Allowed

Sri N D Srinath v. the Bangalore Development Authority

Karnataka HC11 Apr 2016WP/3851/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought an alternative land allotment after the petitioner found the sold site occupied by unauthorized persons. The court declared the sale and possession certificate invalid regarding physical delivery and directed the authority to initiate eviction proceedings or provide an alternative site within two months.

What did the court decide?

BDA directed to initiate eviction proceedings under Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974, or provide alternative site within two months.

Sri N D Srinath Vs the Bangalore Development Authority — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF APRIL 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.3851 Of 2016 (BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri N.D.Srinath, Son of Doreswamy Iyengar, Aged about 77 years, Residing at No.17/1, 1^st Floor, 1^st Cross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore 560 003, Represented by his G.P.A. Holder Sri. N.S.Jaisimha, Son of N.D.Srinath, Aged about 43 years.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(By Shri M.S.Bhagwat, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

The Bangalore Development Authority, Represented by its Commissioner, T. Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West, Bangalore 560 020.

¶13

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(By Shri G.S.Kannur, Advocate)

¶16

¶17

This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for records from the respondent and to direct the respondent to forthwith allot an alternative site in lieu of site No.407, II stage, VII Block, Nagarabhavi Layout, Bangalore 560 072 which was allotted to the petitioner in accordance with Rule 11-A of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of sites) 1984.

¶18

This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the court made the following:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA).

¶21

The petitioner claims that the respondent had allotted a site bearing no.407, at VII Block, Nagarabavi II Stage Layout, Bangalore – 560 072, measuring 30’ x 50’, under the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984,. The petitioner had remitted a total sum of Rs.2,14,777/being the consideration for the allotment and thereafter, the

¶22

¶23

BDA had executed a sale deed dated 30.1.2003 in respect of the said site. Pursuant to the sale deed, a Possession Certificate also was issued on 5.2.2003.

¶24

Thereafter, when the petitioner had actually visited the site to verify the status of the property, there were some persons already in occupation of the property and there were also occupants of sites bearing nos.406, 408, 409 and 412 as well. It was learnt in retrospect that these sites had been occupied by unauthorized persons, though they were subject matter of allotment and sale in respect of respective allottees including the petitioner.

¶25

Therefore, representations had been made as to the sites not being available for occupation, though purportedly a sale deed and a Possession Certificate were executed and issued on the footing that vacant possession was being handed over. This was only in name and actual vacant possession was never handed over to the petitioner and it is only on the petitioner visiting the site in question that it was learnt that it was already

¶26

¶27

occupied by unauthorized persons. It is in this background, after making repeated representations to the BDA, the petitioner is before this court.

¶28

It is pointed out that in respect of adjoining sites, which were similarly occupied by unauthorized occupants, the other allottees having made representations to the BDA, notwithstanding that the sale deeds had been executed in favour of those persons as well, they have been allotted alternative sites, in order to avoid those persons claiming damages and filing suits, where as the petitioner has not been granted any alternative site. The petitioner is well aware of the legal remedy that is available to seek damages or recovery of possession of the site in question. The petitioner who is aged and is man of limited means, would not be in a position to prosecute the suit, which again may be a long drawn out proceedings and therefore in view of the respondent – BDA having allotted alternative sites to such other neighbouring

¶29

¶30

allottees, the petitioner being denied an alternative site results in a miscarriage of justice and arbitrary treatment.

¶31

The learned counsel for the respondent - BDA seeks

¶32

to file his objections across the bar which practice is deprecated. However, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the same is reluctantly acknowledged. The statement of objections are merely to reiterate that once allotment is made and a sale deed is executed in favour of the petitioner, it is for the petitioner to safeguard the property and if the same is

¶33

occupied by third-parties, it is again for him to proceed in accordance with law in seeking ejectment of such persons.

¶34

However, from the circumstances narrated above, it is evident that though the sale deed is executed with a standard clause that physical possession has been handed over, it is inexplicable that the possession certificate which evidences handing over of possession is issued much later. This would demonstrate that it is only in name and that such clauses are

¶35

¶36

incorporated either in the sale deed or in the possession certificate. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that the site was already occupied by unauthorized occupants cannot be ruled out. If the petitioner is driven to the remedy of filing a civil suit, taking recourse to such remedy would prove not only expensive, but time consuming, which effort can be brought to a conclusion. Consequently, it is declared that the sale deed and the possession certificate have been executed and issued by the BDA, without actually handing over physical possession of the property in favour of the petitioner.

¶37

Consequently, notwithstanding the execution of the sale deed, the BDA is directed to initiate appropriate proceedings under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974, on the premise that the sale deed having been executed in the face of the site having been occupied by third-parties, the clock is set back for the BDA to seek ejectment by recourse to the said Act, by virtue of the directions issued by this court and thereafter to put the

¶38

¶39

petitioner in possession of the same or in the alternative, to provide an alternative site. Since the petitioner does not seek to claim damages, it is all the more imperative that the BDA proceed with expedition in seeking ejectment of the third parties and to forcibly remove them from the site in question in accordance with law and thereafter to deliver physical possession to the petitioner, notwithstanding that there was any construction put up on the property by such third-party. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months, if

¶40

not earlier, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶41

The Petition stands disposed of.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Sri N D Srinath v. the Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri N D Srinath v. the Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhuchandra Vs the Department of Co. Operative

Sri. M. Ramachandrappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M Nanda Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt S v Sarvamangala @ Sarvamangalamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Chikkaramanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. N.R. Naik Vs the Commissioner