Karnataka High Court
Sri Motaiah vs The Commissioner 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.14303 OF 2020 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MOTAIAH
S/O KUNDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
R/AT NO.729/C
10TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN ROAD
M.C.LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 040 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H. C. SUNDARESH, ADV.)
AND:
THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 020 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAMANJANEYA GOWDA, ADV.)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE CANCELLATION
ORDER BEARING NO.BDA/Uka-3/GB-1/129/2008-09, DATED
ST
11.07.2008 ISSUED BY THE 1 RESPONDENT ANNEXURE-B AND
ETC.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
2
ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
"a) Issue a writ in the nature certiorari to set aside the cancellation order bearing No.BDA/Uka-3/GB-
1/129/2008-09, dated 11.07.2008 issued by the 1st Respondent ANNEXURE-B.
b) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent to consider the representation filed by the petitioner dated:20.12.2010 and 19.08.2018 as per ANNEXURE-F AND G respectively, to accept the balance sital value with 21% interest from the date of allotment as per the circular issued by the respondent dated: 18.10.2007 and 18.11.2010 as per ANNEXURE-D & E respectively and also as per the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.27954/2014 dated 21.10.2014 and W.P.No.13658/2015 dated 07.04.2016 as per ANNEXURE-H AND J.
c) Pass such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit on the fact and 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 3 No.129, measuring 20 x 30, situated at Gnanabharathi Layout, Valagerahalli, Block-2, Bengaluru under SC category, in favour of petitioner 10.04.2000. The petitioner belongs to SC/ST category. He could not deposit the balance sital value within the stipulated time as allotment letter was not communicated to him. The petitioner is an illiterate and has no knowledge of the paper publication which the respondent-BDA made before passing the cancellation order. The respondent without any notice to the petitioner has passed the cancellation order dated 11.07.2008 vide Annexure-B purporting to cancel the site allotted in favour of the petitioner.
Learned counsel submits that despite representations dated 20.12.2010 and 19.08.2018 submitted by the petitioner to the respondent, 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 4 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 at Annexure-B dated 11.07.2008 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 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), 5 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 clearly committed an error in passing the impugned order dated 11.07.2008 at Annexure-B cancelling the allotment in favour of the petitioner and consequently, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
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) 6 and W.P.No.5150/2019 dated 21.10.2019 (Manjunath R. Vs. BDA).
ii. The impugned cancellation order at Annexure-B dated 11.07.2008 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 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.