Partly allowed

Dr Shivashankara Murthy v. the Bangalore Development Authority

Karnataka HC27 Jun 2022WP/37654/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to withdraw writ petition challenging cancellation deed but, due to receipt of an allotment letter for an alternative site and health issues, requested court direction for execution of sale deed. Court ordered authority to execute deed within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority to execute the sale deed for the alternative site within eight weeks from receipt of the certified copy of this order.

Dr Shivashankara Murthy Vs the Bangalore… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.37654/2016 (BDA)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

DR. SHIVASHANKARA MURTHY SON OF LATE KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.L-103, "BHARANI" 9^TH B MAIN ROAD, 11^TH SECTOR, H.A.L 3^RD STAGE, JEEVANABHEEMA NAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 075.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. YASHAS.K, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶12

SRI A. C. SUBRAMANYA IYER SON OF LATE A.S.CHANDRASHEKAR AYER, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO136 "AMBICA", 2^ND MAIN ROAD, 28^TH CROSS, JAYANAGARA, 7^TH BLOCK, BANGALORE - 560 072.

¶13

¶14

SMT M.G. VANAMALA W/O M N GANGADHARAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.153, 10^TH MAIN ROAD, BCC LAYOUT, BENGALURU 560 040.

¶15

... RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. M AJAYKUMAR FOR R1; SRI. NARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.N. RAJESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. CHANDRASEKHARA.T.A, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.V. SHANKARA NARAYAN RAO ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ALLEGED CANCELLATION DEED DATED 3.12.2015 REGISTERED VIDE DOCUMENT NO.4099-2015-16, STORED IN CD NO.BDAD 125 IN THE OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT REGISTRAR, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MENTIONED AT ANNEXURE-A EXECUTED BY THE R-1 ALLEGDLY AND UNILATERALLY CANCELLING THE LEASE-CUM-SALE AGREEMENT DATED 5.11.2007 EXECUTED BY THE R-1 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY BEARING SITE NO.1485, [CURVED OUT OF SURVEY NO.75/1] SITUATED AT 7^TH BLOCK, ARKAVATHI LAYOUT, BANGALORE REGISTERED VIDE DOCUMENT NO.1226/2007-08 OF BOOK I, IN THE OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT REGISTRAR, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BANGALORE.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to place on record a memo for withdrawal of the writ petition along with the allotment letter dated 16.06.2022 issued by the Bangalore Development Authority.

¶22

The memo and the copy of the allotment letter are taken on record.

¶23

In continuation of the memo, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petition could be disposed of as withdrawn, because of the issuance of the allotment letter, this Court may consider directing the first respondent - Bangalore Development Authority to ensure that the sale deed is executed for the alternative site now allotted in a time bound manner so that there is complete adjudication. He also submits, that the petitioner is constrained because he is suffering from illness that would require him to travel abroad for treatment.

¶24

¶25

Sri Ajay Kumar M, learned counsel for the Bangalore Development Authority, does not dispute that the alternative site is allotted to the petitioner in terms of the allotment letter dated 16.06.2022, and he submits that the Bangalore Development Authority shall take necessary measures to execute the necessary sale deed, but reasonable time would be required to ensure that there is compliance in executing such sale deed.

¶26

The submissions are considered, and this Court is of the considered view that the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, must be called upon to execute the sale deed for the alternative site for which the current allotment letter is issued, within an outer limit of 8 [eight] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶27

The petition stands disposed of with the directions as aforesaid.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

AN/-

Dr Shivashankara Murthy v. the Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Shivashankara Murthy 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. R. Krishnappa Vs Sri.a J Jassawala

Smt B Ramamani Vs Sri M Paparaju

The Hassan District Co-Operative Vs the Joint Registrar

Sri Krishnappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Syed Pyaru Vs Sri D .R Raju

Smt Patalamma Vs the State of Karnataka