Karnataka High Court
Sri B R Hanumanthu vs The Bangalore on 15 December, 2020
Author: S R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.14754 OF 2020 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
SRI. B. R. HANUMANTHU
S/O B. H. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
R/AT NO.62/1, 7TH CROSS
CHIKKATHAYAPPA ROAD
VASANTHNAGARA
BENGALURU - 560 052 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VASANTH KUMAR H. T., ADV.)
AND:
THE BANGALORE
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK EAST
BENGALURU - 560 020
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADV.)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
CANCELLATION ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE
NO. BDA Ooka-3 Avi: Nabha: 820: 98-99 DATED 18.11.1998 VIDE
ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
2
ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
"a) Issue a writ in the nature certiorari quashing the impugned cancellation order passed by the Respondent vide NO. BDA Ooka-3 Avi: Nabha:
820: 98-99 dated 18.11.1998 vide Annexure-G.
b) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 27.11.2012 vide Annexure-P and dated 19.12.2012, vide Annexure-Q.
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."
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 petitioner who belonged to scheduled tribe and also to economically weaker Section of the Society was allotted a site bearing No.820, situated at Nagarabhavi 2nd Stage, Bengaluru and he had paid the entire sital value through different challans on 27.03.1993, 03.04.1993, 09.06.1993 and 12.10.1993 vide Annexures-D to D3. In 3 view of the complaint filed by petitioner's friend Sr. Kehsavelu stating that the petitioner does not belong to scheduled tribe caste and belongs to barber community, the BDA issued show cause notice to the petitioner to which the petitioner has given his explanation that in Tamilnadu Barber community is included under scheduled tribe category and tendered his apologies for the same. Without considering the same, the BDA issued cancellation order dated 18.11.1998 cancelling the site allotted in favour of the petitioner. Even though petitioner made several representations dated 17.09.1998, 10.09.1999, 05.11.1999, 19.01.2001 and 20.02.2001, the respondent-BDA neither returned the amount nor allotted any site.
Learned counsel submits that despite representations dated 27.11.2010 and 19.12.2012 submitted by the petitioner to the respondent, placing reliance upon the circulars dated 18.10.2007 and 18.11.2010, issued by the BDA coupled with 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. 4 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 18.11.1998 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. 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 5 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 dated 18.11.1998 at Annexure-G cancelling the allotment in favour of the petitioner and consequently, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
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
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) 6 and W.P.No.5150/2019 dated 21.10.2019 (Manjunath R. Vs. BDA).
ii. The impugned cancellation order at Annexure-G dated 18.11.1998 issued by the respondent is hereby quashed.
iii. The respondent shall consider the petitioner's representations, including the representations dated 27.11.2012 and 19.12.2012 vide Annexures-P and Q and 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 receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bmc.