH G.PATIL, AGA FOR R2 & 4 )
"THESE WRIT APPEALS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
" KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET
"ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION
.NO.13379/2005 DATED 04/07/2007.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
AY, MANJUNATH J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MVM CVURE VP RARNAIARA MIU AWURE UP RARINATARA THU CVV ARE VP RARINATARNA IGT CWVURE OW RARINAIARNA FIM GWU WP NARINATAING FEIT
&y
wer Ne ten eon
a
IGH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COUKI UF KRAKNAIABRA MIG CUURE UP RARINALAIA TIRGEL Savin Nr ryeaisnennensnen fe
10
JUDGMENT
These appeals are preferred by the oppatants challenging the legality and correctness of the or passed by the leamed Single Juage in We. - No.13379/05 dt.4" July 2007. mS |
2. The petitioners approached the leamed Single Judge with a request to declare thet the BDA Is not entitled to transfer the lands acquired for the benefit of the petigoners and. an respondent and to Issue a writ of mandamus directing the i* respondent to finalise the ailotment of land acquired for the benefit of the e petitioners.
3 "The facts leading to this case are as hereunder: _ :
"The appellants are wholesale Iron and Steel and | Hard. Ware merchants located In Bangalore and they oo : were carrying on the business In the City Market area of Bangalore city. The City Market Is situated in the heart of Bangalore city and that the petitioners were 11IGH CUUKI UF KAKNAIARANMIUN CUYUERT UP RARNAIANRA MIGM LUYVURE VF RARNAIARA MEUM EYVURE UP RARNAIARA THU CVURE UO RARIYAFARA MIG GY il carrying on the business In Iron and Steel for several decades. On account of increase in the population and expansion of commercial activities, it was feit by -- the respondents - Government and the 2 2.DA. that | - the City Market area Is not sultabis for traaing. Ie wholesale Iron and Stee! business. 7 in order to | provide a better place to these patitioners and with an Intention to construct | a whole sale Aron and Stee Market outside. the pangatore Clty, % the Government and B.D.A. loentifed the land situated In Kondasapura near Hoskote which Is about 24 KMs. from Bangalore City Market. The project. was concelved as part of the Bangalore. "Megacity project. A Consultant was | ~ appointed by the BMRDA and report was submitted "In August 1994. Based on the report, 166 acres of land. was acquired and entire area was developed and
-- "747 commercial plots of differant dimensions were ; . formed by the BDA. A preliminary notification u/s
-17(1) of the BDA Act was published In the Gazette on 23.3.1994 and after Inviting objections and hearing a final notification was Issued on 24.1.1996. Thereafter eo HIGH CUUKI UF KAKNAIAKA MIGHCUUKI UF KAKNAIAKA MIGM CUURL Ur RARNAIARNA NIVUNUVURE VP RARMAIARA THUMM GYURE UP RARINALAINA FEIT 12 possession of the land was taken by Issuing a notification u/s 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. and the then Chief Minister of Karnataka -- 'ald 'the foundation stone for the Iron and Stee! Wholesale _ Market and entire Iron and 'steel Market "was developed by the BDA by borrowing the foan from'. HUDCO and KUIDFC. After formation ot the Iron and Steel yard, the BDA announced seekin 9 applications for allotment of Sites: from the. eligible Iron and Steel merchants: and: allotment rate was aiso fixed at Rs.1650/- per sq. meter. Later 'on the request made by the "appeitants herein and the Association, price was also reduced from Rs.1650/- to Rs.1450/- per sq. _ meter. a However, the Association Informed BDA that "the mainbers of the appellants Association can only pay. upto Rs.1000/- per sq.meter with a deferred payment on easy installments for 10 years. 'The _. Association and Its members requested the BDA to : - accept thelr offer. The BDA did not accept the offer made by the members of the 1* appellant considering the cost of Investment and Interest payable by the | ww sewers ENDER WARE WHE INPAENE NPR ERE OF 11GH COURT OF KARNAILAKAHIGH CUYRKI UF KAKNAIARA MIGEM CUURE UP RARNALARA THIGH EWU Yr neaniAaAanea ft 13 BDA. In the circumstances, from the year 1999, elther the association or Its members did not make any application for allotment and did not rake any payment. Since the market developed by the. BDA for - the benefit of the appellants was net ut! ised by the . appellants and Its members, Government 'thought of selling the land through KIADB to the zr respondent and the matter was placed before. 'the High Level Committee of the Government and considering that the sale of land to gr respondent Is for establishment of a Special Economic Zone, it was granted to the 3"
