C Ramesh vs The Bangalore Development Authority on 25 January, 2011

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

C Ramesh vs The Bangalore Development Authority on 25 January, 2011

Bench: B.V.Nagarathna

EN T11 E E["IIC§H' CGURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATEI) "IT.--115 'I'Iri¥'-I 25'?" EEAY OF JAE'€E_,EA.R'Y'} QC! E. .1

{'3 BEFORE

"mg: E--iON'BII.E MRSJUSTECEE £3.V«NAGAI%AfFZA£'gE$§§§:_'_ ~  " 

WRI'I'PETI'{'ION NO_59.1.8/2010{BpA;k   L" %

BETWTEEN:

SR1 CRAEVIESH, V
AGED 44 YEARS,    V =_
S/O CHIKKANNAGOWDA, R/O"--v.NO., 826, . 
mrr, 1ST MAIN ROAE1 EST}-I BLOCK,  "
KORAMANGALA,    --    
BANGALOREWSESO 095.'   --_  PETETIONER
{By Sri: s.N.AswATH_A;1\:A'RAyA'%\I~;.ADV.3'

1. THE BANGAIQQREVD}§V"E_LOPME1\E'I'AUTPIORITY?
SANKEY ROAD" K.P;.___W'ES'f,
I3ANGALOREm.56o_ 
R9313. BY ITS 'COMMISSIONER.

" V'    SRI>K.1'«l..A KRI$ﬁ NA MURTHY,

= --. _ AGEDABQUT 53 YEARS,

" . "s,(O._K;N1~..NARASENGHA RAO,

.  --._R/"O 63.0.;;;3R1) CROSS, 3RD BLOCK.
'  3RI).P'Ii£_ASE, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE),
" BANGALQRIMSO 083.

h   :5; :  S1:i1"sR1vATsAN RANGACHARI,

._ "AGr3:'D ABOUT 4:2, YEARS'
' 'S/e:> SR, CHAR},
R/O (L21. DIAMOND DISTRICT.
A1I5{PORT ROAD,
E3ANGAI,OR£«3w56O U08.

4" TI--EE £3 EPUTY SES-CE{E'I.}%{RY W '1 5
%§ANGX%.iJ@£Q£i D}}§'V'E§lJOPM EN'? 27'aUTHORE'1."x',
S.r'XE\E'KE'{ RG:'4'xD, 'E:5ANGALGE4i£:Z~5f§0 €323' 



F'§§§

"1'E'-IE2 AI')[}L, DIS"E"RICT REGIS'i'E%2,A'R,
BANGALORIE; EDEZV. AUTHORITY [PLOL
£1,139 WIBST' I:'3AN'GALORI*1v560 020',

ME

6, SMT.R.C1r'IANCHAL,

AGED 60 YEARS,

W / O . R1 KHABCHAN D JAIN 9

R/O 401, H] FLOOR, HI CROSS.
PANCHASHEEL APAR'I."ME1NTS. _. ~ -~ .. ._ 
GANDIriI1\fAGAR, BANGAE.OREf;é'56O SO09.  O

5}

SRI.N.DEVARAJ{}.

AGED 36 YEARS. V
S/OKNNARASARAJUE

R/O.42'1,1S'i' CROSS, _ _  « '
NEW 'FH1PPA.SANDRA, I-{AL _ "R1'J--»S':_'AO  
GANDHINAGAR, ' §3ANOALORF:----._5s30~-- Q75,

 SENIOR SOS REGjiS'vT'RAi§,OV   " '
BOMMAN..aH.A1.1,1:;' "  

BANOA:;Oi2;: O.1'S'1*R1t:'f,
EDA COjMPfQ:EX, KOE?AMAN(}ALA.
13ANGAmRF,."«,%  . ;

9. 'I'HE.'_ AODL,c:O.MM'i-SSIONER,
BANG-.ALOR]3_ MFPLWAO-ARA PALEKE.
. « BANGALQRESOUTH,
» JAYANAGARV Iv BLOCK,

BANGALORE.  RESPONDENTS

fay"Sm;:§.O.L.JAOAOFFSH, ADV. FOR R1 AND R4, 'S'RI.;D.N'.E¥;'iAN;JUNATH. ADV. FOR R2,6 & *7. SR1.JAYANTH PAj'*rA:>:S1%1_I;"FF1, ADV. FOR R3] $**$** 'O THIS Xkflijﬂ IS E*'ILED UNDER ARTiCLEZS 226 AND 227 '?§}F THE CONSTiTUT1ON OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR O ENTERE RECORDS QUSH {1} IMPUGNEI3 ORDER DTD E O1.2.2{)§Q "VHDE ANE\?I§X--R {2}CANCEL.LAT§O'N DEE-ESE) DTD 103,0"? \='EE}E AI.'€NZ€X--L AND [3]".I.'§-"iii? COE'~éESEQUEN'I'EAL SALE EEEEEEEIE §.}'I"E} 28.8.0?' IX"? AE\EF'éfEf3}£~3\r'E, ﬁg? 3 t.hei'eafte'r. that they could have their say in the m21t';i::':1" and that the eriq_t.1i:'y Shouid be edmgiieted withiri 21 §.)€1."i.()d. of four months from the date of receipt of the said order. In t_ti'e.esaid writ, petition? the ea11eeE1at.i0ii of the sale deed n1_ad_e *iIii'EtX§'F)££f of the petitioner dated 10/7/2007 was not set.""a1.ei<:1ei,".Ev:'1 fri'e*.ir_ V' of the Said direction isssued by t1i.is:"Cei1':ri*esp;e-nd'e§i!,sVi\t0s,:;i and 5 - BDA have coiidueted an eﬁqiiiry a1"1Cifpé1.F;'S'€Ci2.O1'~(i<Ef1'.u denied 1 1 /2 /2010, which is in vt£iisVm7it_;

3. It is the cage..§{f«»i-,he'_V_pejziifiogei-'that he is the lawful owner of BDA site at 41?' Bioek, Koramaiigslet'jLa'3}'6fz;;ﬁ3. B-afrgai0§'e;"i1éi\Iin.g purchased the same for a7yaE--:,1:;1b1e'VxC'eiisideratien from the original ailottee of Baiigaloie iDeve'E.0p:{1'et1ii'~--.Adtliority namely, Sri Srivatsan Raxigavehari" fhi1'C§.V..'R{3S'».p()'i"1..C1€§I'}i'. herein, by a registered sale deefi. 6/4"/'2e.05; which was registered in the office of .the_ SeniL>:v;S'ub--~Regis1.rar, Bangalore South Taluk and t'.;7!._\';'.'!,"€VATc'1i.vﬁ'€5~7..4;bV7{,h*'i§V.:}°§E31.hE1 entry was made in his name as per ix'r;1_tfha C.€'I"'t'};.filéE1tf3 dated 14/12/2006 and subseq'uentIy, he has been. payiiig taxes to respenderit No.9 M Bangalore AMa_ha191V2é.g21ra Paiike as per the tax reeei_pi.:s which are [§vi"@"}d;'tl{t€d ed, Aii.I1.e:x;LIi°ee 'C' arid 'DZ Aee0'1'diiig to the E§":f3§'.iEi(}i'E€'i", ii, e.ppea1'$ that e§'.£giIz.211.Iy the said site Ns:>.818; wee ;-ti.Eei.t,e;":d it} {me -Sri §{,i'x7i'.i4€ri:%;E'::':2i §%§:ii't'.iijgu 'i°£EfE§§){}i'i{§'€£'":§I t\§t>i2 Ln herein. and lease cam sale agreemertt dated 30/ I / was also executed by BDA in favour" of the second pursuant to the allotment order and therealtexi cancelled by executing a cancellation .deed_''da't'ed'.';7/l« ' which is produced at Arlnexure 'E"7--_and" "the sfa,_id~ slitellbeseeaiﬂe available for allotment by thel_B.D.A. v.al;l3pears{ltlw§at..t:he3Blﬁiali L' thereafter allotted the "very . aslhpezflvthevﬁiallotment made at Annexure 'F; ._a lease (tum sale agreement da'ted._'7/ 5/ is produced at Ani1ex'u;je§._EGlEalid lifploossession was given to the per Annexure 'H' and condit.£idv<)r1;il1"" 1990 was also executed by the BI)l'X,.VV_vG'hicl1V.isl 'J' and subsequently, Katha Certificate was issued in favour of the peti'ri'ofa.eAr's'l'vendor as per Annexure Therefore, it is the easel petitioner that he has purchased a site from 1-es.;:loncie=t;tt' which was lawfully allotted by the BDA to him an;d7~a.fter a lapse of about 10 years 1'.e., after completion e.£»ee«nmalienati0n peried, pei;ititmer's vendor had became the l absolute and lawful owner of the said site and he sold the same threugh a regietered sale deed dated 8/AL/2005 as per annexuee 2%' and tl1er"eaft.e;3 Katha entries have been made in the name ef the getltiezzer on l4;'12/ EGQ6 which is at E in ""

£3 Azmexure 'B' :;m,e:§ t.axes hzwe aim been paid by the petiéioner to the BBMP. which is 21i'.A11I1exL1re 'CC

4. It is the fur'ther case of the petitioner, of a sudden, on 23/10/2008, in the morning persons came to the petiii0:1er's hguse, svi,a1'iv11g'Vvth3t '$on_1e""

one had i.r1f01*med them that site «aVé1iIaV'b1e"

through brokers anti the p€'i;i1'.§QnerV"seﬁsEng some foul play, first applied for }EhCu1:11brar1C€T Ce'rti}fieaie and 0i')"u':.i'i1ed the same org 'iC--5_;'2{3G:8';;::'it},he was shocked to fincl from the said Encu.n1h_r--an'c_e Ceftifie-é1£e*'ihat firstly, BDA had a_:exee1:i{e d_--.V deed dated 17/ 7/ 2007, cance1V1'ing§._the .aV}idi,II1enfL'--.pdgde on 7/ 5/ 1990 to his vendor, resp0I1c'1em_: No.3' gird 'se"(.;0nd]y, BDA had executed ar1othe1* Can§ie'1Ia£.i0n Qiated 17/'7/2007. Cancelling the cc.n7&1n;:ua.na1A.ga1e"da'te'd 16/55/1990 and thirdly, EDA had V deed dated 20/8/2007 in favour of the H '1:§SpOﬁd€11E in respect of the very same site N0818. p--et.i£-iUi:ae:' obtaineci Ehe certiﬁed (_'.Op'.i€S3 of the said _dT0eum.c:'i11.s. It is the l"urt;her case of the petit.i.0ner that '_ x<_:_a.14i'eeE.E.ir1g the £31I]()f{I1("E'l"_1'{. of site N0818. which was in fav0'L1r 10? the peLii:i0:1er7s:» \:"E;*.§}.(f1()I' wEf'I::()L1E, iss1.1;-mes: {sf any notice either M2 the pe;=:£.§£,i{:r1er or to his; vezzdor zgmii w'it'h<3L.:'i', ggivizlg 3 .¢ any I"£'.&1:3()}1Elbi€ o;)p<>1"t.tzI1iti}f to have their say in the mattezf we£"e. iiiegal acts arid. t,here'fo1'e writ petition was ﬂied in W.P.No.1«*iEO37/2008 seeking quashing of the deed dated 10/*7/2007 and deed ciategi'i---2o[s1/2~oe~7 * made in favour of respondent I\Eo.2;~ -_If£:

petition that the aiorestmed di1;eet.Eo_'1:s;tV \,tfe.1'e' issued to the BDA to eohdue_t"a.n eniq-tzizy. _at;id"«vtI0"--V13e1:és an'-V appropriate order after afford_ih'g__ 27213 o;.)'p'o:'t:uni_t5y to the petitioner and 1'esp0r1de'h"tsA 21 say in the mat,te1' .

