Smt V Nagammal vs The Bangalore Development Authority on 21 October, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt V Nagammal vs The Bangalore Development Authority on 21 October, 2010

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

7

THE ORDER DATED 11.03.2010 BEAR11\Ic;..':_:1\IQ..r:3:i§.x5I/.:jts!*
4/19/SSE INDUSTRIAL AREA/2009-10'""($'NEXURiE_-D}rb 
PASED BY THE 1ST REsPo.NDEN1ﬁI13Y.;«wI~1,Ic14I--V=T1>IE T

ALLOTMFJNT or INDUSTRIAL  ..IJo'.<1_9-. MEAst;RI.z1'G

28'-+64'/2 X 80' SITUATED IN. THE  

INDUSTRIAL AREA HAS BEEN'~QANC'ELLED.    . -
TI-HS PETITION COMING,_CiN FOR PRL.-HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT  TI«I;E:...I'_«'o:.1.'1;Q1A2.v11\Ic;:«  
industria}_.Site"'Ne-.119'.'1rIeas1ir11§é' '(.28 + 64) / 2 x
80,» in Z,   erstwhile City
Impr0xre1_I1e:r'_1t   the Bangalore
"short 'BDA'}, was allotted to
one Mast;1"3.ar1gar1'r1'a:':_i§r1V3O.11.1961 and a 1easewcum~

sate agreveme'r'1*tw_asv executed by the BDA and registered

' ;.VO'r1.12Q'.V0  During the lifetime of the said Masti

 said site, it appears, was settled in

fa\uro1rr~;Qf Smt. Uma R. Shakar and Smt. Savitri Chandra

  in turn jointly conveyed the said site to one M.

V'§KI'ishr1an under a registered deed of saie dated

10.06.1972. The purchaser is said to have Obtai a



-3-

katha transfer from the Bangalore M:1hana'_gara 'E-?alil<e" . 

within Whose territorial ji1risdi(E~tio1i" the si,te'~Vifas" lo~ea'i;1e:d.

It appears that the purehaser  

died on 14.10.1980'__and  widow.
succeeded to the V    petitioner having
noticed   a sale deed
conveying"  Masti Ranganna,
requestedllpldthhé:  site in her favour by
executirig  when acceded to, the BDA
on '8.7.l2iOO8v  the site into the name of the

 and"'dvex3::anded payment of penalty equivalent

 value of the vacant site which the

ddpetitioneninstantly agreed and paid Rs.1,07,695/-- on

15.G'3".A2O09. It is the assertion of the petitioner that the

  by resolution dated 30.10.2001 Annexure~"A",

"resolved that in respect of industrial sites where the

lessee committed breach of lease condition to Construct

the shed. a penalty under Rule 1-'l»(2a} of the Rules and

in Vi€W of the Government order dated 23.06.1999 C 



-4-

be levied and collected following  

conveying the site would be e,x.ecfuted:.4__'  l

allegation of the petitioner 'that the  ;

the penalty amount,  with the
resolution by  issued a show
cause notice calling
upon the why the allotment
  was responded to by a
replygy dated   ' neXure-~  The petitioner,
apprehending   »-4Edispossession, instituted

 whence this Court directed the

»:VB-DA 'totdrconsider the petitioners representation.

 ~'riiereeft.emtt:~ds, the BDA, by order dated 11.03.2010

Anli1e:éiure§l;'D", effected refund of Rs.1,07,695/-- and

if  ffpcancelled the allotment made in the year 1961. Hence

this writ petition.

2. Although sufficient opportunity was extended

the respondent -- BDA has not opposed the petition by

$3)".

filing statement of objections, averments remain uncontroVerVt_ed_p.._ A. 3 A

3. The BDA havingetakenem/1scioiis.decis'ion to impose and collect penaltfaiat' the of the value of the site vtieivaosited the same, could not an action without so because, in the Show V 69.2009 Annexure--"B".

there; is! __ as.' why the BDA seeks to rescir1ic'i»»._f:rom' after Collecting the amount toisizards Moreover, the EDA has not pointed tvo:th:e'«-relevant rule in force during the year 1961 ._re1atiVri§'_*v_v..__to:;"£tern1s and conditions of lease and Caneeliation of allotment, for breach of the terms. Even iot.herit%ise, there is no material forthcoming as to 'AA'-Zvifhether the allottee Masti Ranganna is alive or reported to be dead. In that View of the matter, the show cause notice Annexure--"B" is unsustainable. M -6-

4. Bangalore Development under Article 12 of the Constitution i not act arbitrarily but with .a senselof fai:neVss4,v.T1r_:ere , no explanation forthcominlg"w«..V'asetc) erstwhile CITB and the BDA alleged breach of terms of COI_1ditions~:., agreement executed. extended period of 48' the year 2008 to cancel the in mind the inordinate delay, which; situation tantaniounts to unireasonablle in initiating action, the impugned r 'A«.ofiV"'the BDA must stand condemned. The '--obserVat_ionsV"of a Division Bench of this Court in DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY it REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER vs. SMT. 1, in the circumstances is apposite:

' IILR 2004 KAR E386 M -7- "Where no power of Iimita_tion--ii.:"is prescribed by an Act cirumtihc p_ thereunder for th.e exercise of itheiisuic. statutory power, the_'e-figpercise 'of thatljpoweri cannot be impugned itheu grounci 'thatfgit is barred by of iiinitation can be imposed' otheirmiisie statute or the rﬁ,i1e_s But nonetheless', J i it ivested in an authoif:i_t'yh to the orders of the iautlioritiesvi or to take any itacivierseV'a'c.tionVh"ad_g'ai.nst a person suo moto, has to beiiiexercised within a reasonable ' * time. incur 'view, in cases where no period V ifof iimitation"'is prescribed under the Statute "-or ti1eRuies made thereunder for exercise of péweris' suo moto, the question for vconsiideration is not whether the exercise of it -the power is barred by limitation for in the absence of a period of iimitation prescribed under the Act, the question of bar of iimitation cannot arise, but, it is a question of reasonable period within which that power shouid be exercised. What is reasonable period within which the statutory suo H}-i)<)'tko -8- power could be exercised would it % be dependent upon the f§1_ct':3_ d T' -- circumstances of each case';''"--, n _ _ e In the circumstances. the1_0rder.. --im'pug1'ied' "is-..11I'€.gaI and unsustainable. _ V _ .

In the result, this w'fit.._V'_petitien-«its'elletgved. The Show cause notice and the order dated 11,ou3.:2Q1%cVg§;1£ie§§:g§:+e§%"D*' of the BDA are to the BDA to receive véxdecute the sale deed conveying the_said site" favour of the petitioner.

e       e 55/-
Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court