Allowed

M/S Maruthi House Building v. the Bangalore Development Authority

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2023WP/13227/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashes a BDA resolution removing six sites from a Layout Plan. The Court held that delayed exercise of statutory power prejudices constitutional rights and that ownership disputes between private parties are outside writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Issued a Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned BDA Resolution dated 02.12.2012 and the consequential Communication dated 22.12.2012.

M/S Maruthi House Building Vs the Bangalore Development… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.13227 OF 2013(BDA) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.7957 OF 2013(BDA)

¶7

IN W.P.NO.13227/2013:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S MARUTHI HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., 1572, II CROSS, NAGAPPA BLOCK, BANGALORE-560 021. REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL OFFICER SRI T D UMESH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES NORTH DIVISION CIRCLE, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO. 146, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003. (BY SRI. S N PRASHANTH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶13

¶14

SMT. KOMALA, D/O LATE M CHINNAPPA, W/O SRI SREENIVASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NO. 600/2, II MAIN, "E" BLOCK, II STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010.

¶15

SMT.VIMALA, D/O LATE M CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS NO. 600/1, II MAIN, "E" BLOCK, II STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010.

¶16

SMT. SHAMALA, D/O LATE M CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, NO. 600/4, II MAIN, "E" BLOCK, II STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010.

¶17

… RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.K KRISHNA,ADVOCATE FOR R1;

¶19

SRI. SANDEEP M K, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 TO R4)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER/CIRCULAR/COMMUNICATION DT.22.12.2012 VIDE ANNX-U ISSUED BY THE R-1 AS BEING ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF LAW.

¶21

IN W.P.NO.7957/2013:

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

1. SRI R SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O C.RAMAIAH,

¶24

SMT.S.MALA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, W/O SRI.R. SRINIVAS,

¶25

¶26

R/AT NO.76, 1^ST FLOOR, 4^TH CROSS, MARUTHI HOUSE BUILDING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LAYOUT,BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 079.

¶27

…PETITIONERS

¶28

(BY SRI.K SHIVAJI RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND:

¶30

THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020.

¶31

THE MEMBER, TOWN PLANNING, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020.

¶32

MARUTHI HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE

¶33

SOCIETY LIMITED, NO.1525, EAST BLOCK, 9^TH MAIN, 3^RD STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶34

ADARSHA WELFARE ASSOCIATION NO.108, I BLOCK, OLD SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE BUILDING, 3^RD STAGE, ADARSHA LAYOUT, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BANGALORE-560 086.

¶35

SMT.KOMALA

¶36

D/O LATE M.CHINAPPA, W/O SREENIVASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, NO.600/2, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, E BLOCK, 2^ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010.

¶37

¶38

SMT.VIMALA D/O LATE M.CHINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, NO.600/2, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, E BLOCK, 2^ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010

¶39

SMT.SHAMALA D/O LATE M.CHINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, NO.600/2, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, E BLOCK, 2^ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010.

¶40

REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI.DR.K.M.RAMASWAMY, S/O LATE MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.86, 1^ST FLOOR, 10^TH A CROSS, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BANGALORE-560 086.

¶41

…RESPONDENTS

¶42

(BY SRI. K MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. S N PRASHANTH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. K S NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R7; NOTICE TO R4 IS H/S, V.C.O DATED 14/02/2014)

¶43

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND EXAMINE THE SAME AND QUASH THE BDA RESOLUTION 2.12.2012 COMMUNICATED THROUGH LETTER DATED 22.12.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-K.

¶44

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶45

¶46

ORDER

¶47

The Writ Petition in W.P.No.13227/2013 seeks to

¶48

lay a challenge to the BDA Communication dated 22.12.2012 (Annexure-U) and the BDA Resolution No.225/2012 dated 02.12.2012 pursuant to which the said Communication has been made. The net effect of the Resolution & the Communication is that the six sites namely Site Nos. 75 to 80 are to be removed from the Layout Plan dated 29.03.1973 as approved by the City Improvement Trust Board, a predecessor of the Respondent – BDA on the ground that the PetitionerSociety has not produced any evidentiary material prima facie to prove its title in respect of the land from which these sites are carved out. In the companion writ Petition, the challenge is laid to the very same BDA Resolution dated 02.12.2012 by the allotee of the site No.76.

