{"id":38409,"date":"2000-01-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-01-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-bangalore-vs-s-vasudeva-and-ors-on-18-january-2000"},"modified":"2016-12-19T03:57:30","modified_gmt":"2016-12-18T22:27:30","slug":"commissioner-bangalore-vs-s-vasudeva-and-ors-on-18-january-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-bangalore-vs-s-vasudeva-and-ors-on-18-january-2000","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Bangalore … vs S. Vasudeva And Ors on 18 January, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Commissioner Bangalore … vs S. Vasudeva And Ors on 18 January, 2000<\/div>\n
Bench: B.N. Kirpal, M.B. Shah<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  456-458 of 2000\n\nPETITIONER:\nCOMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\n\nRESPONDENT:\nS. VASUDEVA AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 18\/01\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nB.N. KIRPAL & M.B. SHAH\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
2000 (1) SCR 275<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<\/p>\n
KIRPAL, J. Civil Appeal Nos, 456-458 of 2000 (arising out of Special Leave
\nPetitions Nos. 19742-44\/1999)<\/p>\n
Special leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
Aggrieved by allotment of land to 34 persons by the Bangalore Development
\nAuthority (hereinafter referred to as the “BDA”), respondent No. 1 filed a
\nwrit petition in the Karnataka High Court challenging not. only the said
\nallotment but also some of the transfers of land which had been effected by
\nsome of the said allottees. These 34 respondents were stated to be ex-
\nLegislators, ex-Ministers, etc. who were members of the Legis-lators
\nHousing Co-operative Society Ltd. (for short “the respondent-Society”). In
\nthe writ petition, it was averred that out of turn allotment had been given
\nto these 34 persons and in violation of the Rules some of them had
\ntransferred the land and, therefore, that land should be resumed by the
\nGovernment.\n<\/p>\n
The aforesaid writ petition was filed in the High Court by an Advo-cate who
\nstated that he had no personal interest in the matter but was aggrieved by
\nthe breach of the rule of law stated to have been committed by the
\nGovernment of Karnataka and the BDA. The appellant (BDA) herein as well as
\nthe State of Karnataka represented before the High Court that the
\nallotments had been made in accordance with the provisions of the Bangalore
\nDevelopment Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and
\nthe Rules framed thereunder. It was stated that the respondent-Society had
\nbeen registered in the year 1981 and bulk allotment had been made to the
\nSociety which, in turn, allotted plots of land to its members, The details
\nwith regard to allotment of land by the BDA to the said Society are as
\nunder :\n<\/p>\n
Authority Resolution No. & Date\tGovernment Order No.  & date\tNo of sites
\napproved for allotment\tName of the Layout<\/p>\n
272\/2.4.81\tHUD 225 MNX 81 Dt. 10\/14.7.81\t.100\tFurther Extn, of
\nMattadahalli
\n139\/17.7.86\tHUD 339 MNX 86 Dt. 24.10.86\t56\tKoramangala, 4th
\n‘B’ Block
\n251\/23.10.86\tHUD 339 MNX 86 Dt. 30.1.87\t99\tKoramangala,
\nGangenahalli, & Sarakki
\n587\/3.7.87\tHUD 339 MNX 86 Dt. 30.9.87\t100\tRajmahal Vilas
\n(Lottergollahalli)
\n379\/16.1.87\tHUD 347 MNX 88 Dt. 14.12.88\t249\tRajmahal Vilas II
\nStage (Bhoopasandra) and Hosur Sarjapur Road<\/p>\n
Total                                           604<\/span><\/p>\n
It was also contended by the respondents that the writ petition should be
\ndismissed on the ground of laches, inasmuch as allotment of land had taken
\nplace between 1981 and 1987 whereas the writ petition itself was filed in
\n1996. It was also contended that third party interest had arisen and it
\nwould be unfair and unjust that allotment of land should be cancelled
\nespecially when some, if not most, of the allottees had already spent
\nconsiderable amount of money and raised construction on the plots so
\nallotted. Defend-ing the allotment made to the respondent- Society, the BDA
\nrelied upon the provisions of Section 38-B which was introduced in the Act
\nwith effect from December 1975 which in terms permitted bulk allotment of
\nland to Housing Co-operative Societies for allotment to its members. The