1'I"iﬁi'.;1t:_¢VV _' to the said direction, 41"

respondent" had dated 25/11/2009 calling upon. the mtmgr to eppear before him on 9/12/2009 V'a,1on§§ vs.-"'ith"t~,a11 thevvofiginztl documents reiating to the site in §igee'stAio:i;..¢Vj&haﬁd to offer his explanation; that petitioner ap;;)eared.'Ije.§otre the ease worker who directed him to meet the Stzpc'ir111t.ehded who asked the petitioner to produce the ifeleifgtizt. doeuments and he also signed the ste.tement and the ad.dit:iona} sizmenieht. which is produced at AnneX.ure 'P. '§herea£'te,r. the S1,E1t.€If1{:'I1t of other persons 11a:<11e1y, respen.dent.s 2 and 3 were aiso iﬂkﬁfil and stibsequentiy. when no order was passed by the first: yesporﬁeiitg i,.»«'*""'f "

€:%% R,P.N<>.?8/ 2010 \,vza.:3 féiecf fez' review ef the e:"der __cIai'ed 2"?'/'8/2009 in \-V,P.E\'Iow E-4~03?;'2008 in $0 f:»".2.r ass 1:2. non qL1ash1'I1g of the ee11sequen'1,ia1 sale ' V- 17/'?/2007 and the Said review peifitjen v_=.r'a.és' "C1ieSj:mViSVeedV 0-13 31/8/2010. ;="-x('.€:01"'dir1g§ to the Vpeﬁiiieaeréj».i,k1;e§*e21'i'te'g~_,& 'Elie received a letter on 1.8/2y*"i20_§O E31-zxle mv.;~1r;ieE1. enclosed the order dated 1 1/ ai.JAr1neXm'e 'R' which is assaiied in he petitioner has ainso contended that fi::c.31;1»;.spe;1king order, vfiiiath is b-ai:cVi arbitrary and not in aec0rdar;cei:__iiagitha' is.W;~:f_' ¢_ my of additional facts, })etit.i0aer Vs1;f::;11ii.#.ed.VV__that he received a letter on 2/3/20AI'O_s{atihg_{hat ei:«.__2.'3/$2/201.0 respondent N056 and 7 11ad--pL1reHased't.he V-eeryvsanle site N0.818 in question from '"V--.the*res}:$'e-ntienl, .N0.2Wand sale documents are produced at iihereafter, the Kaiha Cert1'ficat.e has been issued in. ih.-e'iTr names as per Annexure 'Z'. Under the "-.,ctircL111i:3Vta;1ees, the petiiiioner While once again aesailing the "'--"«;:a.:f:c:e}'..Ee1£:1'or1 order dated AIIEICXLEYB 'LS has alse ehalienged ihﬁe 01°C}-er ciaied 1 1/2/2010' 8, The E"irs{, and {email :z'espor1den.ts - EDA have ﬂied sﬁaaemezei {>5 a>b}'eetic;z1s stag-u.iz":;;§ mat. the _;;e1.itio1"1e;"

;3L::*aj%if12.::-;i.n§§ é':%";e ezziti semi: §'é°<>z:': hie zré:'::.':.:;§{:§" is; rm? Wi£4E'*2:';.:': ':,h<3:£~;' éi % kmnwledge. mat pe1.ii.i.o»:1e1"s veiidor -- .r'espo£1dent No.3 was not the (J1figiIizil ::1l.Ioi.tee of Site i.\lo.E3l8 and that. respondent No.3 had fabricated, forged and eo:(1Coet.eC1 dootiiiieriis and had obtained a sale deed and when the same the knowledge to the respondent: ~ authorities. it after eoiadt1(tE,i.11.g proper enquiiy. I*E'is211so ',st.at.ed'i.h.at the called cancellation deed was eXel{:{ut.e.dA' in fevspevei. No,8l8 on 9/5/1990. But leas_e¥'e_u.n1«sa§e agi;eeiii~eﬁ"i"Was by"

then executed in faxrouzf of res--p9:rideiii;A N0..'2l'o1:1. 31:/8/1.988. That the documents relief ,LE§'J'L1_£_1i'l)':f 'peE;itiox1er have come into existence with_ the'eoVlliisioi'i«,olfVaii- eiiifiloyee of the BDA with iv:respon'tivej:j.i;.eVNo.3_'anjic1.the documents registered in fE1VO11I"',Of«.I'€SpOi}CiE§1lt<.._'NO'.{§ are illegal and fraudulent.

"i'hei'ei'orel,Wi._he. 1'€S-i)0Ai1(?lf:I]-{S ~ authorities resolved to Cancel the5;lease--cum¥sale_____ag1'eeme11t. and Conditional sale deed V' -.«:1.llegedl3?« inad_e in favour of respoiideni No.3 as no allotment in his favour. Siibsequemly, the authority sale deed to the origiiial allottee A respondent N02 zO.ii'v2.{)'l/8/2007. They have also stated that as per the iriirfectiioiis issued by this Court in W.P.No.'l«4l~O37/2008, an e:;_q_iiiiy was held to i.mIest,iga£.e iriio the mai.i.ei' and it has eciiiie to the eciimliisioii t.hai;. the pei.ii.ioner's vendor ~ ""i"esp<3ii.dei'ii, i\ie,E-E was imi. at 21% 2-1;': aiiai.i.ee of the B[)A iii reaspeet of the $;'.i,e Ne.8'I8 and tha':. respenderli. No.2; was the ailotiee and in f,er.me of the said aiiolmezizi, an 21bs01u.E..e Sale deed dated 20/8/2007 has been issued and the in order and the e.anc:e11at.ion of sale deed on 10/7,/;i200}'~ 5é,§.se« in 2-ufteordarice with law and 1,h.erefo1'e, S{)LI,ghI'._:"dj$i1ﬁSS&1§ t5£'._ the writ. petition.

7'. Respondent No.2 hVa's,_fi1edV'e1V2i[eme1;»Ei"V'A'Qf .evt.)jee;tiens_ Ve. by stating thai when responde'i:3; FJo.3 e.ppeAared Vbefore the authority at the <3Anq:1ji §y!V_»e1'e.r;un1entsV were not produced by the 1"espQ_1vid_.er1i'V__VVN0.--3~.V.'Wi1;h.--V"' regard to the a110t:mer1t- .1,¢1'1'?;.e1' is--C~1,1\aI1ce""'evf--"f)OSsessior1 eert'i.ﬁca.te or e0ndi{Epnai* savleaiieed »Tr:33:de..i.1'1 -favour in his favour and that the see0nVd"respe_r1d--ei:tvépxjddticed all the relevant documents in supp0rt 0.f' }'1is_e~asev_tifestablish that he was the original a11.C:)':t.:'ﬁ~E€§:.,,Té)fIhfi and on the basis of the aliotmeni:

'sLi'b&_ieqL.1ent absolute sale deed and the other i z'; sL1pp0rt of the ailotmerzt, the enquiring 211.1fh0ri"{y fies righily Come to the emzclusion that there was 3730 a1i0"1':Iie:1t made by the EDA in f21VOE£..I" of respeandent No.3 " ~._8 f1..(i'A£1I"1C}€}" {he eireumstzmees, BDA 'was; right in Inakingthe vé .e _.V_{:5a11ceiiaii(}11 deed dateci 10;'?,f2007.

It is also stateci that :'espendei1t N0.2 liad scmght. permissien to put up a residentml preper1},r and i'?2Ve."'sar:1e was grani.ed by resp<rr1<:leni No.8 and i1h.e1'ea.i'€e1",_..he said property to respondeiits 6 and 7. who joirili:-lg} it the same by 3 registered sale deetltld-sted--.¢ subseqtzently, Katha eert.ifi(:ate l1éis_ beer: isvsiie<:l'~h3;l't.l1e~.VV B.B.i\/i.Pi in their name; "having it come to the coricluséori t1:ia't~.'t.here,_ was iraudulerit transaction between 'resf)Or1dei3te'ViNe.3withthe eonnivanee of the ei'1ipi0yee gig' ilie \vasVt'-.jV_us'ilii7ieei in making the cancellation--Vrle<e<iILr£sted_: end on that basis, the e11dorsen1ent"s3._--vAr1r:exure~ has been issued. which is after holding' a 4' prO'p.er and after referring to the statements suivml-ssivon of parties concerned. pursuarit

5.._Cl'§1"€'('I,l0I1 by this Court and hence, he has sea.-;g1:fvV tiislrni'ssail.. of the writ: petition.

