Karnataka High Court
Sri B N N Murthy vs The Bangalore on 8 December, 2020
Author: S R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.14219 OF 2020 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
SRI. B. N. N. MURTHY
C/O M. NARAHARI
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
R/AT NO.720, 1ST MAIN
7TH BLOCK, BSK, 3RD STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 085 ... 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. NARENDRA GOWDA, ADV.)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED CANCELLATION ORDER PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT DATED 29.11.1996 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY 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 certiorari quashing the impugned cancellation order vide No.Ben.Aa.Pra:UU.Kaa-3:A.Vi/1275/Na.Ba-II/IX:/96-
97 passed by the Respondent dated 29.11.1996 vide Annexure-E.
b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 28.04.2003, vide Annexure-G.
c) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent to allot alternative site by issuing allotment letter and to execute the absolute sale deed by receiving the 21% interest on the belated period.
c) Pass any order or direction as this Hon'ble court which 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 respondent-BDA has allotted a site bearing No.1275, measuring 30 x 40, situated at Naagarabhavi 2nd Stage, 9th Block, Bengaluru, in favour of the petitioner on 3 15.03.1990 vide Annexure-B. The petitioner on inquiry of the site, noticed that the site allotted was not suitable for construction of a house and also the dimension of the site was also lesser than 30 x 40 feets. Thereafter he made a representation to the respondent-BDA to verify the same. The Assistant Executive Engineer conducted survey and submitted a report vide Annexure-C stating that the site allotted to the petitioner was not suitable to construct a residential house and the dimension is also lesser than 30 x 40 feets. Thereafter the petitioner made a representation to the respondent to allot an alternative site, but the respondent did not consider his representation. Hence, the petitioner paid the entire sital value of Rs.21,825/- on 03.02.1995 under protest. Even after receiving the entire sital value, the BDA without considering the payment made by the petitioner, issued a cancellation order dated 29.11.1996 vide Annexure-E purporting to cancel the site allotted in his favour. Further the entire sital value paid by the petitioner was returned back without hearing the petitioner, vide endorsement dated 30.06.2003 at Annexure-H. 4 Learned counsel submits that despite representations submitted by the petitioner and 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. 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 dated 29.11.1996 and the impugned endorsement dated 30.06.2003 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 5 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 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 has committed an error in cancelling the allotment vide Order dated 29.11.1996 and issuing the impugned endorsement dated 30.06.2003 returning the deposited amount (entire sital value) to the petitioner and consequently, the impugned order and endorsement deserve to be quashed. 6
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) and W.P.No.5150/2019 dated 21.10.2019 (Manjunath R. Vs. BDA).
ii. The impugned cancellation order at Annexure-E dated 29.11.1996 and the impugned Endorsement at Annexure-G dated 30.06.2003 issued by the respondent are hereby quashed.
iii. Petitioner is granted four weeks time to pay the entire sital value i.e., Rs.21,875/- (Rupees Twenty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Five only) together with interest at 21% per annum to the respondent.
7iv. Upon petitioner making such 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 Bmc.