\nHigh Court came to the conclusion that allotment of land was not validly
\nmade to the respondent-Society. It also held that at this belated stage the
\nviolations which had been committed should not render the allotment invalid
\nbut nevertheless it observed that the said allotment re-quired
\nreconsideration of the cases. The High Court then issued the following
\ndirections :\n<\/p>\n
“Under the circumstances of the case and keeping in view the position of
\nlaw as noticed hercinabove, these petitions are allowed by issuance of the
\nfollowing declarations and directions :\n<\/p>\n
(I)  Respondent No. 3 is directed to constitute a high power Committee for
\nthe purpose of examining all the allotments made so far to the Members of
\nRespondent No. 39- Society keeping in view the provisions of the Act. the
\nRules, the Regulations, the Orders issued in that behalf and the
\nobservations and findings recorded in this Judgment. Such Committee should
\ncomprise of experts in the fields and may be headed by a person of judicial
\nbackground preferably a former Judge of this Court, Such a Committee shall
\nbe constituted within a period of one month from today with direction to
\nsubmit its Report to the Authority within a period of four months from the
\ndate of its constitution. It is needless to say that such a Committee shall
\nexamine all individual cases after notice to the concerned allottees.\n<\/p>\n
(II)  Consequent upon the submission of the Report by the Committee,
\nRespondent No. 3 shall initiate legal process for cancellation of the
\nallotments wherever needed, obviously in accordance with the provisions of
\nthe Act, Rules, Regulations and after compliance of the principles of
\nnatural justice.\n<\/p>\n
(III) To facilitate an early report, Respondent No. 3 shall notify the
\nconstitution of the Committee, its functions and the place of sitting by
\nmeans of publication of a notice in three daily newspapers published from
\nBangalore having vide circulation in the State of Karnataka. Out of these
\nthree newspapers one shall be in Kannada language. Such publication shall
\nbe deemed sufficient notice to all concerned. The Committee shall, however,
\nin its discretion be entitled to issue personal notice to the concerned.\n<\/p>\n
(IV) Respondent No, 27, who was allotted a site measuring 50′ x 80′ at HSR
\nLayout is proved to have violated the terms of the lease-cum-sale agreement
\nand the provisions of law, thus incurring a liability of cancellation of
\nthe site. The allotment of a site No, L-1118 of Hosur Sarjapur L.H. Colony
\nmade in favour of Respon-dent No. 27 is hereby cancelled with direction to
\nRespondent No. 3 to resume the site and take its immediate possession.
\nRespondent No, 27 is held entitled to the payment of such amount as is
\npermissible to him under Rule 14 of the Allotment Rules only
\nnotwithstanding the amounts spent by him on the construction of a Hotel in
\nviolation of the provisions of law.\n<\/p>\n
(V) All permissions granted to the Respondents for alienation of land are
\nheld to be in violation of Rule 13 of the Allotment Rules and the
\nconditions of lease-cum-sale agreement executed between the parties. Such
\npermissions insofar as the concerned Respondents are concerned are declared
\nto be nullity, void and inoperative not affecting the rights of the
\nRespondent No. 3-Authority. Consequent upon the setting aside of the
\npermissions granted for alienation, Respondent No. 3 is directed to take
\nimmediate consequential action under the provisions of the Act, Rules
\nissued thereunder and the agreement executed between the parties. So far as
\nthe other allottees of the sites, who have been granted permission of
\nalienation, but are not parties before us, a direction is issued to
\nRespondents 1 and 3 to immediately initiate process for cancellation of
\nsuch permission after notice to the concerned and compliance of the
\nprinciples of natural justice. Appropriate action shall be initiated within
\none month and effective orders be passed with respect to all concerned
\nwithin a period of three months.\n<\/p>\n
(VI) The alienations made by the allottees in favour of the third parties
\nwould not come in the way of Respondents I to 3 to implement the directions
\nof this Court. It is, however, directed that in all such cases where the