9., ~F:{(fi€~J{}:30l'1d€I1l, No.3 in his Sl.&}l.EtII}E3}.'1l. of objections, Hhas stéitecl that he is the predeeess0i"~iri~title having sold the V"-"_prQ;.j'e'1"ty bearing Site No.8l8 in favour of the petitioner by 21 registered sale deed cfateci 6/4/2005 1.hal. he was allotted the said site by aiietraient. letter dated 5/:"5/ E990 and t.here:«,1ft:er, er: ?/;''3/' .E9QGl 21 Ee2ise~e1im~sa.le 2i5_.§1'eer3;1er":t, wzis executed in §iessessie:'i <:ertii°i<;ta:i.e (fates?

his E751'-i;*c'2i.::' mail f,:,<}:u£<§xFj,${'.&€~'..§t,l.§:-xi-'Bg.§§--ER3 5g;;«m 15/5/1990 was; issued and eondit'io'nai sale deed dated 16,15/1990 was executed in his favour and rsubseqe-ent to the execution of the sale deed by the 1"irst, 1'es;3onclen§.;"he_ha.s obtained Katha ee1'ti1'ieate from respondent No.3': 'in v1.'.e;s'pe'c:t 'er the said site. That: initially, si1.e'":"~@.<8ﬁE.8 xvause--VI,a31oi.ted 'i:r,V1 V favour of respondem No.2 by 1ease¢(%'L'iI1I§s.€{1e..»2:gree'o1.erii; daatecl 30/ 1/ 1998. I"'ioureve}.,_v'"zjespodfldemg_ not!' interested in the above said Vs_.iie'~:-1_r1d._V he:oee',-a request was made to the first respor1»de11t.ji'o?1f:;1Ho1;me'1';i of an alterrlative siie and t}ie:*ea%7:ei". i1e1;:""f'i'r5:'.~='§f":é.=es;:wo.:1de:f1tVhi"eéineeiied the said allotment by;-.exe:ei1__t1z1g'.aireg1st'e-red eai1.V'ce11atior1 deed dated '7/5/ :'._V99O;_' dAi;nz_1i No.3 being a member in the seniority dlistwof éiifoifLee$°;nei.ntained by respondent. No.1 got the above egiiclv sife_ No.818 and possession certificate u*as;;iss.11ed §m.,':1'5/5} 1990 and that he was in peacefuk .poséeé:-egiofi and enjojznient of the said site till he executed a 's;--;Ee -5n_:6,.(4/2005 in favour of the petitioner when he "h.a"nded'o§ijL%;{§§ossessio11 to the petitioner. He has reiie1'at.ed théii, 91:9; {he basis of his S€I1iOl'iE.}f in the list. of allotteee A.n3e1inté1ihed by respondent: No.1' he has got allotment: of the site and that". 'the un3'3a':,e1'a} r;:aneei1ai.ion made on "€10/?/200? by the BDA ie wholly illegai and also it has been done af'::e'2* 2»: lapse; of 1'? yearss \>.---*iEhom. §.seL12mee of am}; notice e V. to him. tinder the CZiI"(','Ui'E"1S§'212}{?€fS., he has ei.at.ed that the €3£§.C_1tI.iI'y' proeeedirig has to be set aside and the writ 1*-rititioii has to be allotted in favour of the petit.ioner. it

10. I have heard the learned counsel f_of-rt"petit-£._o§o:erL _

3.€€t}'H€d ctourisei for respondents 1 to 4 and ~v1-ea_r:n.ed~eotirisei~« .. for respondents 2, 6 and 7. Thereizis no rargoerzie_rzi:~.addvreseed on behalf of respondent No.3.*th_ough."served ant"!Arepi-eSeIited."< by counsel.

1}. Learned co:1_r§*5e1'tor;peti*ii'ovn'er_whi1e drawing my attention to the vari_oi.1S_ *,doeu..rr1ef1tsV"'*r--t2;rEi'ieh have been annexed "-torthefj-».3}§r1::i"wge'tit1on has eubrnitted that the unilateral'.__eariee'i}.otior1._'Aof the sale deed made by the reegiorident or1 10/7/2007 is in not accordance .A with ,ei'r1(:i that; there can never be any unilateral .Céiriee'i'1.2:§iori 'oliithe atlotroerit of site which has been made by t;Ide'--B.E)..A;v an allottee and therefore, the petitioner, who is V the ptirehaser from respondent: No.3, who is the atiottee of "'._S%;'ter'No.818 had assaiied the said CEii"iC€H&ﬁZiO1'i to writ petition ~--No<14037/2008;. wherein E1 direction was issued by :*es§:ioz1de'r1ts E and 4? to hoid an eriqtiiry arid. t.h.e'rea.ft,er, em;t:i.ry tEridi.tige .'o21Ve been i5:='.sS{i€d to the petitiorier 3.55 per' 5%.z§:tex't,i.:"e *E€I 1-*£'§2it'*§f2 to gieezaiitéré in thte: writ. ;:}_:titioi'i. "1?£'h§.i.§% I"ei'er1'ing to various; i'r2111e2:1c:'ii():'1§3 which {he E3.£j)'A« has; had in respect of the site in <in:est:ic>:nse he E1215 s1.41bmi1.ted that the ea'~1nc:e1}at:ion of allotmem. of site in favour of pet'ii,.i'one'1"e vendor is contrary to the prineipies or T1'a11s£e}5""of_[Pxioféerigr AC1. and aiso the Registratioll Act and 1-,h;;"'~1;r2u1§;§s _n1eJ:ie_ E"hereu_nde:r' and hence. the said :eanee'11a,t.i'on'1wihthiout authorii'y of law has to be q1:ashed<."..ff"he pe1.i:§:;:ie':' ACon1e'r1.dVsp that he has obtained a vaIid"'é;é.'L?ie. by deedh dated 6/4/2005, by whieh the"'fee.:p;onEient', M3' sold the site "bearing No.818 to the ;.)e{iiio1'%en' ;ﬁs_o stated that the enquiry cond;y.3tAedbyi;1:he a.1V1A"c'£.'"g~£J_1V1 :'ee3oo11dent.s pursuant to the direetiofn _jssued 't3y_ totals Court is not in accordance with law' and ":.he"'given in the said enquiry are arbi_tra1~y and_:vtt1efet'oi"e,«Ehe said enquiry report which is at Anin'ex2.::e1¢e '~-R' hae«'Lo'"b'e quashed. He therefore, stated that if _ g-xn_nex'u<;e 'L' .§uﬁ';1 Annexure 'R' are quashed, eorasequerltiaﬁy, SLg}:§Vseq1v{:en{:«.V. 'gale deed made by the B.D.A. if favour of respenelelﬁ. No.2 dated 20/8/200'? and the sale deeds " executed by respondent No.2 in favour of respondents 6 and :3' would also have to be quashed and under the C:ireu.1n~:--3ta11eess. he sizxtecf t4ha1,Annexu1'e 'M' e 'U' and 'X' have also to be quasshed. In support. of his subnnesicm, he has; reiiecl upon. <:e:"E'.2:ir: deeiei.(3r1s; of this Cioz,2r€". zmd 221530 of E\»'12:.dr.:ts~3 §*£ig11 Court to eent;en.<:1 that the if-,3.f).A, E1315»; no 2:uE:h0}:".i1..y te '£,1I"JiiE1i,(:?'F2}11}--' ea..ne.e1 the sale (feed which has; been exec:ut.eé by it in favour' of 2:11 zﬁlettee and the only m:;u;:'_1h;er in which a Cancellation can take place is by s;ee§;<;i;<1.g'VV'.z1__h'rli:;§_ie£7

1. before the app:'01.)r'iat'e Civil Court by i11v()ki_t;g ';':%.ee;pif)r1<_:31 'OH x the Speciﬁc Relief Act. xts.-'h.e1"eE:);t, '":=gaI'eA 7/E3/1990 could be Cancelieci, He 4the1'*efere, e£..;.bhr¥1i.tete(3. the eanceiiation order at Anneixghte 'L' mu.s_t"beV--1qtﬂ1gshed and also the findings of the'"E;1qui.:jf'}Xu.t.h0Vi31ty mL1'st'beV set aside.

12. Per contra, ee_1h1_se?'V_t'0§f re's,.;.)'01<:V1.e't;vtei1t N031 and 4 _ B.D.A..'s'uvhthitt:eet*:t;.hat'*.t»13.'D'.A'."-etzétde the ear1ce.11at.i0n deed dated7..'1(3','*7 consideration the fact that respondehfﬁ' who_ petitioner's vendor is not the e1*i;§;§j§:pe1IL'21110tt.e'e' "efVt_1}'e'.site; that the ailegecl sale in favour of . 1fespon_.t1et1t.<:Ne,_8 dated 5/5/1990 and Iease--cum~sa1e deed 'détted and the issuamre of the _p<3ssess1'011 c:e;'§:t1iJ'i_caVt<.;~ 'oi :5/5/1990 and the ('.Of1CiiU.OE.'18.]..SE1}€ deed dated 3,6/5/1990 and also the deed of cancellation made between 'the "t3,I3LA. anti respoiaderit. No.2 darted 7'/5/1990 are all h " ""fKI"E1L1dLIE€1'1i..; concocted and fabrictated d0<:L1men.t:s. Aithough they have been I"€§iSi'.8l"fE'.d, they have me» 'v'aEidit.y in the eye of law and t.herefez;et in t:em'1s of the e;:ig;i11a.E e.I1et.n;eE1é, dated 29;' It 5 E}?_é"ti§é", in iE"av<:s:z:" ef '£'{?'i-.%§.}€}3'3{.§EEi§'§'. 3\§e,2 'G3; the E?%§l}.;%., the absoiute sale deed dated. 20/8/2007' has been f?X(E'.L',¥.§.'[€d eubeequem, to the etaiieeﬂation maid:-3 on 20/ "(/2007 and that the said czmeeiiation deed is in order and 21cco1'din'gg1jk=,. the findirigs given by the Enquiry Authority _,:v'i.h accordance with Eaw and the relief sought. by :f.§.etit1oh'e3'__ in this; writ petition (:a:o..r.1ot be gr3.;£t,ed."' ' ..