respondent. Challenging the order of the Government In allotting the land to the 3" respondent and on the _-- ground that the BLA cannot divert the land acquired "for the benef of the appellants for some other purpose, the Writ Petition was filed. The learned a "Single : Judge after considering the arguments "advanced by all the parties and the statement of objections filed by the BDA and respondents, carne to the conclusion that the appellants herein and other Iron and Steel Merchants were not willing occupy the oy WEE HIGH COURT OF KAKNAIAKA HIGH-GCOUKE UF KAKNAIABKA MIGM CUUKL UF RARNAIARA NIGM CUVURE UP RARINAIANRA MIU CVU Wr neanivaranea ot 14 sites earmarked for their purpose, since they did not make use of the opportunity for more than 8 years entire lay out vacant without utilising the same for other purpose when the BDA has invested crores of » rupees by borrowing the loan from 'HUDCO and KUIDFC. The learned Single ludge was also of the opinion that the BDA had bo pay heavy interest on the aforesaid borrowings. . Therefore, the learned Single Judge dismnisved the wrt Petition on the ground that the petitioners / aie nat _make use of the opportunity for more than § yeers and it was open for the BDA _ and Government to utilise the land for better purpose, "when : the appellants were not Interested in Implementing the project. In the circumstances, he a "dismissed the Writ Petition. Challenging the legality / - and correctness of the same, the present appeals are filed, ey lIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KAKNAIAKA FIGNM CUURTE UT RARTAIANA Hort ewer 1§ 4, We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The main contention of the appellant = count | committed a serious error In not considerin a the fact that the BDA had no power ey divest the fand which were acquired for the benefit of the appellants and the same Is contrary to the provisions of the Bangalore Development. Authority Act. He further submits that the sale of lands by the BDA through KIADB to the 37 respondent Is also eget and therefore he requests the court: to cance! the. allotment made In favour of _ the ar respondent and permit the appellants to pay a the: money. snd direct the respondents to allot the sites to them and he submits that the appellants are willing to pay todays market value for allotment of the sites. 'Therefore, he requests the court to allow the oo - appeals and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
ry wet Wer wane RMI E BE We AEN WE EN PSENE SPR OF HIGH COURL UF KAKNAIAKA MIG CUURL UPr RARNAIARA MIVUNM CYVURE VP RARIATAI OFF 16
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Writ Petition filed by the appellants were required to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. According t them when - the Government and BDA had come out with a project . to provide a better area for the business of the appellants, when a special project' was innovated by the Government and 'BDA by borrowing loan from HUDCO and KUIDFC "and. formed. lay out and requested the a appellants to pay the sital value at Rs. 1650/- per se. meter aid that too BDA and Government had agreed | to reduce the rate of allotment from Rg. 1650/ to Rs.1450/- and when the ~~ appellants: have tailed to make use of the sald "opportunity, no court can direct the BDA or the Governrnent to keep such a land forever vacant ms "without utilising the same. It Is also contended by : ther that Hosakote area Is earmarked for Special Economic Zone and since the land in question comes within SEZ area the land had been sold by the Government by taking a decision In a High Power ey awe wee Ree Wer wre HGH COURT OF KAKNAIAKARION CUURE UP RARMALARA FIG SMU wr reancieserwn one 17 Committee to sell the same to the 37 respondent. Therefore, they request the court to dismiss the appeal.
7. Having heard the learned eounsel for the :
parties, the only point to be considered by this court . in these appeals Is whether the learned Single Judge has committed an error tn crc petition.
