IN THE HIGH coum OF KARNATAKA AT 8AN6A'f.'ORE
DATED THIS THE 24"' DAY OF _
BEFor2§W _ 3
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE Mom
WRIT PETITION NkJ;24e752 2009
BETWEEN:
E. Thirtha Prasad . V V
S/0 late Eregovscia
Aged 38 yea_r.s*.._ '_' 3.
R/a No.'?6._(£'-?;" c;;r"o;,s. A ' _
BasaVesh'wara'j*--Léiydvut _ V
2""St1age, 'v5i}3)':%D3££ELr"w '-
..Petit1'0ner
{By Sgt; Ra,gm~. _PVr~V::-'xi:-:sa2r:E* Adv. ,)
AND : V 2
13;': 'x~'3'_nge1VI__2(2i1'fV-*.V I)€\'€l'Up.F1}.€?I1t AL1{.h01"i'i.y
.Ku'n1ai'2I.'{1'i1p_a1. T. Chowcfaiah Road
' _B2:1r1ga.IO1~"e.' «.R"ep_by its Corzlmissioiler. ..Respondent
H Ku}na1~, Adv.,}
ifhié' 'W111 Petition is flied =.,:nde1* Articles 226 8: 227 of
the CQ;}i31.i1L1ti0n of India praying to quash the endorsement
2 V. by the resporlcient on 1.7.2009 Vida Annexm*ewQ.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing
this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER
The respondent-BDA formed
1975 in Kengeri Sateiiite Tom1′;” «Sri it
who was the applicant, was’.Vis-sijed “ieasev«ci;,rh~:sa]e
agreement and p0ssessionilioertifieate’
respect of site No.1€»’ZO/ situated
in Kengeri Bangalore
City. sale deed was
executed’ 1′, ‘off:.S’uhitaiIi:ai1yaehar by BDA. On
3. :ni3ub«r:an.1_aoy’aChar sold the site in favour
of DEA. The said
DA.Chahdraprabhakar in turn sold the site in favour of
Kumari Roopa and Smt.Rathna on
petitioner purchased the site from the
eai’*]ier:owhers on 29.3.2006.
L”
l
In the meanwhile, the State Government declared
the land, wherein the petitioners property isyiiocated,
Sy.No. 191/2 as Slum Area in the
the petitioner filed an application to
allotment of an alternative site iriihisllifavoui’
deprived of his sital area ‘in_’vi.ew of” the deeVlar._a”iio.n”of the
area as slum. Such an_.ap_pl–iCation Wasifi.1ed by the
petitioner on 8.5.2C50l'”/_7;’ ll’Siineellilteheyihapplication of the
petitioner petitioner filed
WP.No. Court, which came to be
dis13:oseVd”l:oJfl a direction to the
the Case of the petitioner in
e1Cc0_rdane’e _vvith’– law.””‘Thereaft.er the impugned order is
1’eUjeCting””‘the prayer of the petitioner on the
groun’di_’tiiat.t_E1e petitioner is a subsequent purchaser.
submitted on behalf of the petitioner that
x the persons who are similarly placed, whose sites were
‘ declared as slum area, are allotted alternative sites;
1%’?
ii
1;’
-4-
that even the subsequent purchasers were allotted
alternative by the BDA. He relies uporl the
documents which Clearly reveal that
subsequent purchasers, viz., N.Anil___u_’Kunj’a1j aimi
B.K.Sril<anth and Srnt. R(:):'Opa–.lLl::.€l.'Cf
alternative sites in lieu of the s'i.tes 1ost»"t'hen1 sliurrir.
area. .
Learned eounse.l_&_ap_pelarir–ngon behalf of the EDA
vehemently opposed the
orderwis bad in the eye of law.
inasrnueh as differentiate between the
o1’igir1a.i~V..La1lott’ee””aiid””–tlie purchaser. The petitioner
purchaser” yvilbste-p “into the shoes of the original
Eve1l’ase«Limi11g that the original allottee is in
:vp.n_5sevs’;;io«n'”at the time of declaration of the area as
original allottee would have definitely got the
alter11atiVe, ‘site. Such an a1ter11ative site Could have
_ 5 –
been sold to the third party. There is no prohibition
under any of the Rules that the subsequent pijrchaser
is not entitled to alternative site. In view_;of’
the BDA is not justified in rejecting
by the petitioner, praying for_ .oI’—aiitle-rnattive
site. As a matter of fact, .as.._cou1Vd,_b’e S€€;f1’lfiTQIIlV the
sheet contained by the l{lnnexu1*e~K. it
is clear that even identified for the
purpose of allotment The Secretary
has which clearly
be allotted alternative
202×40′, EV Phase,
J.P.Nagar’ V_E3Xt.e’11si’on’,’l. as per its resolution dated
A 3l’e!..:7,5.2OO’7, Thlereahfter the BDA has taken ‘U’ turn and
rejectexzlht of the petitioner. The impugned order
is~._11ot>onllyllillegal, but it is arbitrary. The BDA should
is notlhave forced the petitioner to approach the Court
it ‘~_rep’eatiedly.
_(fi,
In View of the same. the impugned ordefedated
1.7.2009. at Annexurewg is liable to be :.%.1}d
accordingly same is quashed. The
directed to allot an altern§;ttive,.lclAsit4ee»
dimension to the petitiioi1e_r iri”._;;11iy of”i’t’s,layQ§utl
expeditiously as possible, ‘o11’i«1,l;’11ot tlianl} the outer
limit of four month§ff_ro’in of receipt of this
order. H .
sd/-
‘JUDGE