13. Counsel for respcmdent. i"€oS:2, E3 e;1'rid,7 drew V1"'.t'.}f_"'~ attention to the various do'cti:1:e_nts it 'V-..rhic'h have been annexed by the petitiiofnei' e;i"ad_ :aiso,the documents which they produced to contend" t_,}12itVthe ."1tes;--.:io31dent No.2 is the origi-I123} i--«z111'j<AV5'ttee.':'"ei?. '"*1\§o."§8I8 and that the said a}1otzh'e11t'* the Iease~c:u.m-saie deed dated 29/ 1/ 1988' " ~~S:ﬁibS€qL1€I1t1y', there has been no eaneetlatioh oi"'t:}1e' aitotnient of the sai_d site made by the .A __ favour and s'ubseqt/teritly, on 20/8/2007, H ~¥3V§'D_.tz'~X.VV"e§ée»c:_u'te'd an absolute sale deed in his favour and in terhis the said two documents, he became the €.I)\VI1€!' in pegsession of the said site; that all other documents which t'1:us-edeome in to e><i.:-steiiee are concocted documents and not " ~v-'iii aceo1'daI1ce with law and thezfefore, B.D.A' has rig}1tiy' not taken the same into consideration and on the other hgrmd, has expreeeiy executed 21 tTz3.r1(,'e'.§i£1i.§()}:1 deed dated 10;"7,/2007' :a=%:e:°eh§?.: the :>%;e :%2'2.1ies:i ;»i_.E.Eoi:'i*:eii;'é. of ihe ifzia-zde by the ix:

A 'petifioﬁ;

B,D.A. in fan.-*o111" E}? the 1"es3§.)or1.dem N03 has been cancelled and Sz,zb$eq11e'mIy§ The sale deed has been (':XEfCL.E'i'.f§d on 20/8/2007 and ihe1*eaft.e1x kathzi eertifieateew};*:§Ve"o:'*§ee11 issued in i}.1voLu- of the second a*esponder1t:.é1r:d-V he"

:3L2bseqL:en't1y, Sold the property toire's_po&11d--ent_e"Gene? ?:".W}1.<) V are the title holders in respect o£%Iih.e'.'_'ésé{Id also Su.bmitt.ed that when t',he;9e~V..was ﬁo_app1V1{t_aVtioh" what; so"

ever made by respomgiem NVo..3eWfe-r'"aaK1A1ot1;1ie111._oE_.eite. there was no occasion for in favour of respoildeni O1"? in qti(";SiiOI'"1E5 has beer}- 'V No.2. under the teat the ﬁndings given by the Enquiey at Annexure are just and progsex, xvhieh C10"no't' C2111 for any interference in this writ V heard the counsel on both sides and on 15¢-3.f_usa1"of'ft1I*i.e material on record, the points thai. arise for Amy eor1_sideratioI1 are as under» I} Whether {he cc:mceiiaf:'ion deed Ciaiied 10/ 7/2007 hag any uaiidiiy in the eye of law'?

2} WI1eI'her zihe fmdings giaaen by i:h<.> reepondenz'. -- cu.;I.f1<}rz'{.y l.i}§1fC.'?7i are at Armexure 'RI o;re;':.,:.s::: oznof. prepez'?

15. E23 order 1.0 a:nswe'r the s:~2:zid q_:,1e:=~:.tiens, it is r1ecess21.1"y to (.fC}3'}Si(i(-ff' at the i"irs31i insstarme that the petitioner in this VV"I"i.I. petiiion had eazrlier filed W.P.N0. E4037/260-8 and in the said writ petition. the deed of C€11'1£?€f1V1.§;1'{ii'i1.V1V;V1"ﬂdiﬁvﬁd 107.2007 was challenged. A learned sing1e7«j__L1.c1ge..x(3i"'hthis V' ceurt while seaing aside deed 01;'. _x(:v;§,;1ee}1A£»:ieii5:1 nevertheless directed the '~€r1«q1ﬁ1gF\* . .2 accordance with law and pasLe§"~~_an approp1fiat.eV"~«0'£~t1'erV after"

affording an 0pp0r'tL1n1i;y to ihe----pet11,i'O--n_er and in r.€:§»p0nden1.s 2 arlci ii. is in "Limi was C01e1i'e1'1"'e::i the _fL1}'iSdiCUO1_'1V' ._t_O hC51€i":i:1(1 Sought by the petitinner. _ATA'l"£*:e A1:i1:h(}fvii3'..vvhElS.'f3OI1dL1Ci.E.'C1 the enquiry as per the st.ai.te;ne11t Cesf and respondenug 2 and 3 and thereafter, has given '}1;svﬁr1ding. in order to give an answer C?) 3-.Whe*.e1«1er thewsaid findings are c0r1'eC"L 01' not it is i'0._é§na1yze the sequence of events, which have i:1"g1ns'pE1'eEie' i:!1K'[1}.'}iS ease.

.. §.n{'aei, when the peiiuionezc eiaims that the Af,fazj«1sfe1* between the BDA to his vendor M respondent No.3 is fa bona tide and genuine t.rar1sae1.i0ne then Ehe burden lies on 'L§."1€';', ;.>€;=si;,ﬁi.i{>ne:' in _pr<>ve the s_~;a.£.d £.r2mS21C,tie.n and it is; only iihere21f§;e.:'. 'ihaé. £23.€;% c>i.§2er et;:1t.esi,ing; £"€'.§:§p{}£}.{}€I1i1E3 {fem wk": v v}'1'}_ 9 dislodge such proof zmci prove Ehaé. the i;ram.saetie:)1is are sham and fi(,fE..i-t.f..(}Ll\8'e ET. By an order dated 29/ 1/1988, 2: site b'ea1*ing No.818 was aklotted by the BDA, to respoxidergi t:herea£'ier, ii": is only on 20/8/2007 that an deed has been made in favour of-~r'esp0r1d'er1i,.No.2, byfihe B.D.A.. Between the two dates, speiixhiiég"sbeiii_i*we there are severai other transaeiiieris wh1*e_h'huav.e Vi1aVke1"i splaeed"

in respect of the very same site«.--- V:A.1i.--is"--1,1_eeessé>.*ry.tevﬂnote that according to the peT.'i'i';i0ﬁr1er',_ .1990, a letter of ai£et111eni;rix.Va;si.issiiied in1'avour"'e§--iesponderai. No.8. which is produeed at Ah':-=c2§'i:i<e"i?fV.9and thereafter on 7/ 5 / 1990, deed of eaneeiigition. wa.s'--regis*iered between respondent No.2 and the .B»,.}3.A..9ARV'-'1fi'ereii--1.A'Lhe":site is said to have vested with E_._f:O'n.VA_t.he A{?e1'y------san1e day that is on 7/5/1990 21 1ease~ 'eti1'n¢sa.1ve'~deeEivhas been executed in favour of respondent Vgﬁvrodueed at Annexure 'GE and on 15/5/1990 possess-.ibr1'Certificate as per Annexure 'H' has been issued Warifl £)h_i;i':$/Ea/ £990 i.e., the Very next date, a e0I1diti0i':aE sale Anriexure 'J has been issued and on 25/5/ 3990 iéaiha eeri.ii";¥ea1::e .in respect 0%" 1"€ESf)OI1CE.€I'1f No.3 has been 9 missued and ii. is en. I0/?'/E990 ihai. the seid site Ne.8i8 xi which. is said {.0 have been alloiied in lax-*oiir sf respondeni. l\Eo.3 was earicelled by the B.f,).Ai E8. In order to appreciate the said Cl()Cl_1,l731fT3"I1l'/S."'l:VY_i its proper _13e1-speet-ive. ii. is neeessaiy io eorzsider'-..iheV"sah:1e"iii the baekdi-op of the Bangaloie ml)evelo_pa1eni: " »«.z3.i;ivtE'iori.t3r {Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 the Rules'). Rule 3 of i;l1e"vsjaid RLi.les.llaki:r.1glV possession of land, while Rule" thai"allVoltee to be lessee. Rule 8 deals urilhj "Rule 9 pertains to application to of Rule 11 deals with lofalavflplieants for allotment of sites Valid 4' and Rule 13 deals with condi.iionl"foi*l gilﬁwvdlsale of sites. Rule 14 deals with 1-esiijieiions, c'o'i:.d1iVi_ioris on sale of sites and Rule 15 deals . wi1'1_3 \;o£u1i.iai--"y_ surrender.

' conspectus reading of the aforesaid Rules, it beelomevs olear that the BDA has to give due publicity in 2 'ies--pec:1;"oi' alloi.mer1i'. of sites by indieaiing last daiie for "'.'%V11'l3'iI1lSSiOf1 of application and other pa'rijou_1ars and the V " p2.1':olieit'y would have to be given 1191 only by aflixirig the same on the iioi.iee board of the Aui.horii.y izhai is EDA but aise by publie::ai,i<}1"i in not less iimri. i,hi*ee daily News Papezrs E W_,,.,«-":'_"-e ,3 .

4. 41.

hm-'trig wide Ci.I'CfLt1&1T.i€)i'l in the city, Theri the applieairits have to 1.'€3,t{iSt€I' their names for sites on §>z2ymeti.t, of regtst.1-ation. if it is stated in Rule 8 that if a person Withclraws., the responclent - Atithority has to 1'eVftti1§Zt.tjhe entire registration fee, after deducting 1.0% of t.h_e;"'fegist-r_a'ila:-til _ fee. towards service ehargesi A person so re-g.iste1'e{l L1fld«§3l"'~. Section 8 has to apply in the fii"eselribecl'--oo>E'{ofm allotment of site along with trh_e eost".ot"*'E2% cost of the site and the said apgolicatioiill i.s'&to'V':be:'presented before the att'ihC}l'"i'ty within the dat.e'AAfi;§;Veel for the reason that such app1ieatiAot';3S"ate _-thefe_a_tt_et* taken up for serutiiiy. ,. it is stated that the authority has to e'c13s'titutoeV_a eallecl "Allotment Committee", consisting of..,i1'm?ee*offieial members and nonwoffieial V.""Amemhe5r's; (ihlaiieniail of the Authority would be the Al1ot:ment Committee and that subject to t1aAe._44approtral.« the Authority, the clecision oi' the allotment eom.ri1it:tee is final as envisaged under Rule 11(4). Rule l3 7"_speai_<s of the conditions of allotment; and sale of site, which it is extracted as t1}I1d€I'Iw "13. Conditions of allotment and sale of site:

The altotment of CE, site under these rules shatt be stttgfeet to {j§t€'_f€)t5€>{,t.>ift§j €ortdi.I.iorts:-- g %%l<* [{1} '1"l'2.e al.loi:'I.ee shall, aiiiliizi a period of sixty daysfrom the date qfreceipil Q/' notice ofalloi.men-i___ pay to the Ai1.il1orii.g, the balance siial dea'z..icl.ing the in.i.i:1'al deposit. if the balarioes';si'(a.l__j: » A' value is nol. paid within a period. Qf Sz'.)(.''v'.'.'':'_.-'1_':'di::~'I.:£{Ix.c;VV,k- ' the Auihoriizy may on applicaliozi' of extend the timefor paymeru::Jor;_-afLlfi;l1er.';5eiiofiil..__ A' not exceeding sixty days as a~--4A/lineal cl1Tafice:'a:ad°':

the alloliee shall pay Vil'l,:'C.lClgCli£f().I"1 viia.lezje5=_g ';:;--;*"'ihe rate of eighteen per cer1i_ol1~v lll1'e_V_Vsaicl' amoilrili for t,hej"irsi' thirty claAg,_rs'jqf .per'I'od and at the rate Q['1'LUe'TT.l,y4Ol71'€: ihiriy clays of e.icl.eifitlea'f' ll1e;aii'1oiini' is not paid '__.si1ol1 Loeriod also, lhe shall.l3e li'aE>l--e'V§iojo{[eil'iire and the v'allo.;frneVri:"'zganeellede lI5if.Il'i0i1.i' prior intimation. Seciiori 14,' whichispeaks of res'a'ic:t'ions, conditions on saieiof sites, is é3><l.;._é,_1_(;1;¢:d as followssw 1 éxﬁeétrictions, conditions on sales of A sifeii} J The alloiigee shall not alienate the site lJ:;ll'l'l'l.Z'Il the lease period. of ten years except lmolrigagirig the siiie in javour of Government' of H India or {he Slate Goverrm1enl' or any financial insliilmioris for ihe purpose of securing loan for me Consim.cl'ion of building.

