I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22"" DAY OF SEPTEMBER. 2010
BEFORE
THE I-ION' BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM _
WRIT PETITION N0.1'7036 OF 20.10. .{EDA--,¥.f . 3
BETWEEN O V
NE}a:N'A EDUCATION SOCIETY.
{A SOCIETY REGIS'rERE.D UND'ER
SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT} ..
NO.98-A, KHB COLONY, KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE. ' ' , V
REREY ITS SECRETARY , _
SRl.JAMEELA.I*IMED,-"" * 1 PETITIONER
{BY SR1. j; . 1'
AND:
BANGALORE DEvF:1;O.I§N-TENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE.
REIj.B¥,ITS COMMISSIONER. RESPONDENT
O' 1' {ESE SRIE.:'éDVO:L.,IAGADEESH, ADV)
_ A EETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 8: 227
OF"'FI'1E'(.:'()3§§'S"I'I'I'UTIOl\¥ OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPLICENED CANCELLATION LETTER DTD. 19.4.2010
AT ANN PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT: AND ETC.
THIS w.1_D COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
'~_IN-- ~"B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
EOLLOWING;
52%..
'J
ORDER
The petitioner, a Society registered under the
Societies Registration Act, 1980 with the object of
providing education from Primary through to Secoiidary
school, registered for allotment of a civic ame~n–ityi.sii’te,,in
the respondent — Bangalore Develop_m.e_n.t_v
under the Bangalore Development:._Aitt.hor:i4ty’—-.:[AliE’atnien’t
of Civic Amenity Sites)..»i’i?,iiles0,V”._i989.
allotting a site, found it to l0§e.l’;oc_eupieéliinaiilthorisediy
by a certain ShE1nthiI%iV%1]L{‘et;k_’%la[?¥V .l33k:§uc’attional and Welfare
‘1″rust,, v.–:hich”V’s«§{§urC.C}%2i.–.riirectiozn for regularisation by
order it 21 V’..Divisio’f_p; Bench of this Court in
The petitioner was compelled to
‘ ;iileVVJrP.N«o:.’E}1_l/1997 whence a learned Single Judge by
7.7.2000 Annexure–“A” recording the
stai.~eri*ient4’ of the learned counsel for the BDA that an
alternate site would be ailoiited to the petitioner,
‘disposed of the petition.
2. Thereafterwards. C.A.Site No.4 at HSR Layout,
Sector~Vi was allotted to the petitioner a.s an ali:e’r§1_ate
allotment. by letter dated 20.09.2001 _
followed by execution of a C.A. site lease’:agreement”= 2
dated 7.5.2002 Annexure–“C” azjid
Possession Certificate dated-.._V2′?.(lC~.,2OO2
where under the petitioner of the
site on lease for a . ‘
3. It is the al1egationfoi’V’th:e that by letter
dated to M/s. Rao
is said to have perinitted
constructiorz / camp for the purpose of
co»njs’tru.ct.ion”‘ofdconirnercial complex. According to the
petitiolne1’,.:”–..pursuant to that letter M/ s. Rao
shut to use the CA Site No.4 allotted to the
petitio’§ier’uzhereby the petitioner was unable to put up
‘L;on_stru.(:tion of a building. It is further asserted that by
dated 12.11.2002 Annexurew”I?”‘ {though no
131?
\
4
acknowledgement is forthcoming}, informed the BDA
over the unauthorised use of the Vacant CA siteVC,
Hosur, Sarjapur Road Layout, Secf;or~VI _
Constructions. It is the allegation of t11e”_tl;atf*
the em. by notice dated 8};o.2Aoa9l’—-A1u.fie»;m§’eg”e?_~A;
proposed to cancel the allotment llbreaeih ‘.Qf..vterrr1s lof-.l:”
condition in not ereeting time
stipulated. The by a written
explanation dated interaiia
asserting had put
up dumped construction
materials and having vacated the
preniises are-ceI1tly’lby which time the petitioner
‘l V’ obtalinied xsar1ctio1i’of a building plan, has taken steps
tddig in the site. By yet another letter dated
}\nnexurew”J”, the petitioner reiterated the
stateinerits made earlier informing the EDA about the
the site by M/s. Rao Constructions. The
Wrespondent — BDA having considered the ex’plar1a_tion
offered, held that the construction of the commercial
Complex was Complete and the complex was ope:’n«e_ol.vin
the year 2004 and despite passage
therefrorn. the petitioner failed t.o~p1_1t up.eo4fIst.riiC€,i_on
a building, being in breacli”gof:__t”he :’t–er:ns
conditions of allotment,
AnneXure~”K”, caricellecl t:f1.fa’*’al’Ipoti’1′;..g;.1/it. flHt’3£3_C€§ this writ
petition.
4. leounsel for the
petitioneirffl “‘*pl_e:f-_1di.:ngs and examined the
ordeifiimptignedrhunldoiihtediy, the terms of the lease M
Cummsale, »– petitioner to put. up the
Co:rist1″uCtion’ the ibuilding within two years from the
. date _of_ –registra.tion of the lease agreement, which
not complied with by the petitioner.
H Aeeepting the case of the petitioner that M/s.
2 xRao Construction Company had put. to use the CA site
for labour shed and camp, to complete the
iii
construction of the commercial complex in the adjoining
site, nevertheless the construction havingdupbeen
completed and the Commercial complex the _
year 2004», there can be 110%justifioai:i–o1<19dfoi'-'–_ the"
petitioner not to put up eoI1st1"L1Ct:ion–r'within"'i,v§fo:"5<'eaiijs
thereafter, that is at least Tile niei'e._'staVterned:1t.V: '
of the petitioner that M/s.p_IEleio:_ConstruetionJbompany
having occupied the
letter Annexi1re–?_fl*" premises till
recently, dtlhemelbsenee of relevant
legal evidence of the
said In ,.~t:he breach of the terms and
oor1Vd1_ti0ns"~ .Vle.a_s'e_ Véglgreernent in not erecting the
wxithinfl 'tWo'years from the date of registration,
"or_ in viiihe ~l4ea._S't. two years after the commercial complex
the year 2004, no exception can be taken
to th.eV__eotion of the respondent –~ BDA in issuing the
'show cause notice, followed by the order impugned
.. ,_._-eanoelling the allotment.
I/:>’€g’\
7
Writ petition being without merit, is accordingly
rejected.
Sd/- V’
