ORDER
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Petitioners’ prayer is for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Bangalore Development Authority to reconvey in their favour revenue sites purchased by them pursuant to the applications filed by them as per Annexures-A, N, W and AM after complying with the formalities and if, those very sites cannot be reconveyed, it may be directed that respondents may allot to the petitioners any other alternative sites of any dimensions in its layout at the same rate for which the other sites were reconveyed to others. It has also been prayed by the petitioners that respondent-authority be directed to pay each petitioner as compensation and damage a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, for unreasonable delay caused, for not reconveying and allotting the sites, within reasonable time as authority allotted other revenue sites in Sy. No. 5 of Saneguruvanahalli, and to grant such further relief.
2. The petitioner’s case has been that petitioner 1, by the registered sale deed dated 28-11-1969, purchased a vacant site No. 20 in Sy. No. 7 of Saneguruvanahalli, Yeshawanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, as mentioned in Paragraph 2 of the petition. According to the petitioners’ case, said Sy. No. 7, was acquired by the City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore and an award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Thereafter, the respondent-authority formed the sites under the reconveyance scheme and the Revenue Officer of the B.D.A., on behalf of the authority issued letter No. RD-HC-PR 24/76-77, addressed to the Secretary of the Adarsha Welfare Association (Regd.) informing and promising that the respondent-authority has decided to reconvey revenue sites formed in Sy. Nos. 6 and 7 of Saneguruvanahalli Village to the respective purchasers of sites and further directed the revenue site
owners to deposit the sital value at the rate mentioned in the said letter. According to the petitioner’s case, the 1st petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1,460/-, towards the sital value and also furnished to the authority the original sale deed, index of the land etc. Petitioner’s case is that thereafter, they made several representations to the respondent -authority with the request for reconveyance of their sites. Thereafter, on 21-7-1984, respondent-authority called upon first petitioner to produce all documents and also directed the 1st petitioner, on the appointed date, to show to the surveyor the location of his site. Petitioner’s case is that petitioner complied the requirements of Annexure-H and submitted to the respondent-authority an affidavit dated 25-4-1996, duly sworn in. Thereafter, inspite of several requests being made, there was no response from the authority. The petitioner 1, issued legal notice on 15-4-1997, but there was no response, so petitioner 1, filed this petition. Similar is the case of petitioners 2, 3 and 4. According to them, petitioner 2, had purchased the site under registered sale deed dated 18-3-1970, while Petitioners 3 and 4, had also purchased the sites vide registered sale deeds dated 18-3-1970 and 17-9-1969. These petitioners 2, 3 and 4, have also alleged that they had deposited the reconveyance charges and had furnished the receipts thereof. Petitioners’ case is that inspite of complying with the necessary formalities and requirements, authority has not paid any heed to their applications for reconveyance and almost more than 20 years have passed. So, the need for this petition had arisen. The petitioners have alleged in the petitions that they have not been given any compensation till this date inspite of the acquisition of the sites and they have also not claimed for refund of the reconveyance charges. The petitioners’ cases have been that there has been undue cause of delay in the matter of reconveyance or allotment of the sites, the petitioners claim rights of the reconveyance on the basis of Section 38-C of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976.
3. Petitioners’ Counsel submitted that under Section 38-C, the authorities have been authorised to make the reconveyance. Learned Counsel contended that it may be called reconveyance or allotment, but the authority can make the allotment. He submitted that, as long delay has been there, so, the petitioners have claimed the compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-, for each petitioner on account of the damage that has been caused on account of the inaction of the respondent-authority.
4. On behalf of the respondent, it has been contended that land had been acquired, compensation had been awarded. Whether they have taken compensation or not is a different matter. Learned Counsel contended that Section 38-C had been introduced in the Bangalore Development Authority Act only by Karnataka Act No. 17 of 1994. Learned Counsel for the respondent contended, no doubt it may be said that Act has been given retrospective effect, but prior to this amendment being introduced, it has been held by this Court vide Single Judge’s decision as well as the Division Bench decision that there had been no power of reconveyance vested in the authorities and therefore, even if, a promise be made, that would not operate as promissory estoppel, because neither the City Improvement Trust Board nor the Bangalore Development
Authority or the B.D.A. had any power vested in it to reconvey the plots, so learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that there being no power vested in the authority to reconvey, it cannot be said that authorities acted illegally in not making reconveyance, learned Counsel contended that even promissory estoppel could not apply, and that this Section 38-C has been introduced for the first time after 31st of March, 1994. Learned Counsel for the respondent contended that this Section 38-C only provides for allotment of such sites by way of sale or lease in favour of such persons subject to the conditions referred in the Section, even if it does not use the word reconveyance subject to the conditions mentioned in that section. The learned Counsel for the respondent contended that this Court may direct the petitioner that if, petitioners are found legally entitled by the authority, looking to the facts and circumstances, then the authorities may consider their applications. Learned Counsel contended that since 1969, circumstances would have changed, may the sites have been allotted to somebody else. So, this matter may be left to the authorities and they might be directed to consider their applications in the light of rules and dispose of the applications according to law. But, no compensation can be claimed by the petitioners, because no blame can be put either on City Improvement Trust Board or on B.D.A., for not passing an order of reconveyance of those sites. When Section 38-C, had not been introduced, authorities had no power to reconvey under the law or under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, so, the B.D.A. is not to be blamed for inaction or for not granting any 9rder of reconveyance. So, respondent’s Counsel contended that the relief of compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-, to each petitioner is frivolous and based on misconception of law, this relief should be rejected.