{2} {f the stile is alienated iisi.l'l'iiri {he lease period exeeplgjer lhe purpose specified in subrale fl}, Elie a::i.liari2'_ig aflier a due aoliee la the lessee' shall z:?c:z,r'1eel the alloimenl; resimie the site and joyfeii, and amouni: paid by ihe lessee, {3} J\loi'zm'.i'I1si;a:2dir1g arzyimrig coniained rules if the lessee applies for reasons control or by reasons of ...his impeeuniosiiies to sell the :lLll"l,l'l Ville .1§t:.-ildiiig. Al conslrueied thereupon, the azulgliorily "u}ii'l*l*. l. the revious a roval o'",tlz':e_ Goverxmieni:'"eii:l:elf;4" S 39 PP J _ . _. V {a} require him to slmfendefllthel ;sife.,._&whefei1por1 no building is consii*i'Leliedl* a'iilhofi'iy after such surrender. . shall , flol i-ll'? €1ffl1e allotted value C:3]r'l".:'rf,f3:-.Silégi-,f'O_C§€f'll€f"'1lélll*l,"{J§l€.:lf£l.€f€Sl' ai the ratzegafl l2%"pe;f CU'?-l":c€.Lvfll-If_h:&;?_7"tl':l'£):I1S,. ' {lajlwlierevi:'liel:lbi;illdiag.__ eonsiriictiecl on ihe site so alloliied' the Auili;or'liy"'"..i:shall permit him to sell the building jarrwided the lessee pays to the aui"hor1'.ly an ..':a°r:1(gzini.._calculaled« 'at. 12% per annum on the allotted ' * --. eal:,ie«of'« site. "

Secillioxael' 15, whicth deals with volumary surrendea" is 6Xl;I°€zl3l,l'3£_i as follows» "15. Voluntary surrender.- An, alloiriee may at any time after allotment, surrender the sile allotted to him to the Authority. On such Surrencler the Ai.l.tl1oriiy shall refund all amoimis paid by the allofiee is the Autiliarity Q ire. respeei: of iilfze said size, ,»w_,s.»»»;

20. On 3: reading of the aiforesaid three SEECUOIISG it bectomes clear ihet the ziilotment. of sit:e is magte szibjeet: te {2€1'l.£1l£1 terms and eonciitions and that the allotitee Vwithin a period. of 60 days from the date of allotmertt; has balance sital value after dedtletiing the initial .«g:lepo,eit';:' balance sital Value is not paid \}l7ilhi1.1_El pe-rioCl"e;.lfVsi§{ty*days.l' the Authority may on applieatioiiaoi" "allo~tt:ee:,l the time for payment for a 1'L11'"l'_l'J'6~IT. period not e.Xeeedin..g--' sixty. ' days as a final. chance and theH_éﬁ-i.ot"t:ee shall «play, 1131 addition, interest at the rat.e of "eigl'it';eer1 :'per the said amount' for the first thirty dayset and at the rate of t.v.rer1i.y¢oTn7e_..V pxeélllx-.VVee¢1:fit:«.VV_Io1' the next" thirty days of the extended' "periodtl tl1el."'ar11ou11t is riot paid within such extended registration fee shall be liable to ';'o;~.:?é1:u;e and allotment cancelled without prior "io_tilm;iti.onv. ll l }\j't',er the payment: is made per Rule 13(1) of the Rules." the sale agreeme'r1t has to be executed in favour of h tithe a_1.lo"t't,ee and if the allottee fails to execute the 1ease--eume 2:greemem':: withirt 80 days after the authority has called

-"upon him io execute the said atgreemerit. the regisi'.rat'io11 fee paid by the alloi.f;:ee Imty be ferfett.ed arid 'the aéiaitmeriii of the site stands eanceiled and the 2-tmcitiitt. paid 13;? t,1."i.e aliottee is i'€".fLJ.1l(.'l€d by the A_t.:t.herii:'}; a.ft,er dedtzetitig St.I.{3h. expendttzgre as is incrur-red. The Atithoi-ity can also impose ac_Id__i1.1'0r1ai conditions in the iease~et1m~sa1e deed if it: thirxks Until 3 site is conveyed by the Authority, the site is held by the Authority for the. due ;a'ei9t"(>t'*htva.hee'_'ef terms and Condit;ions of the :'Ee2tse~te1m3}sa'}e"agreerfite1f1t entered into between the ttie'e.1_Io--tttee--f allottee has to comply with {,h't:?VVV'CQI1£i_'itiOl'.}.$ «--<)f_thevf?agreement exeettted by him with the...eor'poration as the case may be {torn ti.me+t'0~time allottee has to eonstrtict ej'b~ttiid3ing*Wtthin _'a specified period of time as stated "itaéthet »agi*eert1ent"'i..e., within five years or such extended ;$e:i,od-ets the Authority may in any specified case '~ ..erdei;«v;f§e'i?it1it'. If the building is not constructed five years or the extended period, the tease beV.detie:£:t1ii1ed and the allottee is evicted from the site by the A-dti1ori.ty and after forfeiting twelve and haiff percent of "it AA.the"fra1tie 01' the site paid by the allottee the Atith0i"ity' has te 'jrefumd the balartce to the allottee.

22;, Uiider Sf:{?'t'ii()1'.1. .£3{8), it is stated that on the expiry of 21. peried ef ten years {mm the date of the Ie2tse~et1.m--sa.ie if the e.t.§<;;t,z':'2e::t: has est been tiethtteétett er the _¢,,w"'?"-

lease has not been dete:'n:i.ined in atteorciatiute with the Rules or the terms of the e1g_;rc%e:nc%ni.. the mttihotity sh.a.1.1 by-..not:ie§3 call upon the allottee to get the sale deed of the si at his own eosi. within the time specified in sai.d"'n'oti_e'e."~t Under Section l3{10). it is si'.ated' 't~h;--3.E'. iii' '}_:af't,'i.e?tiléofs furnished by the applicant. in the for a1l_ot.inen.t of site are fOtl}'}d".1:.0 be"i.n_co1jree_'t' the sital value deposited shall be_..foi*ieit'ed andlthe site shall be resumed by the authoi*it,j/t.. _ V b .. _

23. Under Section' :14, V__it;is"'state'd.. that the allottee shalljnot adlidelnate ~sVi.iTe_Vvith'§n the lease period of ten years except--nio1'tgaging_i'the<site in favour of Government of Indi.a or the GoVernn1'en.t.'i' or any financial institution for the ptlijaosee of seetuivng loan for the construction of building. If is"o.lienated within the lease period except for the above, the Authority after a due notice to lessee,'I__sshaii Cancel t.he ailotment, resume the site and fo1;feitV"'V.i.he" amount paid by the lessee. Notwithstanding ";tny'thii1g contained in these Rules if the lessee applies for reasons beyond his control or by reasons of his insolveitey or .~~:iIE1p€CtlZ1i{)S'lti€S to set} the site or the site w.it.h the building eonsu:u.e;:t;ed ti"ie;reupo:1,, the ftut.hoz'ii,y wit,h the previous

--: 2"! :-

appreval of the Gevt" either require him to surrender the site, whereupon me buiiding is e0net.r*uet,eeL The ;%e';:€:he§ity after such surrender shall have to pay to the allotted value of the site together with the in'te}?e'stVatV:ti5;e . of 12% per annumg Apart from that,'~the einy ' time after alletment surrender the'.sit:e t3;if10tted_: te._i:.§ﬂ:t_t:tQ.tAv:t1§e Authority and on such surfemder, 'the'eAu%:hVt}z:i1tyVv'ﬁas to refund the amount paid by the. Qlottae in 'resp.eet_.'§of the said site. T _ é, __ _ _

24. T;l'1ere_f0re, reacii_rr.g bf 14 and 15 of the Rules,.. tfiattt is only on certain terms and e0n€iiti0ne';§;ég* thhe said Rules that there can be 3 eancelietztelzv of thVe._s'ite"..'ta11otted by the B.D.A. in respect of anﬁllettee of ti::e;je___e;1n be {:1 resumption of the site by the » :8-;D.A,v 'or'«1;hd_er certain situations, a person can voluntarily ~.ei§r1*efide.f'~a allotted to him by the Authority" Apart from these fgxrevisionsg there are no other contingencies which V nhaye Vvbeen envisaged uneer law, with regard to the '._eé1:};eeiiat1"or1 of sites, resumption of sites from the allettee

-'end eviction of an aliottee from the EDA. ané also veluntary surrender ef eitee. Thus, the eaneellatien er surrender can take place eithei" frem the aide of the B.D.A. er {mm the eide ef the aiiettee, /?*'

25. Fram the ma1'.eria1 on record anti on taking itlte e()nsidera1:.E0.11s ifihe t'1'2mF;a.eé;i(ms wlaieéz hzwe §§%§€{?§3 ;:=1.z-see respect of the site in questions, it becomes eE.eavrV Vt1i1é'ﬂ,':_ the eaneeiiation 01' the allotmeni'. of site made to E'6Sp'(')13{5{t3--I.]:.E':.:"§.O;'2 is not on 21eeaL1m: of any of the e0nting_er1,c;i_'esVVnien_tiaI1edx under the Rules or that. there1;.'.had; t;Veea '1 sajrrender on the part of the alEatte.'e .i'1":= favoxgﬁé. B.' by invoking Section 15 of Ehe' Rules' i1_a w'}iici£';:event only cancellation of an aEl0i)1n_e11t C aI1'i€?.f};s:€V ﬁace. Nadbubt, in the irisiané. case, it is before 111ai«:ii11;sj;1of'_:hVeV2igbse«1'uEe sale deed in favour of Res_p<::u:(i:er1t _:t'hat.Vfhefsiohelairxieni of cancellation has (:0n1e_ii*1:i1!i:Ve;§iste1iaee.,V_in. the year 1990 1.63., 7/5/1990, which i'::-_ p;'Qd9ue_eVd«..a*; Ani'ie§(u1'e the relevant portion oi} xvhiech ljeade uﬁdeftm V _v his Deed Qf Cfancellation made on the 7!"-

