Mrs Lydia Cutinha vs The Commissioner Bangalore ... on 6 September, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mrs Lydia Cutinha vs The Commissioner Bangalore ... on 6 September, 2010

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA. 

DATED THIS THE 06'"! DAY or  2019' 

  % A L  
THE HON'BLE 1\dR.JI.1".*':':..'4_1_.'ICI4;'l.';"}'1lVA1\a'.V  as ,
WRIT PETITION T5396 or l:l2Qvb9.llfBDA)
BETWEEN:   _    'A VA

Mrs. Lydia Cutinha  '
Aged 51 years   V     
Wife of Late 1\zIj;r;1V.(}."Na:;japp_a,.._  
Residing"at'  A     '
No.610,V 4'h'iCr'oss," 1 vA'M_ao1'_r'1','" _,
   
Bangalore"5+j_S60lQ43,V, _ -- ..PETI'I'I()NER

(By  Ravi' J lAd:voe"ate}

Al§LI.3_; A

*1 .l'  :'I'h*»':.' Comzﬁissioner

, '«Ba:iga1ore Development
at _"*..Autl1or1.ty, C
'V "ll-Cl1oWdaiah Road,
V. Kurnara Park West,
 Bangalore ~-- 560 020.

 at ;  The Deputy Secretary

Bangalore Development

Authority,

T. Chowdaiah Road,

Kurnara Park West,

Bangalore -~ 560 020. ..RESPONDENTS

(By Sri. S. Rangaswamy, Advocate for R.1 and 2, Sri. K. Krishna. Advocate for R. 1 8: 2) Lek -2- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING THE CANCELLATION ORDER NO. BEMAaP.1ja:_Aa.:Uka-- 422682200940 dated 08.06.2010 (AnneXure:.N}'.jp'as'se'd3 by the Respondent No.2 and etc., » "-0.1" .. A . THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR pRL..i3tEA1=é1N§3 Il\l GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT F_O_'LLQWIl§lG':. , .. _ One V. Karunanidhi"vt.s:"saidhto Halllotteda site No.3AC--220, measuring 55.81 sq.mts. folloxysgl of a lease--cuI11- sale--agteetnehitsdatedl3l1;"1V2-.vl986 by the respondent -- Bangalore (for short 'BDA'] who it is lstatedyl -exe-.clu«tle'd the sale deed on 8.3.2002. ._fl'§1e:_eafter, Kar--u--nanidhi conveyed the site in favour of O Bai, W/o. Ranoji Rao under a sale deed 0' a_ consideration. That Ambu Bai having noticed that the said site was not available for 0' v._pcjonstruction of a house, approached the respondent - BDA for allotment of an alternate site when Site No.40 301/A of OMBR Layout measuring 600 sq. ft. was allotted on 22.01.2007 followed by execution of a sale twk

-3..

deed dated 8.2.2007 conveying the said site consideration. It appears that the pe_titi011er:VA.lpu.rchased"--.__ the site for a vaiuable considera.tioi.i thunder. 4aV.sale....d,eed'----..p I dated 14.02.2007 from' -the 'said L. thereafter obtained the :theﬂtaxes to the BBMP. The petitiorier_./g(;V..lA}jaVe secured sanction of a building and Put up a a» building.

it that the respondent , "16.04.2009, addressed to L. Ambu"Bai, to cancel the allotment of the a;lteri'iate si'te,4gQ--.301/A on the premise that the said ' off from a corner site and the bifurcation " dhthdered illegal and contrary to Rule 3 of Bangalore Ijevelopment Authority [Disposal of Corner and Commercial Sites) Rules, 1984. That notice was responded to by letter dated 7.5.2009 interalia denying the allegations and at the same time pointing out that the allottee had no more interest in the site as she had M -4- conveyed the property in favour of the receiving valuable consideration. ,without"..__ addressing the explanation L Z i; Z communication dated 83.2009" canlcellecl the allotment. Hence, this4l'wlrit.petitonV.: H'

2. Rule l1--A ;_o'f thus:--

of falternative site;

Where vunable to hand over 'of allotteiillunder these rules to duejto orders of the Courts or for the Authority may allot an italternative"siteihtollsuch allottee, subject to the

-- , followings coriditions.-- 5}" .... XXX , XXX I [ii:i}i':"Alternative sites shall not be allotted in layouts formed prior to the layout in which V sites were originally allotted, even in sites are physically available in the layout/ s formed prior to the layout in which original allotment was made."

3. From a perusal of the aforesaid Rule, there can be no dispute that the authority could not have allotted Lrk an alternative a site in a lay out formed prior to the lay out in which the site was originally allotted.;:'f'«..'_:ln' the instant case, as noticed supra, initially 220, OMBR Layout was allottec1._aAndf_" to; its non--aVai1ability, the B.D:'A. Site i 30 1 /A, OMBR Layout.

4. It is not A---t_hfe_case-_of~-thetrespondent -- B.D.A. that the allottee or that he was forhthe action of the B.D.A. in allotting by hiving off a corner site. On, the animated from the show cause 'i _'n{:t1.:e, aswellvyasithe order impugned, it is the B.D.A., the error/mistake in allotting the i'a1ter:*iat.i?§7e site at OMBR Layout. It is a matter of .. V' negligence and misfeasanee if any at the hands of the it "officers of the B.D.A. and therefore, blameworthy. The TV B.D.A. instead of taking action against the officers responsible for the irregular allotments, have cancelled txwk -7-

8. In the result, the petition is a1lo\;:fed4;..' _._§1"1ow cause notice dated 16/04/2009, .anc:1"

communication dated 08/06%/2(m9cc, % quashed.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court