Partly allowed

Smt Nagalakshmi B S v. Bangalore Development Authority

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2013WP/29353/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged cancellation of site allotment for her deceased husband, claiming benefit of SC grace period. Court quashed impugned order directing authority to reconsider representation based on circular and precedents.

What did the court decide?

Quashed cancellation order dated 30.09.2004; Directed BDA to consider petitioner's representation regarding site allotment.

Smt Nagalakshmi B S Vs Bangalore Development Authority — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.29353/2013 (BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. NAGALAKSHMI B S W/O LATE B S CHANDRASHAKAR SHASTRI NO. 403, ARVINDA ARCHAR AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560092

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI VASANTH KUMAR H T, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD BANGALORE-560020 REPT. BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SMT. A D VIJAYA, ADV.)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO; QUASH THE SITE CANCELLATION ORDER DT.30.9.04, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY ANNEXED AS ANN-G; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION ANN-E, DT.5.6.13, & REQUESTS OF THE PETITIONER TO RATIFY THE ALLOTMENT OF SITE MEASURING 30 X 40 FT. VIDE ALLOTMENT LETTER AT ANN-A IN HER NAME BY ISSUING A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS & SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CANCELLATION DT.30.9.04, ANNEXED AS ANN-G AND ETC.

¶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 assailing the order dated 30.09.2004 (Annexure-G) and seeking consideration of the representation dated 05.06.2013 (Annexure-E).

¶20

The case of the petitioner is that her husband was allotted a site bearing No.295 measuring 30x40 feet at Sir M. Vishveshwaraiah Nagara, 9th Block Layout, Bangalore. The husband of the petitioner is stated to have paid an initial deposit of Rs.28,500/- on 14.10.2003. The case of the petitioner is that since the petitioner and her husband belong to the Scheduled Caste category, they are entitled to the period of three years for payment of the amount as provided under Rule 13 of the BDA Site Allotment Rules, 1984. When this was the position, the husband of the petitioner had expired on 30.03.2011 (Annexure-C) and in that view, the petitioner has made a representation for change of allotment to the name of the petitioner. Further, a sum of Rs.1,98,500/- was paid on 05.06.2013. It is at that juncture, the respondent

¶21

¶22

informed the petitioner that the case of the petitioner cannot be considered inasmuch as the allotment made in favour of the husband of the petitioner had already been

¶23

cancelled on 30.09.2004. In that view, since the representation made by the petitioner had not been considered, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondent-Authority

¶25

would contend that the cancellation was made as far back as in the year 2004 and therefore, the relief sought in the petition at this juncture cannot be considered by this Court. It is also the case of the learned counsel that immediately after the initial payment was made, the husband of the petitioner was required to pay the balance amount and in that regard, the respondents had also sought the husband of the petitioner to pay the balance amount, but not having paid the same, the respondent was left with no other alternative but to cancel the allotment which has been made on 30.09.2004. It is

¶26

therefore contended that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought in the instant petition.

¶27

¶28

In the light of the contentions which have been put forth, what is necessary to be noticed is the fact that the allotment had been made in favour of the husband of the petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste is not in dispute. If that be the position, the Rule in any event provided a period of three years for payment of the balance amount. If this aspect of the matter is kept in view, considering the fact that the allotment was made in favour of the husband of the petitioner on 07.02.2004, the cancellation in any event could not have been made on 30.09.2004.

¶29

Be that as it may, the petitioner is also placing reliance on a circular issued by the respondents themselves dated 18.11.2010 which provides for the benefit to pay the amount even if there is a delay with interest as indicated therein.

¶30

This aspect of the matter has already been considered by this Court in several writ petitions including W.P.No.19093/2012 (BDA) disposed of on 06.06.2013. Hence, when the benefit of consideration of

¶31

¶32

the representation has been granted to other similarly placed petitioners, the petitioner herein cannot be denied the relief. Accordingly, the cancellation order dated 30.09.2004 is quashed. A direction is issued to the respondent-Authority to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the observations made hereinabove and also as directed by this Court in several connected petitions relating to the similar facts arising therein.

¶33

With the said directions, the petition stands disposed of.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

hrp/bms

Smt Nagalakshmi B S v. Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Nagalakshmi B S 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Narendra Babu H v Vs Smt. Shruthi N Babu

Sri Amith Prakash Vs Smt Reshma Behrani @ Kritu Amith

Smt. Yakkali Madhavi Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

Sri Mahesh B N Vs Smt. Rekha

Sri Roli Mandanna Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Big Southern India Malls Private Limited Vs M/S Salarpuria Builders Private Limited