¶49

The Respondents having entered appearance

¶50

through their Panel Counsel and private Advocates resist

¶51

¶52

the Petitions by filing the Statement of Objections essentially contending the grounds on which the impugned orders have been structured. The private Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 argues that his clients happen to be the owners of these six sites inasmuch as, they are situate in Sy.No.7 of Sanegurvanahalli Village and therefore the Petitioner – Housing Society or the Petitioner – allottee of site No.76 do not have any title over the same. Both the BDA Panel Counsel and the private Advocate make vehement submission in justification of the impugned orders drawing attention of the Court to the earlier rounds of litigation as well.

¶53

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

¶54

a) There are two lands namely Sy.NO.6 & Sy.No.7

¶55

of Saneguruvanahalli Village, part of which is the subject

¶56

¶57

matter of these writ petitions. There is no much dispute as to Sy.No.7 having been acquired by the State Government vide Award dated 11.07.1972 for the benefit of the then City Improvement Trust Board. A copy of the Award avails at Annexure-C in W.P.No.7957/2013. Learned Private Advocate appearing for the private Respondents despite vehement submission is not in a position to show that only a part of Sy.No.7 was acquired and not the whole of it. The contents of the Award belie his submission. Thus, the private Respondents do not have any litigable right in writ jurisdiction, although arguably they may have ones before the Civil Court.

¶58

b) The CITB, the predecessor of the BDA vide order

¶59

dated 29.03.1973 has sanctioned the Layout Plan of the Petitioner – Housing Society in which the subject six sites do figure. The allotment of these sites was also made in favour of the applicants of whom Petitioner in the companion case happens to be the allottee of site No.76. The sanctioning and the approval of Layout Plan are done

¶60

¶61

decades ago in discharge of statutory function under the provisions of the City Improvement Act, 1945. Under the same Act, the said Board was constituted. Therefore in view of these twin factors, at this length of time, it was not open to the BDA to rake up the issue as to the ownership of the Society over the subject sites that too when they have already been allotted to others, long ago.

¶62

c) The BDA functions as a statutory authority and the decisions of the Apex Court galore to the effect that delayed exercise of statutory power ordinarily is not permissible since that would prejudice the rights of private citizens over the property that are constitutionally guaranteed under Article 300A. The vehement contention of BDA Panel Counsel and the private Advocate that the entire exercise was undertaken by the BDA on the direction of this Court in earlier round of litigation namely W.P.No.11058/2006 disposed off on 12.02.2009 is too poor a justification of making the

¶63

¶64

impugned orders inasmuch as, no parameters of consideration were fixed by the Court which heard & disposed off the said writ petition. Where there is a direction to consider the grievance of a litigant, such consideration has to happen only in accordance with law and not in breach thereof, hardly needs to be stated. Viewed from this angle, the impugned orders fall short of required minimum fairness standards and therefore, the same are liable to be voided as rightly argued by learned advocates appearing for the Housing Society and the allottee of the site.

¶65

d) The contention of the private counsel that his

¶66

clients happen to be the owners of the land in which the subject six sites have been formed, cannot be examined by the Writ Court exercising a limited jurisdiction regard being had to the inherent constraints and therefore, his clients can carry the lis to before the Civil Court which can examine all aspects of the matter. Such a view is

¶67

¶68

supported by the Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in DHULA BAI vs. STATE OF MP, AIR 1961 SC 78.

¶69

In view of the above, these writ petitions succeed; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned BDA Resolution and the consequential Communication and as a consequence thereof, the cloud on the title of the Petitioner – Society and the allottees of the sites stands removed subject to outcome of any civil litigation that may be launched by the aggrieved persons including the private Respondents herein. Such a litigation shall be decided without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove.

¶70

No costs.

¶71

Sd/JUDGE

¶72

Bsv

M/S Maruthi House Building v. the Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Maruthi House Building 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S Ravindra Kumar Vs Chairman and Commissioner

H N Shivakumar Vs Chairman and Commissioner

Sri H Chandra Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs Rizwana Begum Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Sri B v Omprakash Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Saroja K Sampagaon Vs Bengaluru Development Authority