1 Q,5:'%fay 1990 between K.N.Kra'sIma ﬂ/Iurihy, 39:1: ASri.K.M.Naras1'ngha Rao, hereinafter called .. First Party. and the Bangalore Development V;/hztahority, represented by the Chairman herein.afEi'er caiied the second pariy wziness as jbliawsh Whereas the Site 360.818, IV B'loc:k, Karamangala fjxtensian, n1(>:*ejizilg deezrribed in the schedule had been allotted. by {he second }:}€:§'i§; z'.s':';'?:z::az.s.r Q55" E%eze_,?%'.rs;§. pa:':g:; :.§4r'ade:' {fie {?z°.£g,:' Q5' 3,.-

,w'"'f'x Bangalore improvement. (Allotment ofsittes} Rules? 1972, and tease cum sale Agreement .30/I/1988, had been entered into bet:'tt:eel:2'_¢'t!ieif' parties and registered as docttrnent. No,9;?§5 No.1 in Voiume 2175 pages to I in the volume 2.175 pages 1555 {oi AA of the si.tb~registr*ar. T. Bangaiona. Sotttﬁj .TT(1:Ltk!,:'. . Bangatore.

Now on ..req.itVes.itA first party the second party hasoattotitegi _.on.AA_':ait§?rnate site bearing I 8. i;iV"B'ie§I«:,"Korarnanaala Extension to H s}2a:;'i§.;=q.'}'mé;hfﬁa_ ;. Etta';-tity, S/o in the view of the .»stte.h,_ ajl£otifries'1t'."'--ih*e 'burn sale Agreement :7__CiCLI;ed:t ..a'i9ove entered into between the schedule site is hereby _ caneelled... _ "'Jfhe terms first party and second party .Vi':i'ti.T'll"L(7t€::~.EI'_'7;<3t'I" heirs, assigns etc., and successor in pectiuely.

In witnesses whereof the parties has aﬂixed their hands on the day month and year first" above written.

SCHEDULE Site No.8] 8, IV Btoek, Korarnangala Ext:er1.5z'.oiL 3% Eﬁozttrtdartes on: East by: Site No.8} 9 Wes! by: Sire No.81 :7 North by: Road _' _' Souih by: BI)/A1 properly _._ A'

26. The reason for CE111C6ll'c1l,l0E'i of*'i,;1efsbai*d 'si1e__ isx stated in Para.3 of the said ClOC'L1l}"1(311lC.-.-,Vill1lCl"i' state'sl"til_1__at;von account of ihe allotment o£f.al£er11aliLi.Vve"site N_o.818_{ 1:11 Block, Koramangala, to i.e.., respondent No.2 he1'ei£i1. 'is cancelled.

From the said ooe11n1epi'.'l'3ylii\\jjb is that Site No.8l8 is the"Veifylsi1,e:iwhijc.*l;i: to respondeni No.2 by virtue 29/1 /1988. It is un- undersltaf1dalo'le,lll: l:'&{ll.€I'l'lELl,lV€ site" bearing identieal site ..-~sii.uai:eC1 at Very same location that is 4'?!LBloelgVfioiezzmaiigala, could allotted to respon<:1er}.t f;lherefore';--the site allotted was being surrendered, ' wll*1iVel1''v.is"f1'otVie*--.other than the very same site which was 'a11d::ted i:{;9i'j;?«¥sponden_t. No.2 by order dated 29/1/1988. E<'1/::":tl1.eviit_ rio altemative site can be allotted, unless the 2 lA:}I;igl.'.'flEtl allotment is cancelled. it is also necessary to note two days prior to 7'/5/1990, on 5/5/1990 the Very V mlsame site No.8.i8 is alloitecfi to respondent No.3 and the said alloi.memi. letter dated 5/5/1990 though speaks of sixiy days ijime period 'Lo p21'v the 'oalzmce ('.()§}SiCl€?i'£i':.lC}}"}. and ilhereafter.

" 2?

& to obtain the lease--eu1'n~sale deed. no such p1'oeex:iure has been. followed purs1,1a.m. the so~ealled a.lloéme.;i,i:. :11.ade"i_n izlrie ease of resporiclent No.3 as on 5/ 5/ 1990. Al1"e.r.__'ii3.e allotment is made in favour of 1*espoz'1deni: No.3gfLwo days later ie, on 7/ 5/ 1.990 the lease'éeLi'1*:1=sa'l.e deeld«_i1as*eon;e into existence and eight" days t.he1;eal'iei:, i.e.;' Q11" E :3! possession certificate has bee.1i"'~i.ssued V1:olRes_polI--idef1t; No.3.ll When the lease-eu1":1--s,a.le dee.d"'is.. period of ten years, as envisaged 5/ 1990, that is, ihe i"l€?§l.::'L?:§Cly is issued, eor1ditior1a.l~saleValleaedly made in favour of1*esponde1iii'._No.3..V 'Ui'ii:le__r the Rules, there is no concept of c:ond1tiorial % sale' €3eed"-..___v0'hleh can be executed by the Bangalore Authority, strangely the CITB . &{Al3o'im'ent'l*of Siieslllllléiiles, .1972 has been .invoker:l whereas, e1at.ed 5/5/1990 made to respondent No.3 is 'l984: Rules of the Bangalore Development Aui.ho'rilIy. No iime--frame as emrisaged with regard to payinenil of balance sale eoiisideraiion or with .regarc:l to l%ease~eim1«sale deed. the conditions regardiiig puttirig up eonsi.:mei.i.o.r1l have been followed witli regard to allotments of siite in i'avoL1z* of Respondem. No.3 and witliiii ten clays from i:l'ie claie of aiioi.t1"1eiii., a eo11<'lii'.io:1al. sale deed has been %% issued, Ii. under these. eireumss1am::es, that the ea11(:t3}.1ai,f.0n order dated 10! 7/200?' was gjzzassezd by me B.D.A. taking 1,111.0 consideration the manner in w1'ﬁeh the (:leeu.menis have come 11110 €XiS?'.Ei}"}C€. When t,}.1e..sI£;e'I"Ee;8'iV8 stood allotted to respondem. No.2, the same e:u;1]djV'e::eie been the subject. manner of a}}oi:r1j¢e'f1Mt."a::ad ';saEe« "resg)Oﬁ*dei'1t. No.3. Under the eireun':sta:;1ees. "resporidelim 2 }.'V,»_.'BD2'~\, Cancelled the deed made i1V1'-.if§";'i*'<.:r€_)b1,11" 'Ne.3 eanee113.i:1'0n deed dated SuBs'e--quent}.y, BDA executed a'i3ss0iui'.e E§2';1i€"€'i(:"¢:Ci" iii';/8/2007 in i"avou.r of respondent No' afte:'I§;D'.§\; ;te1'ﬁi'fr:.,g te aeonelusion that the so (tailed de'c;i:_--'n1efit;s _a1_'-3 said to have been exeeuied by in' fgﬁrdu-rV4'e.f'."re.sp011dent No.3 are fraudulent. concocted Coiftrﬁiy the Rules of allotment.

27. Nevertilaeiess. learned Counsel for petitioner has ?vehemen..E;1y% iee.ht.ended that B.D.A. cannot unilateraﬁy ea2f;ee1_.2L}3_of;1ier1t: of a site which has been made in favour of Athe ;3..e!';i{1011er' vendor and that the only the manner in which ';1.,_(:eer1ee11aii.0rz of 2-1 sale deed. dated 16/ 5/ 1990 could have __been done @3318 by app:'oei-zehing the eonapetent Court so as to obtain a reiief of deC§a1'ai':i011 under i,h.e p1"()ViSiOI1S of the Specific Reiief A::*;.. Ii. is necéeeeary to <>F:>s5;erve that £3:-2z'2.:3:2;<:ii:>:'2sé; '%'3s=:é,%.x;tée?:'3 §7::":*é:aﬁ;.%;% §}2,a:'§..§z:'::5; Eifﬁf <;::§%i;e d.§.§}e,:"e2'2%, ikrem % 313 the nature of the i:r3..r1sacrt.ic>ns made by the piannirzg aL:i:h01'it.ies in 1'es;)e(:E. ef the (:it..i2:e:'1s in Coniiexiﬁof an aﬂotment of 21 site. As between private persons, e9;11»£:e.I_iE1fL°1v0r1 0i.'a.11y iiistrumeni. which is void or voidable. caii getting the same adﬁldged, s0,.<l3jy~-filing; Vi eompeiient. Court of law, by i1iv"okiiﬁ g"

Specific Relief Act. Under Seeiipri oi" it is-' provided that an instijirnent"be"pe1I'ti.s1iy.vearieeiieci also. Relying on the Counsel for the peiiiioxiex" has ii-iri§*n'v"1'1,I'iiy' decisions to eonterid 1/1..'X"iiI:'El,1". C'1":a1"I"3V¢; cancel a sale deed macie i'ri"'i;;iAxEoi.u:j said decisions shall be adverte(1_1;C)._ T V .28. ii': :Binny Mill Labour Welfare House Ceieéfiéféttive Society Limited --vs.-

Aradhya (2008-KCCR-3-1692). it is the owner of a property sells or conveys the pro;ae::e;:§;2 io the purchaser under a written document and the same registered, {he right and the title to the said }pr0pe2'ty is transferred from the owner to the purchaser en reggisimtien ef the said dO(',tEi'T1€1'1L and afi',e1* registration. ihe evaner of the p:*epe.rty ceases to have emy intezresi. arid all his §'§§_§§'Z§'.E:1. ef ééze g>:"€>g.se:°'E.;: geés s::><;i§:2gi,2isi":e{i, if SE:l'é.E{.'.§E 2:: §3ez;§§}:'2 Eff' to eXee'L1.te one xriore. sale deed mad get it 3:eg;ist;ered in respect of the said prepertzyt the said sale deed no va1L1e-=._i_n the eye of law, as on the date of second sale deed, he is.iio.'E"e_1€ger the owner of the pyoperty. Similarly , if after e;-<ettuvt,id'r1e-dddf regist:ra,tie1'1 ef the sale deed, the 0wr1er<wauf1t,s the V property, it has to be done by ca1.i13eei:.1_:dt'i'en on any one of the g1*0u11d Vvhiéeh areevaiéabdie t'e_h11--im 'imder. ' the provisions of the Ihdian execute a deed of cancellatioh"hecatzsedies"bfi: date of execution and 1"egist:"a'tie_r;-QHE 0%" the said perseh has no rig_h.1:.