\nname of the transferees are notified, the Respondents 1 to 3 shall pass
\neffective orders after notice to :the concerned transferees also.\n<\/p>\n
(VII) That pending amendment of the Rules, no further per-mission shall be
\ngranted to any allottee for transfer of the site to any person under any
\ncircumstances.\n<\/p>\n
(VIII) Even after the Rules are amended as recommended by Respondent No. 3-
\nAuthority, the allottees of the sites from the B.D.A are held not eligible
\nto transfer the vacant site to any person for any reason. Allottees of such
\nsites shall however upon proof of the conditions specified under Rule 14(3)
\nof the Allotment Rules be eligible to surrender the sites in favour of the
\nAuthority on receipt of the amount as provided under the aforesaid Rule.\n<\/p>\n
(IX) The allottees of the sites who have put up buildings shall be
\npermitted to sell the sites only upon declaration of their status regarding
\ninsolvency or impecuniosity by a competent Court of jurisdiction and in the
\nlight of the findings returned by us in this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
(X)  Such of the allottees of the sites who are unable to reside in the
\ncity of Bangalore shall be required to surrender the site whether any
\nconstruction is raised or not in favour of Respondent No. 3-Authority on
\nreceipt of the amounts calculated as per terms of Rule 14(3) of the
\nAllotment Rules.\n<\/p>\n
(XI)   Respondent No. 3 is further directed to immediately appoint an
\nofficer to ascertain within one week regarding the position of the sites so
\nfar as the construction of the building in terms of lease-cum-sale
\nagreements is concerned. Such officer shall submit his Report positively
\nwithin a period of two weeks.\n<\/p>\n
(XII) Pending Report of the Committee appointed in terms of direction No.
\n1, no allottee of any site, which is in dispute and allotted at the
\ninstance of Respondent No. 39 shall be permitted to commence or carry on
\nany construction on the site.\n<\/p>\n
(XIII) The directions issued and law laid down in this case shall mutatis
\nmutandis apply to B.D.A. Act and Rules whether directly :or through Housing
\nSocieties.”\n<\/p>\n
The aforesaid judgment of the: High Court and the directions issued by it
\nhave been challenged in this appeal and the connected petitions which have
\nbeen filed. At the outset, we are of the opinion that the High Court
\ntravelled way beyond the scope of the writ petition which was before it.
\nThe prayer in the writ petition was for quashing the out of turn allotments
\nin favour of MLAs, MPs and others who were impleaded as respondents Nos. 4
\nto 38 before the High Court. The further prayer was that permission which
\nhad been granted to some of these MLAs, MPs and others to transfer plots of
\nland which had been allotted to them should also be quashed. It is
\npertinent to note that in this writ petition there was no challenge either
\nto the registration of the respondent-Society with the BDA or to the
\nallotment of land to the Society as such. As already noted, the challenge
\nwas to the allotment to the 34 persons who were stated to be members of the
\nsaid Society. The High Court, on the other hand, not only came to the con-
\nclusion that bulk allotment of land was not permissible but also directed
\nthe constitution of a Committee to go into all allotments made by the BDA.
\nThe effect of this would be that the Committee which was sought to be
\nconstituted was empowered to carry out a roving and fishing inquiry with
\nregard to allotments of land made by the BDA since the time it was
\nconstituted in the year 1976, There was neither any prayer in the writ
\npetition to this effect nor do we find any affidavit having been filed by
\nthe respondents before the High Court in relation to such allotments of
\nland to the Society and others. The writ petitioner had not chosen to
\nenlarge the scope of the writ petition by amending his petition and,
\ntherefore, the High Court, in our opinion, was not justified in issuing the
\ntype of direc-tions which it did.\n<\/p>\n
Coming to the merits of the case and without going into the question of
\nlaches, we find that during the pendency of the hearing of the writ
\npetition, two of the respondents, namely, Jagannatha Rao Chandraki and K.G.
