Karnataka High Court
Sri Shanthamma C vs Bangalore Development Authority on 6 November, 2020
Author: S R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.22681 OF 2015 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHANTHAMMA C.
W/O NARAYANAPPA N.
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
NO.26 RAMAKRISHNA MATTA ROAD
KEMPEGOWDANAGAR MAIN ROAD
OPP: CORPORATION WARD OFFICE
BANGALORE-560 019.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. Y.D. SHIVASHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 020.
REP. BY ITS COMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.NARENDRA GOWDA, ADV.)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO direct THE
RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF
THE PETITIONER DATED 25.04.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-L AND
QUASH THE IMPUGNED CANCELLATION ORDER VIDE
ANNEXURE-G DATED 29.1.2003 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
AUTHORITY FOR TERMINATING THE ALLOTTED SITE NO.330
MEASURING 30' x 40' AT BANASHANKARI LAYOUT 6TH STAGE,
9TH BLOCK, BANGALORE AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT
AUTHORITY TO ALLOT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO
ALLOT THE ALTERNATIVE SITE IN LIEU OF SITE NO.330
MEASURING 30' x 40' AS THE SAID SITE HAS BEEN ALLOTTED
TO ANY OTHER PERSON.
2
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
"a) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Authority to consider the request of the petitioner dated 25.04.2013 vide Annexure-L.
b) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ/order quashing the impugned Cancellation Order vide Annexure-G No.BDA/Aayu/BSK/6/9/330/2002-03 dated 29.01.2003 issued by the Respondent Authority for terminating the allotted site No.330 measuring 30' x 40', at Banashankari Layout, 6th Stage, 9th Block, Bangalore, and direct the respondent Authority to allot the alternative site in lieu of site No.330, measuring 30' x 40' as the said site has been allotted to any other person.
c) Pass any order or direction as this
Hon'ble court deems fit under the
circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."3
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 she belongs to backward caste community. Site bearing No.330 measuring 30' x 40' at Banashankari 6th Stage Layout, 9th Block, Bangalore was allotted in her favour on 13.03.2002. The respondent also issued a 'No Objection Certificate' dated 13.03.2002 in favour of the petitioner permitting her to mortgage the site.
3. After verification, petitioner came to know that the said site was adjacent to a stream and not capable/suitable of being used for residence. Under these circumstances, the petitioner submitted representation dated 26.04.2002 requesting the respondent to allot an alternative site. However, no steps were taken by the respondent in this regard. Instead, a Show Cause Notice dated 22.08.2002 (which was not served upon the petitioner) followed by the impugned order dated 29.01.2003 was passed by the respondent purporting to cancel the allotment in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant 4 thereto the petitioner submitted a representation dated 03.06.2004 to the respondent informing them that on account of road traffic accident, criminal case and financial difficulties faced by the petitioner and her family members, it was not possible for her to pay the balance sital value within the stipulated time. Petitioner submitted one more representation dated 12.03.2007 to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, who got issued a recommendation dated 15.03.2007 in favour of the petitioner through his Special Officer.
4. Learned counsel submits that despite aforesaid facts and circumstances and 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 5 at Annexure-G dated 29.01.2003 issued by the BDA as well as subsequent inaction on the part of the BDA to allot 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.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-BDA in addition to reiterating the various contentions put forth in the statement of objections, seeks dismissal of the petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
7. 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 6 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 clearly committed an error in passing the impugned order at Annexure-G cancelling the allotment in favour of the petitioner and refusing to allot an alternative site in her favour and consequently, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and necessary directions are to be issued against the respondent.
8. 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 7 W.P.No.5150/2019 dated 21.10.2019 (Manjunath R. Vs. BDA).
ii. The impugned order at Annexure-G dated 29.01.2003 issued by the respondent is hereby quashed.
iii. Petitioner is granted four weeks time to pay the balance sital value together with interest at 21% per annum to the respondent.
iv. Upon petitioner making such balance payment as stated supra, the respondent shall take necessary steps to allot an alternative site in favour of the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of such payment.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mds.