ﬁdplhinciples to the present case, it is eentei*1d_'ed.Vth3t',l'tthe could not have executed the ca;:i«gé11a1_.:on '"c1eec1_____gn 10/7/2007. What requires to be .A the fact that accordlng to B.D.A., the deed of H ~.eanee11a;t;ivo_:1';;.'between it and the second respondent on 775/ the subsequent letter of aliotment: and lease A.cu_'r11wsaie deed and conditional} sale deed issued to the "'._V:'es'f)or1de11t, N03 were all fraud'uie'r1t documents and ":£11thOL1gh the deed of ce.r1ce1.1ation. was registered, the same was 93. void insi.r"ts.ment. and 1"urt.he1: it was met. aet.ed upon by the E%.,E')A. in as much as .s:.tbsequent.1y. £1 valid sale deed 'i='i72iE% i;'-::x;e<:*:.'§t.e{§. by :,h.e: §3.E.',}..5%;.,, :12: {;'.e--.reu:' sf" :es§'}e":'1de§ﬁ: E'*-12:32 €}.I:'.§ 5?:

W 20/8/200?'. T1r1erefore, when the e2mee1.1ati<)r1 deed elated 7/5/1990 and the eubsequer11. deeu.menE'.s which haVe.._e0me into existence in favour of the pe'{itiener's vendor as illegal documents and net acted upon by--'i;He was not even necessary for the B.'}Z').'A..& i:0 u <:anee11at.i0n deed on 10/7/2OO'F\';,,4Heﬁ3Vevef;'--einee documents had come into ex-.1Si:e}1ee .1"1:Vt£:he_ f1e.n'ie 'e;i1}3:.D.A.','V V the cancellation deedA_.c.1ated executed.

It is necessary to note   had executed
as. deed of 1 reependem on
7/5/ 1990:.    a sale deed on
20/"    not have arisen at all.

".f'here;0.=fe," the' decision is not applicable to the f23.et'.s 'p.riese'nt eese.

. 151 the of G.D.Subramaniam -vs.-- The Sub-

: bﬁice of Konur Sub~Registrar, Sidco Nagar, C-hengu-.«:.V%'Aﬁd Others [2009 (1) ctc 7091, :2, has been held n that.' wrii. petition ehalienging the reg1's1.rati0r1 of " "ez1_1:ie.e112zieie:3 et" eaie deed wit,houi. obtaining consent 0;' the Signature Of 51 pL1reha.se.r: is maimzainabie end. that the 3:egis£e::i.I1g 0E'i'iee:" obliged legaiiy to reject and to :'efuee to reg§iei,e'17 21 deed <31" eamee1Iatic:sn of a Sale L1niEat.e;'a§.}.y eXeeu':,ed wii.%:z<i::.:'£. ééze ';<;:':{;§1?»s§e{.§g;§e% zzmei e:':.{ms,ee;':E'. ea? siz'fa.Ir":.e1" §}a:"t'.%e,e {,0 éghe saie deed and without eemplying wzith Section 32%': of the R€3ff.iS1.I"£"-tU()El Act. But the deed of <:a.nee.iiai:i0r1 executed by mutual consent. by 2131 parties to theWS':~:1--1e'V-d._¢tti_,_"if _preser1ted for registmtion, the Registering Offie.ei'~'_is"~h0:._;'1"1d_teu V V register the same provicted other} req.L1ii'e.njeiit_s Section 324% of the Regist'ratie_if1 Aet.'h_ats'* been»eem'r;1.iedT;xxrit.i1.:i" ;

31. In the said :d'(;?CI'SiIf):i1, stinso. stated that there is no specific provision for eaneelleitiortei'fs51].e in the Transfer 4Lf'"15f v §ii"e.V_i_eie1'1s of the inéiari ef Qrepertiy gs-'-353:. fa11C}i=_' Contract mad in the context of rmvatgion, a1terat.ior; of contract and that there eta} be no_eatieeli'ati0r1" of a sale deed by 21 party to the contract.

aforementioned two decisions are rendered in Contfext o.i_'vt'r21I1tsacti.011s between private persons and not inithe eeiiatext of a1].0tmei1t'. of sites by a p1am1.i.r1g authority to citizzens under specific rules enaetied for that purpose. 33» The general Iaw with regard to Cancellation of iZ1SU"LH"I1€3l"lL'5 whicth have been €I1L'tI1(Zi€itCCi in the decisions relied tipen by the pe:titiet>iier do net': apply te eetiieeiiatieri to be metezite under the EQ84 Rules referred to etiprei, ttrhitigiizxtre been adve,z"t.e,:i to in detaii. As aiieady eE'ated, eaiieeliatioii, ;'esumpt'.io11 or volt1ni'ary' su1'rer1.cier of sites is oniy iI1VtZ.€'31>"{31S of and under the CiI'Ct1I'£1Sl21I1C€S emmeiateci. in the s2{id'"i~3ti1.es-..

34. In this Context, it is relevant. to 1*eie;:9._to of this Court: in the case of C.Sure§h Bab.u"4va:.% Eimgaioré". Development Authority ..:' '<1;_.u'1 W.P.No. 1 61 74/201 0 disposedof ori A17'/9 /ztivgilqi -111 _ti§_:e said: = case, one Smt.11'1drar1i, had tzieeii _al_lotted._la site by letter dated. :4/-iigies? e_.o,A,"a.;ie"s;;p.ce the sea. was unable to giveVpossessi_o1':.,V w'a~s'Vall_ot'ted another site bea1'i:Vtig art-.al'teV1fn_atiVe site under a registered sale deed dated "<'1'he petitioner had purchased the said. site deedlvoi' conveyance dated 5/4/2006. it the "a»1iegatio'i51""of the petitioner that the B.D.A. by dated 10/ 6/ 2005 addressed to Smt.Ind1"a1'1i, llciaideellved allotment of altemative site and the same was ealledifi question in the said writ petition. While adverting 'Peale 1 LA of the Act, dealing Wii.h aliotrneiit, of altemative leite, this court. held that the B.D.A. had committed a mistake in allotting an alteniaiive site. That it was the matter of negligemtte and mistake made by the offitteie of the B.D.At and l".i'"i£--l§,. the allottee was not bla2i'iewo:fti.iy and the E3.{)._A' 3 8 instead of taking action ag21i1'1si, the officers i"::>r i§'1'€gL1.1EiI' allotment. had cancelled the allotment. which was aiflisitisry. '1' hat the B.E).A. unable to support its action gyrovisions of the Act and Rules to cancel 'l.hr:5:

alternative sites and also the .<s'a.i~e.'deed,'"'c~lI%leneef_ the cancellation of the sale deed by (:ance1:i.z_1t.ion eieed..t11l1ileieré;ily was without jtiriscliction, andyﬁas a nuliii.y_aVmVd and V that the cancellation of the Adeuejddceztiid only by recourse to Section 31 'left Act and since the tien deed same was net felloweyi""bf,{'the..B_.E).i9.. csmee was d€C]E1Iff3ffl'~.VOiil:ll * it""1s'=._:ieees.s.é;:*y to observe that the facts and circ'umsta11c:esin"the'."afo1'ementio11ed decision are quite di>S"§:,l1lCl.Ir1"OI"HV.'ﬂlt§f$E1C[.:3 in the present case. it is also to be A "if_vi"raud'u£ent. documents between the B.D.A. and ..tfes;ejo*iicleI1i'; had not come into existence, then there wk:-uld..__'notfhave been any occasion for the B.D.A. to issue .AC:'_E11'l{T€V§i;1.'Ell.iO'I7l deed dated "E0/7/2007. The said cance11a.tiozr1 deed is only 21 forrmal requirement which has been complied Jlwith so as to proclaim the {act that the docur1'ient.s which came iillﬁ} eXist:ence between the l3.D.A. and 'respor3der1t No.3 are fi*st1d'uIent. and heiicte vitiat.ec§ befere maki.ng em absolute *3 §«::

deed in f3.\J€'.}'L1I" of respondent. N042' As has aireztdy been stated' £3..D.A. does lieu»-'e the power of eaneeEing;§ an a1'§1'{4:tn1:%11t; if the terms and eor1ditions of allotment are "by an aliottee by passing an order of cancellation"b_ei'ore..rimking ' an absolute sale deed in f2:woLuj"oAf"an&a1&1otteeL'<_1t 'is' not. necessary for the B.D.A. to approetsh Civt1_-(.3ot.:rt:' decree of eanceliation of 2t11o.t:z"I*:e»nt. On' of the present: case also as the docVL:n'1-ants uinefavoufe-f Respondent: No.3 had come into existeneet__if1}_a £i*atJ'dVu1ent. way. with the eelhzsien ef t.he_e:'{§_£?ia%:s'Vef' d0€:u;1'1e1'1€.s have been d1.sreg.at~r£'e<5ij:ugts t'.hjey!hg1ve..";;ovalidtty In the eye of law. As conhseogtzeneet 'allotment: of site made to Respondent "sale deed was executed in his favomj.

petitioner in fact Could have sought:

the absolute sale deed made by the 13.D.A. in favourof the second respondent dated 20/8/2007 by filing a " SLtit''~«_beI'ore the competent Cit-*1} Court on the strength of the doeumems he had but the same has not been done and instead; 8. deeiaration has been sought. in this writ petitio:1 that the abselute sale deed dated 20/8/'ZOO7 made in {even}: of Respendent N«s.2 is 13.111} and void, The said prayer is therefore considered in the bac1«:drop of the enqtrizy proréeedings which have taken place pL1i'Su'c1.11t. to t:}"{e.»orcte1' passed by this Court; in the earlier writ. petttior;..fiEed--bythe petiiti 0116!'.

becomes clear that cancellation 'of a.-1*;,a]]ot..merit o'f:'stt:e:iVt';)y 37'. On an anatysis of the alI.o'tme.r:1't»b V1'?tt11es..t_ it". EDA. prior to execution ot'.»an__ absolute sa1e"deed_ ts_§t,1nCie.1f; various circumstances which have been 'adxfe:"ted}t.o. There is no power or attt11ot'tit3}'«-it"; pass a eaI1(:e1ia'ti.or1 order when once the absoiut:e._szt1e"deedf§s*"executed. If the said terms of the Rules, then the qt£€SUzO'11'i.S,'E18VtdVA:iVh€ih€,f:'V.'DY1 the facts of the present case ca11ce1latto.rr that',._\-Vast' roade after the alleged absolute sale dee§d 'VWBS issttedotitn fatour of the third respondent is just and ' orogvettt }I':t'f'e'}'_(;1',, having "regard to the facts of the present case. analysed in the aforesaid paragraphs, pe1_rtiC11Vl23tQ1*1§{. 'taking itato consideration that even before the allegedrteed of Caneettation was regist1ered betweezt the ht nF3,D.AV.V"'and resportdent No.2, 21 letter of aftotmentz of the very sarrie site has been i.SSU.€.d in tavou.r of respondent. No.3'; and __tvit.horrt. eomp1yir1g with the Rates ;3er'tat.I1ir1g to the payment of balance sate etmside1'at,ic)t1, a §€'E*tS€-(ftt.t}1~S&11€ deed gwas Q?