\nRamaswamy had expired. The High Court ordered their deletion from the array
\nof respondents. In addition thereto, it was found that some of the persons
\nwho were originally impleaded as respondents were not Legislators and on a
\nmemo being filed by the writ petitioner 13 such respondents were deleted
\nfrom the array of respondents vide Court’s order dated 27th August, 1998.
\nWe are thus concerned with the remaining ex-Legislators and Ministers to
\nwhom allotment had been made by virtue of their being members of the
\nrespondent-Society.\n<\/p>\n
In justification of allotment of land, the appellant BDA has placed strong
\nreliance on Section 38B of the Act which reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
38B. Power of Authority to make bulk allotment. – Notwithstand-ing anything
\ncontained in this Act or Development Scheme sanc-tioned under this Act, the
\nAuthority may, subject to any restriction, condition and limitation as may
\nbe prescribed, make bulk allotment by way of sale, lease or otherwise of
\nany land which belongs to it or is vested in it or acquired by it for the
\npurpose of any develop-ment scheme, –\n<\/p>\n
(i) to the State Government; or (ii) to the Central Government; or<\/p>\n
(iii) to any Corporation, Body or Organisation owned or con-trolled by the
\nCentral Government or the State Government; or<\/p>\n
(iv) to any Housing Co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-
\noperative Societies Act, 1959 (Karnataka Act 11 of 1959)’<\/p>\n
(v) to any society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration
\nAct, 1960 (Karnataka Act 17 of 1960); or<\/p>\n
(vi) to a Trust created wholly for charitable, educational or religious
\npurpose:\n<\/p>\n
Provided that prior approval of the Government shall be ob-tained for
\nallotment of land to any category listed above.\n<\/p>\n
It may here be noticed that Section 38 of the Act gives power to the
\nAuthority to lease, sell or transfer property, inter alia, for building
\npur-poses or for the purposes of any development scheme. It appears that
\nthe Karnataka High Court had in an earlier decision interpreted this Act to
\nmean that the BDA could not make bulk allotment. This resulted in the
\npassing of the Bangalore Development Authority (Third Amendment) Act, 1993.
\nBy Section 5 of the said Amending Act, Section 38B was inserted in the
\nprincipal Act with effect from 20th December, 1975. A plain reading of this
\nSection shows that bulk allotment of land by way of sale, lease or
\notherwise can be made, inter alia, to any Housing Co-operative Society.
\nThis being so, the allotment of land made in favour of the respondent-
\nSociety between 1981 and 1987 would come within the ambit of Section 38B.
\nThere is no material on record to indicate that there was any society or
\norganisation or anybody else who had been registered with the BDA prior to
\nthe date of registration of the respondent-Society and who had not been
\nallotted land. In the absence of any averment in this behalf or any
\nspecific finding in regard thereto, the allotment of land which consisted
\nof 604 sites in favour of the respondent-Society cannot be held to be
\ninvalid. It is not in dispute that the respondents whose allotment was
\nchallenged were members of the respondent-Society and if this being so they
\nwould be entitled to allotment of sites from out of the land which had been
\nallotted to the said Society.\n<\/p>\n
We now come to the question of transfer of sites by the allottees. There
\nwere 11 persons who were not members of the respondent-Society, who had
\napplied to the BDA for permission to sell the land allotted to them. The
\nBDA had recommended to the Government that approval be accorded to them to
\ntransfer the land. This approval was granted and there is no challenge to
\nthe same in the present proceedings. The challenge, however, is to the
\napproval which was granted to 13 other members of the .Society, who were
\nimpleaded as respondents in the writ petition, and who were permitted to
\nsell the sites which had been allotted to them.\n<\/p>\n
Rule 14 of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules,
\n1984 provides for restrictions and conditions on sales of sites. The said
\nRule which was in existence in 1994-95, when permission was granted to the
\nex-Legislators to transfer the land, reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
14. Restrictions, conditions on sales of sites –\n<\/p>\n
(1)  Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Commissioner
\nmay at the request of the allottee of a site execute a deed of conveyance
\nsubject to the restrictions, conditions and limitations specified in sub-
\nrule (2).\n<\/p>\n
(2)  The conveyance of site by the Commissioner in favour of an allottee
\n(hereinafter referred to as the purchaser) shall be subject to the
\nfollowing restrictions, conditions and limitations namely :\n<\/p>\n
(a) in the case of a site on which a building has not been constructed :\n<\/p>\n
(i) the purchaser shall construct a building on the site within such period
