Allowed

Sri H Nagaraj v. Bangalore Development Authority

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2013WP/15972/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Court quashed the Respondent-BDA's endorsement rejecting the execution of a sale deed due to amended rules. The Court held that since the delay in allotment was attributable to the Respondent, the petitioner remains entitled to the benefits of the rules existing before 2005. Consequently, the Court directed the Respondent to ex

What did the court decide?

Quashed the endorsement dated 30.11.2012. Directed the Respondent to execute and register the absolute sale deed within four weeks.

Sri H Nagaraj Vs Bangalore Development Authority — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.15972/2013 (BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI H NAGARAJ S/O.DR. H.P. ACHAR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT, NO.1320, 14TH MAIN, B.T.M.LAYOUT, II STAGE, BANGALORE-560076.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY MS. ANUSHA ASUNDI, ADV. FOR SRI A MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOUDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PRAK WEST, BANGALORE-560020, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI M N RAMANJANEYA GOWDA, ADV.)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH ENDORSEMENT DATED 30.11.2012 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO EXECUTE AND REGISTER IN ABSOLUTE SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF THE SITE BEARING NO.1880 IN THE SIR M. VISWESWARAYANAGAR 7TH BLOCK FURTHER EXTENSION AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :

¶17

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner is before this Court seeking that the endorsement dated 30.11.2012 impugned at Annexure-J be quashed and a mandamus be issued to the respondent to execute and register an absolute sale deed in respect of site bearing No.1880, Sir M. Visweshwarayanagar,

¶20

7^th Block Further Extension, Bangalore.

¶21

The petitioner had made application for allotment

¶22

of site to the respondent in the year 1982, 2002 and 2003

¶23

respectively. According to the petitioner though he was entitled to the preferential allotment as he was an employee of the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation and such right was available for grant of site, the respondent had not allotted the site in the year 2003. Presently, the details on that aspect of the matter need not be adverted to since it is not in dispute that the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.No.8835/2008 and this Court while disposing of the same on 12.11.2008 had directed allotment of site in favour of the petitioner. The

¶24

¶25

request of the petitioner however is for execution of an

¶26

absolute sale deed in his favour.

¶27

The respondent-BDA in response to the request of

¶28

the petitioner have issued the endorsement dated 30.11.2012 wherein they have contended that since the Site Allotment Rules have been amended with effect from 27.04.2005 whereby the execution of the absolute sale deed has been modified, the petitioner would not be entitled to the same. The objection statement filed in the instant petition is also to the same effect to justify that the rejection made is as per the Rules and therefore to contend that the same does not call for interference.

¶29

In the case on hand, the petitioner would also rely

¶30

on similar circumstances where even subsequent to the year 2005, the absolute sale deeds have been executed.

¶31

In my opinion, the same would not be relevant for considering the issue since in the instant facts, what requires to be noticed is as to whether the petitioner has made out a right to seek for quashing the endorsement whereby the request to execute the sale deed is declined

¶32

¶33

by the respondent. In order to consider this aspect of the matter, the right of the petitioner for allotment of the site which has been considered by this Court in W.P.No.8835/2008 would be relevant. In that regard, the case of the petitioner while assailing the action of the respondents in not granting the site was that while the petitioner made the application on 29.09.2003, he had become entitled to allotment both keeping in view the age criteria and the preferential criteria for the persons working in the Government and Semi-Government undertakings. This contention of the petitioner in fact had been accepted by this Court and ultimately a direction was issued in the said W.P.No.8835/2008 on 12.11.2008. If this aspect is kept in view, what would be clear is that the petitioner was entitled for allotment in the year 2003 but the same had got postponed until this Court decided the right of the petitioner when a direction was issued in the year 2008. In such circumstance, in a normal circumstance, if the respondents had appropriately considered the application of the petitioner and had allotted the site in the year 2003, the relaxation in the

¶34

¶35

Rule which had been made and was in existence till 23.04.2005 when it was amended would have been available to the petitioner to seek for execution of an absolute sale deed in favour of the petitioner. In such circumstance, when the right has been denied to the petitioner for the acts of the respondents, the respondents in the instant facts cannot now rely upon the amended Rules to deny the benefit to the petitioner.

¶36

Therefore, keeping these aspects in view, I am of the opinion that the reason put forth in the endorsement dated 30.11.2012 would not be justified in the instant facts of the case. Accordingly, the endorsement is quashed. A direction is issued to the respondents to execute the absolute sale deed in respect of the site allotted in favour of the petitioner and enable registration of the same.

¶37

To carryout such direction in a time bound manner, the petitioner shall now file a representation along with the certified copy of this order with the respondents within two weeks from the date of receipt of

¶38

¶39

a copy of this order. The respondents shall thereafter take steps for execution of the sale deed within four weeks from the date on which the petitioner complies with the other requirements with regard to production of stamp papers etc.

¶40

In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/JUDGE

¶41

hrp/bms

Sri H Nagaraj v. Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H Nagaraj v. Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Rashmi Vs Shri Gangadhar Swamy

Shankaragowda Vs Smt Jayamma

Mr Amardeep Kumar Vs the Davanagere Urban Co. Op

M/S Total Environment Building Vs State of Karnataka

Suvarna Karnataka Jana Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. Vs Union of India