Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Marginal land in Bangalore Development Authority vs Sri A M Gopala Reddy on 15 November, 2024Matching Fragments
2.2 The Engineering Department of the BDA passed a demolition order dated 14.11.1997 purporting to invoke Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 r/w Section 33(2) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, directing demolition of the alleged unauthorised construction said to have been put up by the respondent in the additional / marginal adjacent land by describing the same as site No.146/A, I 'R' Block, NC: 2024:KHC:47769 Rajajinagar, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'subject marginal land'). The respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction and other reliefs in O.S.No.8211/1997 against the BDA before the civil court which passed an order of temporary injunction against the BDA restraining demolition of the subject marginal land. During the pendency of the said suit, the respondent filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC seeking withdrawal of the said O.S.No.8211/1997 with liberty to file a fresh suit on the ground that the BDA had given him an assurance that they would regularize the subject marginal land in favour of the petitioner. The said application was allowed by the XVI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, vide final order dated 22.03.2002 disposing of the said suit by reserving / granting liberty in favour of the respondent to file a fresh suit.
4. Heard learned counsel for the review petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
5. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the review petitioners submits that the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.13053/2020 and W.P.No.26719/2013 contain errors apparent on the face of the record warranting interference in the present review petitions. It is submitted that the subject marginal land was an independent site and not a marginal land and could not have been allotted in favour of the respondent in contravention of Rule 5 of the BDA (Disposal of Corner Sites etc.,) Rules, 1984, and the BDA had already issued an Endorsement in this regard on 28.05.2003. It was submitted that the subject marginal land was to be sold only by way of public auction and not by way of allotment in favour of the respondent who had illegally encroached upon the same and was not entitled to claim any right over the subject marginal land. It was also submitted that the respondent was guilty of playing fraud in collusion with the BDA officials for the purpose of seeking allotment of the subject marginal
3. In this regard, the petitioner is stated to have made an application seeking allotment of the said marginal land on 20.07.2000. The petitioner contends that despite the
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:47769 application, no steps were taken by the respondent and as such, the petitioner made one more representation on 22.10.2005. Since the same also did not evoke any response, one more application was made on 21.07.2007. The said application was processed by the respondent and an order was passed on 22.07.2009 allotting the said marginal land and an endorsement dated 02.09.2009 was issued, which is at Annexure-E to the petition. Since the price imposed on the said land amounts to a sum of Rs.64,77,058/-, the petitioner is aggrieved by the fixation of the price for the marginal land and is therefore before this Court.
6. In this regard, the petitioner contends that similarly placed persons were allotted lands in the neighbourhood have been allotted the marginal land in the year 2001 at a cost which was fixed at Rs.4,000/- per sq. mt. It is the case of the petitioner that the allottees of the said sites No.1767 and 1768 were favoured with the allotment in the year 1999 and their allotment for grant of the marginal land obviously is after 1999 and before 2001, when the order was made in their favour. It is therefore contended that when the petitioner had made her application for grant of the marginal land on 20.07.2000, it was incumbent on the part of the respondent-BDA to process the said application in accordance with law and if the said application had been processed at that stage, the allotment of the marginal land to the petitioner also would have been in and around the year 2001 and the petitioner would have been entitled to get the marginal land at the same rate as the adjacent owners have got the lands. The fact that the petitioner had made an application on 20.07.2000 is not in dispute. The respondent- BDA however contend that the petitioner had thereafter not