\nas may be specified by the Authority as per plans, designs, and conditions
\nto be approved by the Authority or in conformity with the provisions of the
\nKarnataka Municipal Cor-porations Act, 1976 and the Bye-laws made
\nthereunder.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) the purchaser shall not without the approval of the Authority
\nconstruct on the site any building other than a build-ing for the
\nconstruction of which the site was allotted, granted or sold.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) the purchaser shall not alienate the site within a period of ten
\nyears from the date of the conveyance except by mortgage in favour of the
\nGovernment of India or the Government of Kar-nataka, the Life Insurance
\nCorporation of India or the Karnataka Housing Board or any Company or Co-
\noperative Society approved by the Authority or any Corporation set up owned
\nor controlled by the Stale Government or the Central Government to secure
\nmoney advanced by such Government, Corporation, Company, Board, Society or
\nCorporation, as the case may be for the con-struction of the building on
\nthe site.\n<\/p>\n
(b)  in the case of a site on which a building has been con-structed, the
\npurchaser shall not alienate the site and the building constructed thereon
\nwithin a period of ten years from the date of agreement except by mortgage
\nin favour of the Government of India, the Government of Karnataka, the Life
\nInsurance Corpora-tion of India, or the Karnataka Housing Board or any
\nCompany or Co-operative Society approved by the Authority to secure moneys
\nadvanced by such Government, Corporation, Board or Society or Company for
\nthe construction of the building on the site.\n<\/p>\n
(c)  in the event of the purchaser committing breach of any of the
\nconditions in clause (a) or clause (b) the Authority may at any time, after
\ngiving the purchaser reasonable notice, resume the site free from all
\nencumbrances. The purchaser may remove all things which he has attached to
\nthe earth.\n<\/p>\n
Provided that if he has left the site in the state in which he received it,
\nall transactions entered into in contravention of the conditions specified
\nin clauses (a) and (b) shall be null and void ab-initio.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation – In this rule, references to the authority shall be deemed to
\ninclude the references to the commissioner when authorised by the general
\nresolution to exercise any power vested in the authority.\n<\/p>\n
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- rule (2) but without
\nprejudice to the provisions of rule 13 where the lessee applies that for
\nreasons beyond his control he is unable to reside in the City of Bangalore
\nor by reasons of his insolvency or im-pecuniosity it is necessary for him
\nto sell the site and the building, if any, he may have put up thereon the
\nBangalore Development Authority may, with the previous approval of the
\nState Govern-ment, either :\n<\/p>\n
(a) require him to surrender the site, where there is no building in its
\nfavour; or<\/p>\n
(b)  where there is a building put up permit him to sell the vacant site
\nand building :\n<\/p>\n
Provided that –\n<\/p>\n
(i) in case covered by clause (a) the Authority shall pay to the lessee the
\nallotted value of the site and an additional sum equal to the amount of
\ninterest at twelve per cent per annum thereon; and<\/p>\n
(ii) in case covered by clause (b) the lessee shall pay to the authority a
\nsum equal to the amount of interest at twelve per cent per annum on the
\nallotted value of the site.”\n<\/p>\n
The said Rule did not permit transfer of site on which building had not
\nbeen erected. According to sub-rule (3), under certain conditions art
\nallottee could only surrender the site in which case he was entitled to
\nreceive the value of the site plus 12 per cent interest thereon. It is only
\nif a building was erected that permission could be given to sell the vacant
\nsite and building subject to payment of interest at the rate of 12 per cent
\non the allotted value of the site. It is represented before us that the BDA
\npermitted that allottees to sell the sites, inasmuch as under Section 65 of
\nthe Act the Government of Karnataka had issued a direction requiring the
\nBDA to permit the said transfers. Section 65 of the Act gives power to the
\nGovernment to issue directions to the Authority and reads thus :\n<\/p>\n
65. Government’s power to give directions to the Authority. – The
\nGovernment may give such directions to the Authority as in its opinion are
\nnecessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of this Act, and it
\nshall be the duty of the Authority to comply with such directions.\n<\/p>\n
As we read the above Section, the Government has no power to issue any
\ndirections which are in conflict with the provisions of the Act and, by
\nnecessary implication, in conflict with the Rules framed under the said
\nAct. The directions which can be given under Section 65 are such which are
\nnecessary or expedient for the carrying out of the purposes of the Act.
