Karnataka High Court
Sri Alex Pereira vs The Bangalore Development Authority on 14 December, 2020
Author: S R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.12542/2020 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
Sri. Alex Pereira,
S/o Sri.Joe Pereira,
Aged about 39 years,
Residing at No.1, 3rd floor,
Chartered Gruha Apartments,
Araye Road, R.T.Nagar,
Sindhi Colony,
Pulakeshi Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 042. ... Petitioner
(By Sri. Vasanth Kumar H.T., Advocate)
AND:
1. The Bangalore Development Authority,
T.Chowdaiah Road,
Kumarapark East,
Bengaluru - 560 020.
Represented by its Commissioner.
2. The Deputy Secretary - IV,
Bengaluru Development Authority,
T.Chowdaiah Road,
Kumarapark East,
Bengaluru - 560 020.
-2-
3. The Addl. District Registrar,
Office of the Sub - Registrar,
B.D.A. (HO) K.P. West,
Bengaluru - 560 020.
4. Sri.M.Krishnappa,
S/o late Mariyappa,
Aged about 55 years,
R/at No.C/o Muniyappa (R.M.S.),
P & T Allal Sandra,
G.K.V.K. Post,
Bengaluru - 560 065. ...Respondents
(By Sri.C.Ramakrishna, Advocate for R1 and R2)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned
cancellation letter vide Annexure - N, vide document No.BDA-
1-00559-2009-10, CD No.BDAD149 dated 09.06.2009 issued
by the R2 and etc.,
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-
"a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ/order or directions quashing the impugned cancellation letter vide Annexure-N, vide Document No.BDA-1-00559-2009-10, CD No.BDAD149, dated 09.06.2009 issued by the respondent No.2.-3-
b) 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.
2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the documents produced by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the material on record indicates that it is an undisputed fact that the subject site bearing No.3AC 203, situated at 3rd A cross, Old Madras Road, Banasawadi, measuring 6 X 9 meters was allotted in favour of respondent No.4. Pursuant thereto, the BDA executed a registered sale deed and possession certificate dated 07.07.2005 in favour of respondent No.4 in respect of the subject site. Subsequently, the respondent No.4 having sold the subject site in favour of one C.H.Hanumegowda on 21.07.2005, who in turn sold it in favour of Hasham Yousuf Sait on 08.08.2005, from whom the -4- petitioner purchased the subject site vide Sale deed dated 14.07.2006. Pursuant thereto, the BBMP has issued khata certificate and khata extract dated 07.06.2016 in favour of the petitioner. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the BDA executed the impugned illegal cancellation deed at Annexure-N dated 09.06.2009 purporting to cancel the allotment made in favour of respondent No.4 and as such, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following decisions;
(i) Smt.B.K.Parvathamma vs. Bangalore Development Authority - 1998(4) Kar.L.J.57;
(ii) The Bangalore Development Authority rep. by its Commissioner vs. Smt.Sumitradevi - ILR 2004 KAR 1386;
(iii) Binny Mill Labour Welfare House Building Co- operative Society Limited vs. D.r.Mruthyunjaya Aradhya - ILR 2008 KAR 2245;
-5-
(iv) S.Venkoji Rao vs. The Bangalore Development Authority Rep. by its Commissioner - ILR 2011 KAR 408;
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-BDA submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. The material on record indicates that it is not in dispute that the BDA executed an unilateral cancellation deed dated 09.06.2009 purporting to cancel the sale deed executed in favour of respondent No.4, who is the predecessor - in-title of the petitioner. The question with regard to entitlement or competency of the BDA to execute an unilateral cancellation deed is no longer res integra in the light of the aforesaid decisions including the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri.Manjunath Shetty vs. Bangalore Development Authority - ILR 2018 KAR 2803, where, under identical circumstances, it was held as under:-
"10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the points that arise for consideration in the present writ petition are:-6-
(i) "Whether the BDA can cancel the sale deed of the vendor of the petitioner unilaterally without notice to the vendor of the present petitioner and purchaser-
petitioner?
(ii) Whether the jurisdictional Additional District Registrar has the authority to cancel the registration of any document unilaterally after it was registered, under the provisions of Registration Act and Rules?"
28. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the issues raised in the present writ petition have to be held in "Negative" holding that the BDA has no authority to cancel registration unilaterally without following the principles of natural justice to both the vendor and the present petitioner and the jurisdictional Additional District Registrar has no jurisdiction to cancel the registration of the sale deed dated 25.06.2013 unilaterally without the consent of the second respondent in whose favour the BDA registered the document and he is not the competent authority to cancel the same in view of the provisions of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the Civil court is the only competent and exclusive authority to cancel the sale deeds on obtaining the proof of fraud played by the vendor/second respondent".
6. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, I am of the considered opinion that the cancellation deed dated -7- 09.06.2009 executed by the BDA purporting to cancel the allotment in favour of respondent No.4 is illegal, vitiated, null, void, non-est, invalid and unenforceable in law and the same deserve to be quashed.
7. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Petition is allowed.
(ii) The cancellation deed at Annexure-N dated 09.06.2009 executed by the BDA is hereby quashed.
(iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the BDA to take appropriate action / steps in accordance with law including Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act.
Sd/-
JUDGE ssb