Karnataka High Court
Sri Deva Dass vs The Bangalore Development Authority on 5 November, 2020
Author: S R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.36753 OF 2016 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
SRI. DEVA DASS
S/O LATE SAMVEL
AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS
R/AT NO. 4, 'E' STREET
JAYARAJ NAGAR
ULASOOR POST
BENGALURU - 560 008.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M. SHIVASHANKARA.Y.D, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. NARENDRA GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONER DATED: 22.01.2016
VIDE ANNEXUE-S. AND ETC.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
2
ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
a) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Authority to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 22.01.2016 vide Annexure-S.
b) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ/order or direction quashing the impugned cancellation order vide No.UooKa-
2/BSK-5/Sy.No.9,10,11/Pa/2004-05 dated 08.10.2004 issued by the Respondent Authority for terminating the allotted Site No.602, measuring 6' x 9', at Banashankari 5th Stage, Bangalore, vide Annexure-G. And direct the Respondent Authority to issue allotment letter in lieu of site No.1205 as alternative site, as already been allotted to the petitioner measuring 6' x 9' mtrs., situated at 10th block, Anjanapura, Bangalore.
c) Pass any order or direction as this
Hon'ble Court deems fit under the
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 he belongs to scheduled caste community in addition to economically weaker section of the society. Originally, site bearing No.602 was allotted in favour of the petitioner's wife-Smt. Jayamma on 21.01.2000. However, since the said site was acquired for formation of Bangalore-Mysore Highway, the same was cancelled and an alternative site bearing No.1205, 10th Block, Anjanapura, Bangalore was allotted in her favour. It is contended that no intimation was given to either the aforesaid Jayamma or the petitioner about the cancellation of site No.602 or allotment of alternative site No.1205. A Show Cause Notice dated 31.03.2004 was said to have issued by the BDA to Smt. Jayamma in respect of site No.1205. Surprisingly, on 08.10.2004, respondent issued a cancellation order purporting to cancel site No.602 and not 1205. Further, the said Jayamma having expired on 01.11.2005, no intimation whatsoever was issued either to 4 Jayamma during her lifetime or to her husband, the petitioner herein.
3. It is contended that on account of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since neither Jayamma nor the petitioner could pay the balance amount within the stipulated time, he submitted a representations dated 21.09.2015, 23.09.2015, 28.10.2015 and 22.01.2016 calling upon the BDA to transfer the allotment of site No.1205 by receiving the balance sital value. In support of the said representations, the petitioner placed reliance upon the note sheets maintained by the BDA as well as the opinion of the legal department wherein it is recommended that the subject site bearing No.1205 is allotted in favour of the petitioner by receiving the balance sital value together with 21% interest per annum.
4. Learned counsel submits that 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 5 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 at Annexure-G dated 08.10.2004 issued by the BDA as well as subsequent inaction on the part of the BDA to allot either the subject site bearing No.1205 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.
5. 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.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
7. 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 6 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 order at Annexure-G cancelling the allotment in favour of the petitioner's wife Jayamma and refusing to transfer the allotment in respect of the subject site bearing No.1205 in favour of the petitioner and consequently, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and necessary directions are to be issued against the BDA.
8. 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 07.04.2016 7 (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 order at Annexure-G dated 08.10.2004 issued by the respondent 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 bearing No.1205, 10th Block, 8 Anjanapura, Bangalore or an alternative site in favour of the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of such payment.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mds.