Karnataka High Court
Miss T.S. Vedavalli vs The Commissioner, Bangalore ... on 23 February, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(4)KARLJ504, 1998 A I H C 3901, (1998) 4 KANT LJ 504
ORDER
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. This petition is directed against the order of Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, dated October 21, 1997. By this order Annexure-C to the writ petition, dated 21-10-1997, the Commissioner in exercise of his powers under Rule 13, sub-rule (9) of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984, has cancelled the allotment of Site No. 396 in Hosur-Sarjapur Road, Sector VI Layout, measuring 40' x 60' which allotment had been made in favour of Ms. T.S. Vedavalli, vide, intimation dated 18-2-1994. The allotment had been cancelled on the ground that allotment of the site was obtained by a false declaration by the petitioner that she did not own any house or site in Bangalore, nor any site had been allotted to the applicant or her relation. The Bangalore Development Authority, after having issued notice to the petitioner and considering the reply dated 10-9-1997, opined that the undisputed fact established during enquiry is that at the time of filing the application in 1988, Smt. Vedavalli declared that she did not own any site in Bangalore Metropolitan Area. However, at that point of time, she was admittedly an allottee of a site by the B.E.L., HBCS Layout. She has further stated on 3-5-1993, that she did not own site or house when the contrary was true. The authority opined that the petitioner had got the site allotted by Bharath Electronics Limited. B.E.L., Authority is no doubt an authority as opined by the Bangalore Development Authority and so had cancelled the allotment on the ground that petitioner was ineligible under Rule 10(3) of the Bangalore Development Authority Rules.
2. Petitioner's Counsel submitted that this is cancellation order has been passed almost after 10 years. There is no time-limit prescribed for cancellation. The authority can exercise its power, if allotment is obtained by fraud or concealment of fact under Rule 13(9) of the Allotment of Sites Rules and to resume the possession of the site. Rule 13(9) of the Bangalore Development Authority Rules provide that if the particulars furnished by the applicant in the prescribed application form for allotment of site are found to be incorrect or false, the sital value deposited shall be forfeited and the site shall be resumed by the authority.
3. In view of this Rule 13(9) of the Bangalore Development Authority Rules, in my opinion, the order of the authority cannot be said to suffer from any illegality. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that Rule 11(4) of the Rules, provides that the allotment once made it becomes final, in view of Rule 11(4) of the Rules, which provides subject to the approval of the authority, the decision of the Allotment Committee shall be final. Subject to approval means, that once approved it shall be final and no appeal lies. But Rule 13(9) itself confers a power on the authority that in cases where allotment of sites has been procured by false statement of fact, by concealment of material facts, then such allotment can be said to have been obtained by fraud and such allotment cannot carry the same finality or the finality as is provided by Rule 11(4) of the Rules, particularly in view of Rule 13(9), which specifically deals with such a situation that if an allotment has been procured by misrepresentation, it is open to the authority to cancel it and to forfeit the money.
In this view of the matter in my opinion there is no merit in the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition being devoid of force, it is dismissed.