5. I have applied my mind to the contentions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.
6. In the case of Sri B.N. Sathyanarayana Rao v State ofKarnataka, Sri K. Swami, J., as he then was, was pleased to hold that there had been no provision in the B.D.A, Act or in the rules framed thereunder which could be said to have enabled the B.D.A. to reconvey the sites. Learned Judge further opined that reconveyance was opposed to the scheme itself. The scheme has been formed for the purpose of forming sites and allotting them as per rules. The rules do not provide for reconveyance. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that petitioners could seek reconveyance. Learned Judge further observed that it is also not possible to apply the rule of promissory estoppel, in cases, where there is no provision contained in the Act or the rules framed under the Act enabling the B.D.A. to reconvey the sites in the manner proposed to be done by notification-Annexure-B. The learned Judge observed:
“Therefore I am of the view that the B.D.A. cannot be directed to allot or reconvey a site to each of the petitioners on the ground that it had promised to allot or reconvey a site to each one of the petitioners”.
7. In the case of B. Venkataswamy Reddy v State of Karnataka, also, the learned Judge Hon’ble Bopanna, J, had expressed the same opinion after having examined the position of law.
8. These decisions were also followed with approval by the Division Benches in the year 1984. No doubt, Section 38-C had been introduced by Section 5 of amending Karnataka Act No. 17 of 1994. Thus Section 5 of the Amending Act reads as under:
5. Insertion of new Sections 38-B and 38-C. –After Section 38-A of the Principal Act, the following shall be deemed to have been inserted with effect from the twentieth day of December, 1975, namely:–
Section 38-B…..
Section 38-C. Power of authority to make allotment in certain cases.–Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law or any development scheme sanctioned under this Act, or City Improvement Trust Board Act, 1945 where the Authority or the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore, has already passed a resolution to reconvey in favour of any persons any site formed in the land which belonged to them or vested in or acquired by them for the purpose of any development scheme, and, on the ground that it is not practicable to include such site for the purpose of any development scheme, the Authority may allot such site by way of sale or lease in favour of such person subject to following conditions:
(a) the allottee shall be liable to pay charges as the authority may levy from time to time and
(b) the total extent of the site allotted under this section together with the land already held by the allottee shall not exceed the ceiling limit specified under Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 .
9. This section has for the first time been introduced after March 31st, 1994.
10. For the application of this section it has to be established and shown that City Improvement Trust Board or the B.D.A. had already passed a resolution, namely, had passed the resolution either prior to coming into force of the amending Act or afterwards to reconvey in favour of any person any site formed in the land which belong to them and the resolution to reconvey should have been one passed on the ground that it is not practicable to include such site for the purpose of the development scheme, therefore, the authorities Bangalore Development Authority or the Development Board have decided to reconvey. If this has taken either prior to 31st of March, 1994, thereafter, Section 38-C authorises the authority, that is, the Bangalore Development Authority to allot such sites i.e., the sites referred in earlier part, that is,
sites on the land belonging to the original owner of the sites prior to its acquisition by sale or lease in favour of such persons. Two things are essential to be established and to be looked into whether there has been any such resolution taking a decision to reconvey the sites to the owner formed on the land, which earlier belonged to the owner, and had vested in the authority and which it is not practicable to include in the development scheme, than to reconvey. If these two conditions are shown to exist, no doubt, the B.D.A. has been given power to allot such sites only by way of sale or lease in favour of such aforesaid persons. This section, no doubt has been given retrospective effect with the back date, that is, the date of enforcement of the Bangalore Development Authority ordinance, namely, December 20th, 1975, because the B.D.A. had come into existence under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 or the ordinance that was existing earlier.
11. Looking to the present case without expressing any opinion on the facts alleged or averred in the petition as regards the relief claimed for compensation, in my opinion, there had been much substance in the contention of Sri Vishnu D. Bhat.
12. That mere giving of retrospective effect to the Act will not entitle the petitioner to claim damages nor the B.D.A. can be blamed for not reconveying the site to the petitioner as, in fact, it did not earlier have the power either to reconvey the site. Learned Counsel for petitioner contended that even if, it did not have the power to reconvey, but, the authority had power to allot the site. It is to be noted that the petitioner had always been claiming reconveyance and not fresh allotment of the site, so, in my opinion and as such, there is no question of damages being awarded. I accept the contention of the respondent. The petitioner cannot be held to be entitled to relief 2 in the writ petition.
13. Writ petitions are allowed in part and a direction is issued to the Bangalore Development Authority to consider the petitioner’s case for allotment of such sites meaning sites formed on the land which belonged to the petitioners by way of sale or lease as provided under Section 38-C, if those necessary conditions of Section 38-C are shown to exist, namely, there is a resolution passed either by the City Improvement Trust or by B.D.A to reconvey the property on the ground specified in this section and if the site claimed is availabie and if petitioner is ready to pay the justified consideration or make payment thereof for the purchase and his site or sites on his land (Survey No.) has not been allotted to any 3rd person, namely, in any case 3rd person’s interest in respect thereof has not arisen or accrued during the period from the date of acquisition till before 31-3-1994. As regards the alternative relief that if the site in question is not available, petitioner may be allotted some other site. It will be open to the petitioner to apply for allotment of some other alternate site in accordance with the law and rules. It is always open to the authorities to consider that prayer as well for the alternative site provided the petitioner satisfied the necessary conditions. I may clarify that if petitioner is entitled to allotment of the site under Section 38-C, it will be open to the authority to consider the petitioner’s request or application for allotment of another i.e., alternative site, but there is no question of any damage being claimed or award to the petitioner, I have to clarify that if petitioner is not found entitled to either allotment of the site on his own land or for an allotment of the alternative site, it is open to the authorities to pass the suitable orders. So, everything has been left to the judicious discretion of the authority, but he has to consider the application and dispose it off in accordance with the law within a period of 6 months from the date of communication of this order.
14. These writ petitions are thus disposed of. The second relief is rejected. First reliefis only granted in the modified form.