4.» " 'ma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY or' SEPTEMBER-.\J:
TI-IE HONBLE MR.JUsT:cI«: RAM
WRIT PETITION No=s}'1_V163U0.-.32 o1?AA2:fs1o_(A1V_31?)A) f »
BETWEEN
1. M MYLARI s/O-SE1, K,
AGED ABOUT36 YEARS" A
2. SR1. A53;-:;C):< NAJQAYANASWALAY
AGE_1i3%_.vAE§D*LIT,24 YEARS V "
BOTHO.;A.RE'?R/ATNO. 83/ 1,
'=,BABUsAP'ALYA '
KALYAN .90 3'1'
BANGALORE-58.0043
A GP GOPAL VSM [RETDJ
' is-AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
_ R/A.T'NO.I123, 1ST BLOCK
A -- "STAGE
"3ANGALoRE~560020. PETITIONERS
{By M JAGANATH, ADV)
A .A Asxllj" .
'"1-.' THE COMMESSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST
BAN GALORE-560020
2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY
BAN GALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
lrk
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK
BANGALORE--56002O
_
[By Sri.: B V SHANKARANARAYANA RAD, ~ V
ADVFORR1&R2) H
THESE PETITIONS FILET.) l
227 or' Ti-IE CONSTTTIJTIQN INDIA' 'VVPRAYIENGA To
QUASH "II-IE IMPUGNED ORDER D-To 8A.g6;_;O9,PASSED BY
THE R1 VIDE ANNEX--W AND'-GRANT 'AN _lNTERIM ORDER
TO STAY THE OPERA'FION ".4Sr«?[§'e~..I$XECU"i'ION 09' THE
IMPUGNED oRDER"'--.v"1DI«:pp;NEX»Wn 'PASSED BY THE R}
DTD 8.6.09;AND ETC. _ " -
THESE'«.1§E'1*1'1¥10Ns'..'coiS);:NC.,_"gQNt FOR PRLHEARING
IN 'E' .GRoLij1?_..~_'rH1S _DA§1,ij; THE COURT MADE THE
Folgifxjxwxffigxfigz .,:,: 11%;': _
gralllpetitionfer was allotted site No.9GM-206 in
I__BlookLayout measuring 50' X 80' by letter dated
' the respondent -- Bangalore Development
for short BDA. On the representation of the
3″‘ petitioner stating that the property allotted was
v.:si1bject matter of litigation, the respondent — BDA, by
letter dated 13.09.1989 Annexure-“D” allotted Site
No.969 at Nagarabhavi I Stage (Sy.No.78) measuring 50′
X 80’, issued a Possession Certificate dated 17.07.1993
M
232
and executed a 1ease–cum–sa1e agreement of V eye_n’~»_date,
followed by the BDA executing an abso–ltiteA
dated 23.04.2002 Annexure–“_H’3 amve”yieg aaldee-,site..
for a valuable consideration. .’lThe7._’_saJid site —
matter of litigation, letter
dated 28/29.03.2006 .ai1ettedl§ alternative
site No.5M–681 -at OMBR Layout
followed L 13-_ei,pp *_-E1 dated 5.7.2006
cancelling”l:,Sit§»- ‘execution of an absolute
sale’ conveying the site at OMBR
Layout (Alvternativeiljsiéte). The allottee was put in
possession’ of the said site and issued with a possession
‘ ,0″*i:e1’tificate”An.nexure–“M”. Since the property fell within
.’ydt-11’eV.V of the BBMP, the property was
subjected to Corporation taxes. The 3rd petitioner
” it conveyed the site for a valuable consideration under the
sale deed dated 28.05.2007 AnneXure–“R” executed in
favour of the 1st and 2nd petitioners, jointly, who it is
M
said, obtained katha certificate, and sanction”‘—-_»of the
building plan.
