Karnataka High Court
Sri. Bhagawan Das Gupta vs The Commissioner on 21 December, 2020
Author: S R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF DECEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.15180 OF 2020(BDA)
BETWEEN:
SRI. BHAGAWAN DAS GUPTA
S/O LATE TARACHAND GUPTA
AGED AOBUT 66 YEARS
R/AT: NO. 13, R.V.NAICK LAND
COTTON PET
BENGALURU - 560 053.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUNDARESH.H.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. NARENDRA GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
CACELLATION ORDER DATED: 17.08.2005 ISSUED BY THE R-1
ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
2
ORDER
In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-
"a) Issue writ in the nature of Certiorari to set aside the cancellation order bearing No.BDA: DS-2/438/JP-9/2005-06, dated:
17.08.2005 issued by the 1st Respondent Annexure-E.
b) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent to consider the representation filed by the petitioner dated:
25.02.2012 and 19.12.2019 as per Annexure-H and J, to accept the balance sital value with 21% interest from the date of allotment as per the circular issued by the respondent dated:
18.10.2007 and 18.11.2010 as per the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No. 27954/2014 dated: 21.10.2014 and W.P.No. 13658/2015 dated: 07.04.2016 Annexure-K & L or in alternative, in case if the same site is not available for allotment issue directions to the respondent to allot alternative site in favour of the petitioner.
c) Pass such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit on the fact and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."
3
2. In addition to reiterating various contentions urged in the petition and referring to various documents produced by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-BDA has allotted a site bearing No.438, J.P. Nagar 9th Phase, Bengaluru, measuring 30 x 40 feet in favour of petitioner on 31.05.2000. It is contended that due to lack of infrastructural facilities in the said layout which had not been developed at that time, petitioner submitted representations at Annexures-B and C dated 31.10.2001 and 27.11.2002 respectively, to the BDA requesting for allotment of alternative site. However, without considering the said request, the BDA issued the impugned cancellation order at Annexure- E dated 17.08.2005.
The petitioner submitted representations dated 25.02.2012 and 19.12.2019 to the respondent, who have neither considered the same nor taken any steps/action pursuant thereto so far. It is therefore submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, placing reliance upon the circulars dated 18.10.2007 and 18.11.2010, issued by the BDA coupled with the decisions 4 of this Court in W.P.No.13658/2015 dated 07.04.2016 (Sri. Jayakumar Shetty Vs. The Commissioner BDA), W.P.No.19093/2012 dated 06.06.2013 (Kempamma Vs. Commissioner, BDA), W.P.No.38258/2013 dated 21.11.2013 (Mohan Kumar Vs. BDA) and W.P.No.5150/2019 dated 21.10.2019 (Manjunath R. Vs. BDA), the impugned cancellation order Annexure- E dated 17.08.2005 issued by the BDA as well as subsequent inaction on the part of the BDA to allot either the subject site or an alternative site in favour of the petitioner is illegal and vitiated and the same deserves to be quashed and necessary directions are to be issued against the BDA.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- BDA in addition to reiterating the various contentions put forth in the statement of objections, seeks dismissal of the petition.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 5
5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, despite the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and in the light of the decisions of this Court in W.P.No.13658/2015 dated 07.04.2016 (Sri. Jayakumar Shetty Vs. The Commissioner BDA), W.P.No.19093/2012 dated 06.06.2013 (Kempamma Vs. Commissioner, BDA), W.P.No.38258/2013 dated 21.11.2013 (Mohan Kumar Vs. BDA) and W.P.No.5150/2019 dated 21.10.2019 (Manjunath R. Vs. BDA) as well as the circulars dated 18.10.2007 and 18.11.2010, issued by the BDA, the respondent clearly committed an error in passing the impugned cancellation order at Annexure-E dated 17.08.2005 issued by the BDA, cancelling the allotment in favour of the petitioner and consequently, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and necessary directions are to be issued to the BDA in this regard.
6. In the result I pass the following:
ORDER i. The petition is allowed in terms of the decisions of this Court in W.P.No.13658/2015 dated 6
07.04.2016 (Sri. Jayakumar Shetty Vs. The Commissioner BDA), W.P.No.19093/2012 dated 06.06.2013 (Kempamma Vs. Commissioner, BDA), W.P.No.38258/2013 dated 21.11.2013 (Mohan Kumar Vs. BDA) and W.P.No.5150/2019 dated 21.10.2019 (Manjunath R. Vs. BDA).
ii. The impugned cancellation order at Annexure-E dated 17.08.2005 issued by the respondent-BDA is hereby quashed.
iii. Petitioner is granted four weeks time to pay the balance sital value together with interest at 21% per annum to the respondent.
iv. Upon petitioner making such balance payment as stated supra, the respondent shall take necessary steps to allot the subject site or an alternative site in favour of the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of such payment.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srl.