\nWhen Rule 14, as it stood in the year 1994-95, did not permit sale of
\nvacant sites by an allottee to anybody else, even after getting permission
\nfrom the BDA, the Government could not have permitted or directed the said
\nland to he sold or transferred. This being the position, the transfer of
\nland by 13 such ex-Legislators and ex-ministers who were members of the
\nrespon-dent-Society, and whose names are included in the BDA’s letter dated
\n27th\/28th October, 1995 written to the Principal Secretary to Government,
\nHousing & Urban Development Department, Bangalore, was clearly illegal and
\nthe permission so granted and the consequent transfer of land would become
\nliable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
Rule 14 has now been amended by Notification dated 6th February, 1998. Rule
\n5 of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) (Amendment)
\nRules, 1997 which makes the amendment in Rule 14 reads thus :\n<\/p>\n
5. Amendment of Rule-J4: – In ruIe-14 of the said Rules. -(i) after sub-
\nrule (2), the following shall be inserted namely :-\n<\/p>\n
”2A. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- rule (2), where a lessee
\nhas alienated the site in contravention of sub-clause (iii) “of clause (a)
\nsub-rule (2), the authority may on application of the purchaser of such
\nsite and subject to payment by the purchaser an amount equal to twenty-five
\nper cent of the sital value determined at the rates specified by the State
\nGovernment from time to time for the purpose of registration, order for
\nregularisation of such alienation and may also convey title to such
\npurchaser,”\n<\/p>\n
(2) in sub-rule (3),<\/p>\n
(i) after clause (a), the following clause shall be inserted namely:\n<\/p>\n
“(aa) permit the allottee to sell the site during the lease period of ten
\nyears.”\n<\/p>\n
(ii) in the proviso, after clause (i), the following clause shall be
\ninserted namely:\n<\/p>\n
“(ia) in case covered by clause (aa), mentioned above, the lessee shall pay
\nto the Authority an amount equivalent to fifteen per cent of the sital
\nvalue determined at the rates specified by the State Government from time
\nto time for the purpose of registration.\n<\/p>\n
As a result of the Rules as they now stand were there has been alienation
\nof site in contravention of sub-rule (2), then on an application being made
\nby the purchaser the said sale or alienation in his favour can be
\nregularised on the purchaser paying an amount equal to 25 per cent of the
\nsital value determined at the rates specified by the State Government from
\ntime to time. Inasmuch as the permission which was granted in 1994 and 1995
\nfor transferring the land was illegal, the effect would be that the
\noriginal allottees had transferred the land in violation of the provisions
\nof sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 and now after the amendment of the said Rule
\nregularisation of the said alienation can take place by the purchaser
\npaying the amount referred to in sub-rule (2A). If this payment is not
\nmade, the result obviously would be that the alienation will not be
\nvalidated and the allotment of land itself would stand cancelled. It is
\nobvious that under Rule 14 permission to transfer can be granted under the
\ncircumstances provided by sub-rule (3). The said sub-rule provides that an
\napplication for transfer can be made by an allottee on the ground that (a)
\nfor reasons beyond his control he is unable to reside in the city of
\nBangalore; or (b) by reasons of his insolvency or impecuniosity, it is
\nnecessary for him to sell the site and the building. The High Court has
\ninterpreted this Rule to mean that it is only for reason of insolvency that
\npermission under sub-rule (3) can be granted. This does not appear to be
\ncorrect because on the ground that the allottee is unable to reside in the
\ncity of Bangalore and also on the ground of impecuniosity, permission can
\nbe granted to sell the land or the land and the building constructed
\nthereon, after the amendment of the Rule of 1998,<\/p>\n
For the aforesaid reasons, these appeals are allowed and the judg-ment of
\nthe High Court is set aside. We, however, direct that the BDA will give an
\nopportunity to the purchasers of land referred to in its letter dated
\n27\/28th October, 1995 who had purchased the same from the members of the
\nrespondent-Society to get the transfer regularised on payment of 25 per
\ncent of the sital value determined at the rates specified by the
\nGovernment. Notice to this effect should he issued within eight weeks from
\ntoday and the notice would indicate that if the amount so determined is not
\ndeposited, the land in question will stand resumed by the BDA. No other
\ndirections are called for.\n<\/p>\n
No costs.\n<\/p>\n
Civil Appeal Nos. 459-461, 462-463, 464 and 465 of 2000 (arising out of