23 W '*3 ,L executed within {X-1-'() dz-1y..s_. i'.he1*eafte1* on '?/5/ 1990 and possession c:er1:i.fEe.ai.e was issued on 15/5/' 1990 E},1'lCiV.'¢'.ZT'§j[.}'iO1l'£ the term of conditional 1ease~eun1»sa1e ag.1'ee.m'erit.."L"being expired for 21 period of ten years, 2-1 c:ondii',ion--:ii" salted is":

executed on 16/5] £990 and t.her'ea££er, eerti:£ieé.=1.edV ' had been issued in favoiir of 1-espo'i1de:§§i."1§?o.3.on,25/ would iead to the irresisLi_hie.. eene!t1.s.io_n,th'a,t'"=the: said' allotment of site Iiiade in 0fVLres.po:1den'Atf%No.3 was totally in violation of in a hurried and i'rauciuier:at :E'i"i' of the deed of eanee1iai.iQI3. No.2 is under ::'._{)£ij;l.'twfI'O111 being contrary to the Aiiotrndéflf "R_u1ee,_"' cancellation of allotment on *7/51] 990"4ﬁ1a:ideeVih mgr of Respondent No.2 by the BDA it - 'a.1'ee:'it?--by registereddinstrument has no validity in the eye of = dvtheifsefore apparent that only with the eormivanee dofdthev.ofiirtiels of the B.D.A. with respondent No.3, the doeu'rne'fnt.s in favour of Respondent: No.3 have come into ".eXis?;er1ee. it is only on aeeount of CC:HL1Si0I"l., that Vdjeaneeiiattion deed dated 7/5/1990 has been executed by E'».D.A. it is also necessary to observe that since the ea§:2ee1_121t.ie.r1 deed between EDA and Respondent No.2 had no veiEidii.y in the eye at law. 9:13}. ether da:3euments execruted in ex 2:

fa voor of Respcmdent No.3 are also illegal. The validity o1'the cancellation deed dated 10 / 7 / 2007 vis~a~«vis Resp':3;'1dent No.33 is the only argurnent raised by the petitioner 'eo'ntend that there can be no nnilaterai e2inee11ati.on ofthe.odio't};oei'1t"'» made by the B.D.A. As already 'bed' Ltnélateral <::an(:eI.1at.ion of the £14110-ikgieht :'i3}_;. provided it is done before absolute so;}.e 1e._dVeed"'..eXeou't,ed in V favour of an aiiottee _1'_n tern1s..of..t;he Rules.?1I1Cifconditions and circurnstanoes stéite'd..ther?ei11.indeed, the so Called doenntents. wne}: te-d;fir'1 re':'31;:e<":t of site No.8i.8, in favour of 1je..<§;)ong1dent~.Nof.'§5- vedidity in the eye of law, in tnat _would not have executed an abso1u.te"s'_a1e dee'¢iA-t';1g1t,eVde.._2C_h/ 8/ 200'? in favour of respondent, No.2 ptdfrstiantddd totA.a'n.:_"..'ear1ier order of ailotznent dated 314,-:1/1.990 ntadein. favour of Respondent No.2. If the said d'<;s:t1rn'Cnts. which dddd "have come in to existence in the ' _int.erre_gneu':n"were indeed valid then. respondent No.2 had no ._ri:§_{1:t Vtto:"'a.n zjbaéolute sale deed. Therefore by iesuing a sale deed ,tE'x}oL11* of Respondent No.2 by the B.D.A. on 20/8/2:907' it would imply that B.D.A. has not executed any .oI;"'the dO('.LI§'IT}€1'}[S which have come into exieterftctegin the "vg:»:::'-izsn between 5/5; 2990 and 25/5/1990. ~§\\'

38. It is alse rxeeessary to refer 'L0 Azznexure "'R--2"., w1f1i(:h is 1'e1at'ing 1.0 the gareeeeditlgs w'i.1:h 1'e=;;arcig'-L0 the afietmem of sites in Various layouts of Development Authority in response to the n0*;i_I'icat.i§3§:heiathedex 29/12/1986 and 9/1,' 3 987 (:aIIing;"fe~1-. .;;pp11c:g1[i_::;é;;s, "A.I1;st'v9:"" 47 allottees is annexed ts the seecand respondents name S"1'.N0.2_7V~a1*1=cl""the'° t111'1'CiV' respondenfs name dges notV_..a_V'{.A'~aII<.ﬁgure" said list.

infact, as against, t}'1~ee'.seeLo1'é.d:V f*es"pph--dent's name, the appiieatiori mm1--heI*, Ije§5"is't,=.T}ai.i(3';:1&'ii'u:111ibe:;"anti the nu1'11ber of attempts he also establishes the feet tE1_AéLAt'TvLi,'espLimC£e1V.1't~«is a genuine applicant. as well as an e.1}_o{'tee.' V .

39. "II; View of the sequence of events which have Eal<er1:,."'p1a'ee in thi's"ease, it is necessary to hold that the :V(;&QIu}Vi:{%;fi"iiV(51'iVirffifiﬁ iearned counsel for petﬂioner on Point No. 1 is__with0v.t' sLibst.a11ee.

V40." As far as Point, No.2 is eorleemed, rega1"di'11g *Vef;i_;1]'(§i'£Vy' of the enquiry has been challenged, if is necessary to ebserve that %.he enqu.i13-' was heid pLIf'S{i{:1IﬁL 1-D the direeiiorl 'givez: by this Ceurt in the eariier writ peéiiien filed by the §§(?§.i'§§{EE3;€é'E', {:E';a:E§s;?3.':;§'§h;s.§ {he ss:2::e €32-3:E":iftE§§£§_§.§{}E"i s:.':e,e<§ deﬁes? R s @-

351 10}?/200?, The proeeecirings of the eilqtiiry is })I"0dtiC€d at Annexure 'RA '1" W'i1et'eir:. the statemems made the pet.itio11er, resp0I1derats 2 and 3 11ave been rec:or:1eLi;."L"--VCir1 a eonsidelatiion of the said statements, issued ciated 1 1 / 2/ 2010 wi1ereir1.;'i't»has he'idxVt.h_at theu' canceﬂation deed (fated 10/7/2(i)O7::'_i:S"h1 law and ii: is also stated ti1atf"~t,11ere"'isV r1o_a.l1.0tnﬁe'nt"bf site' made by the B.D.A. tathe t1V1i.t¢t»:"i:A'resp.9Andeﬁ't'.--_Sinee the said enquiry has been 1'1ve"1gt' .the_Vdirectien of this Ceurt, it eamf:';:'t hat} no authority :(5i5t.hat it had to only appraaeh _fQ-;mg;et.ting a deciaration. by a.

competeht: Under the circumstances, the C011'.-,eI1ti0n"" iearhed counsel for petitioner that the evnqtuiw 1330* Vivﬁmthaccordance with law cannot also be , '*';»:Ieh.ce, Point No.2 is also answered against the §;etit.i0ner;' ' ' The Apex Ceurt. has time and again has " 5b.se1*Ved that no person can rely upon frauduielrtt i:i'ai1sa{:t'i011s which are newest. in the eye of law for seeking "any relief before a Cetxri, of law: since tkaud affects the 5e1e'11:::"iit'.y; reg_§'ai;1;°'it.y and <>1'der§i§1ess of t1E1i1"1§_§s; be be dame in %» thereby, Cause harrii moi'. (31133; to the Aiiiho'r"ii.y bui; also to the pubiie at". iaijge, It is hoped {hat the legs} and vigiian_e_e cells of the B.D.A. would wake up to SL1€'.h i.r"ansaetio'3*is'*v:iiL1d"'riip then in the bud so as to save ;oerso'r'1s iike the--j:$'etiiio1";--eii' gif;d*. ihe respondeiii. No.2 {mm Eegak iSSi;1€SE1i1=f1 haifassrrxieniw. End this case the pei.iiii.oner is a vietiiriilsf 'iji*a1nsa'C:t'.io;i I1ié£dé::'by him in respect of the site wIiii_eE1..xhas been .E1'§§:(ii1.1iE3::'1:'iL;O.?U3lO3{,h€31". L' genuine aliottee and not to respoilckijii. N03 his vendor, who is not at ali an aH0ttee"*oi';' em,-_ siie not an appiieant in the first p£s.ce.. eircumsi.'s_rie'es, while dismissing the writ pei.ii.io-iigili,is.,o'bseIfi}ed i;He"ﬁaetitiioi1er is at liberty to seek any 's;j;_).propria:e'iteiie£' as against respondent No.8. 44, Aeeordifigiy,'ihe"u?i*it petition is dismissed. Parties to host their own eosts.

2,/1'3.V".After tidiemdismissal of the writ petition, learned :Veoi,insei--«._ford p-3i_1~i.ioner has fiied an application seeking stay of the o1"c1e.r:p.assed by this Court; today and akso for exteiision of t:1i£=.Vi_nt.e:'in1 order gmgiiied on 31/ 3/ 2010. it is to be noted when once the writ petition is disrnissed, ihere can be $10 exiension of iiiierim order as the same would. merge with the final}: osdeix Siiiee the Writ petition is dismissed, the 3 i:1ter'i.m order ctazzzaot: be axiendcsci in {his Case. 'fhere{0:'€ the application fer 55£.ay of the order is rejecicci. H. "F. é.

"'m.vs

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court