Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This is yet another instance where a citizen is constrained to approach this Court due to malfeasance and misfeasance on the part of the officers of the Bangalore Development Authority.

2. The petitioners herein were allotted site Nos.1524, 1525 and 1526 in Arkavathi Layout, 7th Block, way back in the year 2006. Thereafter, due to various reasons, the size of the Arkavathi Layout shrunk and the layout was re- done, because of which the sites allotted in favour of the NC: 2024:KHC:6884 petitioners herein no longer exist. Hence, the petitioners have been constrained to file this writ petitions.

2. Sri.Deepak Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the BDA would have well allotted sites within Arkavathy layout instead of auctioning the sites to third parties and as such, he submits that respondent-BDA should explore that possibility before allotting sites to the petitioners in 'Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout'.

NC: 2024:KHC:6884

3. It is not in dispute that there are several issues pertaining to the allottees of sites in the Arkavathy layout. This Court in W.P.No51929/2014 has also directed at paragraph 91(xviii) at page No.743-744 to consider the aspects relating to allotment of sites to the allottees who have lost their sites on account of re-doing of the layout or the scheme. The said paragraph is extracted hereunder for easy reference:

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC:6884 BDA shall be at liberty to auction any site including the corner sites in Arkavathy Layout.

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

In view of disposal of the appeal, the pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of."

5. As it has become the norm in the conduct of cases by the BDA in recent days, Sri G.S.Kannur, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the BDA, submits that they are not sure whether any sites will be left in Arkavathi Layout after allotting the sites in favour of the land losers and they may or may not be in a position to allot any sites in favour of the petitioners herein in Arkavathi Layout because of there being no sites available after allotment done to the land losers.

7. There is no doubt that the petitioners are entitled to the allotment of three sites in Arkavathi Layout. However, their case cannot be prioritized ahead of the case of the land losers and if no sites are available after allotment of sites in favour of the land losers in Arkavathi Layout, then in that event, passing an order against the BDA to allot sites to the petitioners in Arkavathi Layout would be futile and under the circumstances, it would be appropriate to pass an order accepting the undertaking given by the learned Senior counsel for the BDA.