\nSpecial Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 1419-1421, 3418-3419, 3444 and 7820 of
\n1999)<\/p>\n
Special leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
For the reasons stated above, these appeals are disposed of in terms of the
\ndirections given above.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Commissioner Bangalore … vs S. Vasudeva And Ors on 18 January, 2000 Bench: B.N. Kirpal, M.B. Shah CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 456-458 of 2000 PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESPONDENT: S. VASUDEVA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18\/01\/2000 BENCH: B.N. KIRPAL & M.B. SHAH JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 2000 (1) SCR 275 The […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-38409","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Bangalore ... vs S. Vasudeva And Ors on 18 January, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-bangalore-vs-s-vasudeva-and-ors-on-18-january-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Bangalore ... vs S. Vasudeva And Ors on 18 January, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-bangalore-vs-s-vasudeva-and-ors-on-18-january-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-18T22:27:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-bangalore-vs-s-vasudeva-and-ors-on-18-january-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-bangalore-vs-s-vasudeva-and-ors-on-18-january-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Bangalore … vs S. Vasudeva And Ors on 18 January, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-18T22:27:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-bangalore-vs-s-vasudeva-and-ors-on-18-january-2000\"},\"wordCount\":4314,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-bangalore-vs-s-vasudeva-and-ors-on-18-january-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-bangalore-vs-s-vasudeva-and-ors-on-18-january-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-bangalore-vs-s-vasudeva-and-ors-on-18-january-2000\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Bangalore ... vs S. Vasudeva And Ors on 18 January, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-18T22:27:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-bangalore-vs-s-vasudeva-and-ors-on-18-january-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-bangalore-vs-s-vasudeva-and-ors-on-18-january-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-bangalore-vs-s-vasudeva-and-ors-on-18-january-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Bangalore … vs S. Vasudeva And Ors on 18 January, 2000\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Commissioner Bangalore ... vs S. Vasudeva And Ors on 18 January, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-bangalore-vs-s-vasudeva-and-ors-on-18-january-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Bangalore ... vs S. Vasudeva And Ors on 18 January, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-bangalore-vs-s-vasudeva-and-ors-on-18-january-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-18T22:27:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-bangalore-vs-s-vasudeva-and-ors-on-18-january-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-bangalore-vs-s-vasudeva-and-ors-on-18-january-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Bangalore … vs S. Vasudeva And Ors on 18 January, 2000","datePublished":"2000-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-18T22:27:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-bangalore-vs-s-vasudeva-and-ors-on-18-january-2000"},"wordCount":4314,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-bangalore-vs-s-vasudeva-and-ors-on-18-january-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-bangalore-vs-s-vasudeva-and-ors-on-18-january-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-bangalore-vs-s-vasudeva-and-ors-on-18-january-2000","name":"Commissioner Bangalore ... vs S. Vasudeva And Ors on 18 January, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-18T22:27:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-bangalore-vs-s-vasudeva-and-ors-on-18-january-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-bangalore-vs-s-vasudeva-and-ors-on-18-january-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-bangalore-vs-s-vasudeva-and-ors-on-18-january-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Bangalore … vs S. Vasudeva And Ors on 18 January, 2000"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38409","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=38409"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38409\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38409"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38409"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38409"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}