2. ‘The respondent –__,.BI_3A, *::1e.tt’er’_’..Vda.ted
11.5.2009 Annexure–“U” addressed th,_e”3:fd
proposed to cancel thehtsitep on0″~th_eV .that the
allotment of the a1ternatep..sVite..Was in Violatifion of Rule
H–A (iii) of the BDA”(ix_iitot;n§%:ij.t Rules, 1984 [for
short ‘Ru1es_’}; The petitioiieigVvitesponded to the
coIr;tn0finieat_ion;’§V representation dated
16.05.2009 indicating that he had no
subsisting fright, and interest in the property
A p:i:i’s%ia.n’t..&to itsvtmsale to the Petitioners 1 and 2. The
BDA, by communication dated 8.6.2009
cancelled the ailotment. Hence the
V _ petition.
3. Petition is opposed by filing Statement of
objections dated ‘nil’ on 24.08.2010 of the respondent –
BDA interaiia contending that after a detailed enquiry
bk
-5-
and investigation into the validity
alternative site allotments, so as to as.ce_u1ftai1Ai.l.:th__e
as to whether the allotments were fjviri-,,o.wl’lthl’—-.
Rule 1 LA of the Rules,-.___it ‘ found’
petitioner had obtained site in
an older layout,’ express embargo
contained in.Rule
4. Ri._ileA “1l_;-A l’iii)€ the §Rnies’,”‘re ads thus:–
of alternative site;
is unable to hand over
site allotted under these
,rules'” allottee, due to stay orders of
Courtflsh or for any other reason, the
. may allot an alternative site to
V allottee, subject to the following
yoonlditions. —
L (i) X x x
(ii) X X X
(iii) Alternative sites shall not be allotted
in layouts formed prior to the layout in
which sites were originally allotted, even
in sites are physically available in the
M
_6..
layout/s formed prior to the layout.–in
which original allotment was made.” .._’ _
5. From a perusal of the aforesaid
be no dispute that the authority e’o1.1_lcl
an alternative a site in a lay
in which the site was allot-fled. instant
case. as noticed’ sites No.9GlV£–206
situated at HV.R.B.R’.V:_ ailotted and
thereafter}t.vt”d;iie tot» “noniavailability, the B.D.A.
allotted’ 4′ . Nagarabhavi I Stage and
thereaftetflsttelt1\io}51v1~1?381 at OMBR Layout.
. ‘Itis not the case of the respondent — B.D.A.
._ ‘_a..l}ottee had misrepresented or that he was
primal:ril’y”‘”‘responsible for the action of the B.D.A. in
* zillottiiig the alternate site. On the contrary as
“‘~-Vaniniated from the show cause notice, as well as the
‘order impugned, it is the B.D.A., which committed the
error/ mistake in ailotting the alternative site at OMBR
bk
,.7_
Layout. It is a matter of negligence and misfeasance at
the hands of the officers of the B.D.A.
the allottee is not blameworthy. The
taking action against the officers. responls’ibleV”for’lthe it
irregular allotments, have .5i’l1–i.s
action cannot but be ch’araetenaed._V’ and
perverse, calling for interfereiice. ” ” – .. A
7. Though 1rj;*”t1’ie:”irnpugnedcornmunication it is
_-into all the allotments of
alternative ein«l i’i’la:id from 29/9/2003 revealed
violation V of “Rules, nevertheless, no material is
from either the show cause notice or in the
i’ sjtaterrieiit ‘objection filed by the B.D.A.
‘~ It is needless to state that the B.D.A. having
.Ve:l{ecuted the absolute sale deed conveying the site in
question in favour of the petitioner, is unable to support
its action either under the provisions of the Bangalore
Development Authority Act, 1976 or the Rules framed
lrk
-8-
thereunder, to cancel the allotment of alternativesite as
well as the sale deed. The cancellation of
it is elsewhere said amongst leads to civil..eon_sequene_esv_
and hence, unsustainable.
7. The cancellationlofethe sale:deed.:Vh§?._eane’ellation
deed unilaterally by thAe….Vfespo1_1dent’ being
Without jurisdiction” invested either
under the Rules framed
the;*eundier}V_is nullity and is non~est.
8;’ .the.res_u’lt::,”.~’i’the petition is allowed. The show
(_:a§i1se’notiee” “c1e.i._ed’ 18.5.09 Annexure — U and the order
‘ ;.V’dated_2-O09 Annexure-“W” are quashed.
Sd/-
ludge
“Ks.