Karnataka High Court
Smt. Kalavathi vs Bangalore Development Authority on 13 December, 2022
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.51536 OF 2019 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
SMT. KALAVATHI
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
W/O MR.M. GOVINDASWAMY,
R/AT NO.1167, 4TH A MAIN,
14TH CROSS, M.C. LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 040.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A.SAMPATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
P.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK (WEST),
BANGALORE - 560020.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. H.T.BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER
OF ALLOTMENT DATED 12.09.2019 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT WHICH IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE - M.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
2
1) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the letter of allotment dated 12.09.2019 bearing No.DS/II/NPKC/BGS-1772/1920 issued by the Respondent which is enclosed as Annexure No.M;
2) Issue a writ or order or direction directing the Respondent to allot a residential site measuring 30x40 feet to the Petitioner at Arkavathi Layout in Bangalore North Taluk;
3) Pass such other orders or further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, so as to meet the ends of justice and equity.
4) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the seniority list published on website on 27.03.2021 by the respondent-BDA vide Annexure-R in so far as petitioner is concerned at Serial No.911.
5) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent-BDA to give effect to the earlier seniority list where petitioner is at Serial No.144 vide Annexure-Q coupled with the resolutions dated 13.07.2020 bearing No.BDA.KAVI.37.
2020-21 vide Annexure-S and 11.08.2020 bearing No.BDA/AA/61/2020-21 vide Annexure- T on account of petitioner suffering from brain tumor.
3
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was originally allotted a site bearing No.295 in Arkavathi Layout Block-I on 24.06.2006. However, in view of the litigation in relation to the said layout, the petitioner was not in a position to enjoy the benefits of the said site, on account of which he submitted a representation seeking allotment of alternative site. Since the respondents did not take any steps pursuant to the said representation, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.52821/2015, during the pendency of which the respondent issued an endorsement saying that in so far as Arkavathi Layout is concerned, the applicants would be allotted alternative sites in terms of the seniority list. Accordingly, vide final order dated 27.06.2017 this Court disposed of the said W.P.No.52821/2015 directing the 4 respondents to consider the claim for allotment of alternative site in favour of the petitioner within a period of six months. Since the respondent did not take steps to allot alternative site, the petitioner approached this court in CCC No.72/2018, during the pendency of which the respondent issued allotment letter dated 12.09.2019 allotting a site at Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout instead of Arkavathi Layout. Aggrieved by the allotment of site in Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout and refusal on the part of the respondent to allot a site in favour of the petitioner in Arkavathi Layout, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
3.1 During the pendency of the present petition, the respondent prepared seniority list vide Annexure-Q on 27.03.2021 showing the seniority of the petitioner at Sl.No.144 in conformity/consonance with the date of the original allotment in Arkavathi Layout made in her favour. However, subsequently, pursuant to the resolutions at Annexures-S and T dated 13.07.2020 and 11.08.2020, the respondent issued one more seniority list also dated 5 27.03.2021 showing seniority of the petitioner at Sl.No.911, which is far lower/lesser than her actual seniority at Sl.No.144. Under these circumstances, the petitioner got amended the present petition challenging the seniority list at Annexure-R dated 27.03.2021 as well as the aforesaid impugned resolution dated 13.07.2020 and 11.08.2020 issued by the respondent-BDA.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-BDA submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. The material on record discloses that the allotment of site in Arkavathi Layout vide Annexure-A dated 24.06.2006 and the directions issued by this Court in the earlier round of litigation directing the BDA to consider the claim of the petitioner for allotment of alternative site in Arkavathi Layout are not in dispute. So also, in view of the seniority list at Annexure-Q showing the petitioner at Sl.No.144 in relation to the alternative site to be allotted at Arkavathi Layout, the challenge to the impugned allotment 6 letter directing allotment in favour of the petitioner at Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout deserves to be quashed.
6. The next question that arise for my consideration is whether the petitioner was entitled to allotment of alternative site in terms of the seniority list at Annexure-Q dated 27.03.2021, wherein she is shown at Sl.No.144 or whether she is entitled for alternative site in terms of Annexure-R dated 27.03.2021 issued by respondent-BDA, wherein she is shown at Sl.No.911. In this context, it is relevant to note that in the resolutions at Annexures-S and T dated 13.07.2020 and 11.08.2020 respectively, clearly indicate that by way of special concession, seniority is granted in favour of senior citizens and those suffering from serious ailments. In this regard, a perusal of the material on record including the age proof of the petitioner and the medical records of the petitioner will indicate that the requirement for getting allotted an alternative site by way of seniority in terms of the Circulars at Annexures-S and T are clearly satisfied, since the 7 petitioner is a senior citizen and is suffering from a serious ailment as borne out from the material on record.
7. Under these circumstances, having regard to the special/peculiar facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the resolution at Annexures-S and T dated 13.07.2020 and 11.08.2020 respectively, as well as the seniority list at Annexure-R dated 27.03.2021, in so far as all persons other than the petitioner, I deem it just and appropriate to direct the respondent-BDA to allot an alternative site in favour of the petitioner in Arkavathi Layout by taking/considering her seniority at Sl.No.144 as per seniority list at Annexure-Q instead of Sl.No.911 as per the seniority list at Annexure-R, since the petitioner fulfills and satisfies both the conditions stipulated in the resolutions at Annexures-S and T dated 13.07.2020 and 11.08.2020, respectively.
8. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby partly allowed.8
(ii) The impugned allotment letter at Annexure-M dated 12.09.2019 issued by the respondent-
BDA is hereby quashed.
(iii) Respondent-BDA is directed to allot an alternative site in favour of the petitioner in Arkavathi Layout by taking into account that the petitioner is a senior citizen and suffering from serious ailments, as stipulated in Annexures-S and T dated 13.07.2020 and 11.08.2020 and also by taking/considering her seniority at Sl.No.144 as per seniority list at Annexure-Q instead of Sl.No.911 as per the seniority list at Annexure-R, since the petitioner fulfills and satisfies both the conditions stipulated in the resolutions at Annexures-S and T dated 13.07.2020 and 11.08.2020, respectively and grant her higher seniority than the seniority shown in her favour at Annexure-R dated 27.03.2021 and execute necessary documents in favour 9 of the petitioner in this regard, as expeditiously as possible.
(iv) It is made clear that this order is made under the peculiar/special facts and circumstances of the instant case having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a senior citizen and suffering from serious ailments as contemplated in Annexures-S and T.
(v) This order shall not be treated as precedent nor having any precedential value for the purpose, whatsoever.
(vi) The respondents shall take necessary steps for allotment of alternative site as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bmc