8. It Is a0. doubt | tree that the project was conceived by. the Government and SDA for the benefit of the appellants and other Iron and Steel Merchants of Bangalore. It is also not In dispute that lands were acquired by. the EDA for specific purpose and
- "comimerciai area "was developed by the BDA by carving 747 sites of different dimensions to house these appellants. It Is also not In dispute that > possession of the property was taken In 1997 and lay
- cut was formed Immediately by borrowing loan from ~"HUDCO and KUIDFC. The BDA was required to pay interest on the loan borrowed by it. It Is also not In dispute that It was Intimated to the appellants and ey WHEE PNR SWOPE WE PNAASN EAR ARERSSA BENE WR OER EG OWE FRAP EMAAR SAAN FERRE E WW UZ INE GE PNRASNE NPA PRENAA OFFENSE E WAN OWE OENAAPLENARL EP CAINESR OLE BEENAE FE WWF WIN EF ONZE ENFAINE SAAR AZARPNAA OE 18 others to file applications for allotment fixing the sital value at Rs.1650/- per sq. meter and on the request of the appellants the price was reduced to Rs. 1680/- per sq.meter. Though the rates. were, reduced, the: -- appellants have kept quite even. without filing applications or making any. Inttiai deposit. for. the | purpose of allotment. An other: words the appellants who were silent spectators and a not make any effort to make use of the 'opportunity created by the Government and the BoA, have: approached the court In the year 2005 ong after sei ting the land to the 3% respondent. Therefore, it ig clear that the appellants were silent spectacory, they were not willing to occupy the lands and they were not willing to shift thelr > business fr from | Clty Market to Kondasapura. In such oe circumstances, If the BDA and the Government a thought of selling the property to 3% respondent and i after selling the jiand, If the appellants have . 'approached this court, no court can grant any relief to the appellants who did not make use of the opportunity granted to them. When once the lands & Pe END EE WWW REN NE PNAREN EPR eae oe Ur CUUKIL Ur RAKNAIARAMIUN CUNIRE UP RARITALAINA LF 19 are sold, the request of the appellants that they are willing to pay and deposit the present market value 'cannot be considered by this court and this court cannot direct the BDA or the Government to cance! so the sale of property to the 3" respondent. "But the learned single Judge has categoricaily stated that > KIADB has not yet handed over the possession of the property to the 3" respondent and It has directed the 3™ respondent. to make 40% of the consideration and after completion of other obligations, further course of action would. be taken, But the Writ Petition was dismissed In duiy. 2007. - We do not know what transpired between ihe 'gr respondent and the BDA | - and k KIADB. 7 _ "9. ii 2 matter of fact when the matter was ; taken up for hearing on 25.6.2009 a submission was | made by the counsel for the BDA that resolution _ - 'passed on 6.11.2008 to recall Its eariler resolution " dt.2.7.2003. If such resolution Is passed by the BDA It Is between the KIADB, Government and the BDA vy ee UWP We WOVEN WR FRAADNE NPA PAE OE MV VVUARE VP RARINALARA THIET SW SE INAAINERAABAAINSA OF 20 and based on such submission, the court cannot direct the BDA to allot the sites to the petitioners when thay have slept over the matter for several years.
10. The contention of the appettants that when : | the lands were acquired for specific performance (for _ the benefit of the appellants), BDA has no power to | divert the lands for some other purpose cannot be accepted by this court. J
11. In the background of the present case since the appellants have not evinced any interest to utilise the project innovated by the Government for the benefit of the appeliants, when the appellants were 7 "not willl ing to occupy and when they were not willing to. seek aliotmant of the sites earmarked for thelr oe befit, no 'court can say that BDA has to keep these oS sits vacant forever with the hope that the appeliants
- would come and request for allotment. ay ' ) ) ) } SUNSE ER WWW EN OWE BNRINE SAR ERIN ob ENFAINE SFA AAPLAA OF HV CVURE YE RARINALTANRALTIEGEIE VMWUNE WE 21
12. Therefore, we do not see any error committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition.
sc.
~.- JUDGE | : Sd/-
JUDGE