Writ petition challenging rejection of alternate site allotment by BDA dismissed. Court refused indulgence as petitioner suffered adverse finding in a civil suit affirmed by a co-ordinate bench, proving vendor lacked title.
Petitioner's writ petition to quash endorsement dated 01.01.2016 rejecting alternate site claim was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP No. 15616 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 15616 OF 2016 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. B DEVARAJ, S/O LATE JAWARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT:25/6, HMT MAIN ROD, 12TH MAIN ROAD, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE-560 054.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NANJA REDDY P N .,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE DEVEOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, KUMARA PARK WEST, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE-560 020.
(BY SRI.KIRAN C V.,ADVOCATE)
…RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFN INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD 1.1.2016 (ANNEXURE-X) AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE THIS HON'BLE COURT IN RFA NO.1052/2001 DTD1.7.2009 AND IN W.P. NO.42108/2014 DTD13.10.2014 AND THE SAME IS IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
WP No. 15616 of 2016
ORDER
Petitioner is knocking at the doors of writ court for assailing the endorsement dated 01.01.2016 issued by the respondent-BDA at Annexure-X, whereby his request for allotment of an alternate site in lieu of the one acquired has been negatived. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that his client had title to a revenue site in question that admeasured 1200 sq.ft.; the site is subsumed in the land acquired by the BDA and therefore consistent with the extant policy, petitioner needs to be granted an alternate site as has been done in the case of many others.
“20. It is also relevant to note that entire Sy.No.26 was acquired way back in 1963 consequent upon which the entire survey number stood vested with the CITB. Therefore, the question of executing a sale deed by Suryanarayana Shetty in respect of Sites No.3 and 16 formed in the said survey number on 18.4.1973 or the execution of sale deeds as per Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 did not arise. In other words, neither Suryanarayana Shetty nor Smt. Hanna Diasy and S.Joseph nor V.Parameshwaraiah, the vendor of the defendant have had any right, title or interest over any portion of the property in Sy.No.26. Defendant has clearly admitted that the CITB., or BDA., has not reconveyed the site which he had purchased from his vendor V.Parameshwaraiah. Therefore, whatever documents he has produced regarding his title
WP No. 15616 of 2016
and possession of site No.553 cannot be of any consequence….”
“Though this court has upon forming an opinion that BDA was a necessary party and having permitted the BDA to come on record and to file its written statement, while also permitting to produce further documents, has only fortified the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The material on record would disclose that in view of the acquisition proceedings in respect of the entire extent of survey no.26, in which the sites belonging to the plaintiffs as well as the defendant may have existed, the circumstance that a corresponding site had been allotted to the husband of the plaintiff no.1, and the formalities of such conveyance having been completed, while the site in respect of which the defendant-appellant was claiming was the subject matter of sale transactions, notwithstanding the acquisition b the BDA and the same not having been conveyed b the BDA even as on date, does not enable the appellant to set up any claim as against the plaintiffs whose right and title has been endorsed b the execution of a sale deed b the BDA….”
the petitioner that the Co-ordinate Bench that decided the
WP No. 15616 of 2016
RSA had reserved right in favour of his client to seek allotment of alternative site at the hands of the BDA in no way advances his case, in view of the specific finding suffered by him in the suit that came to be affirmed in the RSA. The Co-ordinate Bench itself at internal page 9 of its RSA judgment has observed: “ … accordingly there is no infirmity in the trial Court having decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs on the basis of the title deeds executed by the BDA. Accordingly, no case is made out for interference and the appeal stands dismissed.” That being the position, the petitioner does not have even any litigable right qua the respondent BDA, the liberty to apply for allotment reserved in the RSA, notwithstanding.
In the above circumstances petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is.
Sd/JUDGE
Bsv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a petitioner entitled to an alternate site after land acquisition when civil suit affirmed against him establishes vendor had no title to convey.
Shri. B Devaraj
Bengaluru Development Authority
Krishna S Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
