Allowed

Smt Jabeen Gafoor v. Bengaluru Development Authority

Karnataka HC9 Feb 2023WP/15649/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition seeking an alternate allotment of a site under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, after the petitioner's earlier allotment was quashed. The Court directed the BDA to allot a site within six months and imposed a penalty for delay.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent to allot an alternate site within six months; officials liable for Rs.2,000/- per day delay.

Smt Jabeen Gafoor Vs Bengaluru Development… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 15649/2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 15649 OF 2021 (BDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. JABEEN GAFOOR, W/O SYED ABDUL GAFOOR , AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.35, 4^TH CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, SUDAMA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027.

¶10

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY., KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020. REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶14

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI.SURAJ PATIL .,ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO ALLOT ALTERNATE SITE TO THE PETITIONER AS PER REPRESENTATION DTD.6.11.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

WP No. 15649/2021

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The grievance of the Petitioner is as to non-allotment of alternate site, since the one allotted earlier having been set at naught in W.P.No.8475/2015. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that it was fault on the part of the BDA in allotting a site that would suffer voiding at the hands of this Court and therefore, they should now at least allot an alternate site the amount having been already received by the BDA way back in the year 2004.

¶21

Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the respondent – BDA opposes the Writ Petition contending that there are as many as 30 such cases and all those cases need to be bunched in order of seniority, availability & logistics, etc., and have to be worked out for making allotment of the alternate sites, of course, subject to availability of the same and therefore, it would take some time.

¶22

¶23

WP No. 15649/2021

¶24

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶25

and having perused the Petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence as under and for the following reasons:

¶26

(a) The BDA having been established under the provisions of Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, acquires private property for the formation of public layouts so that, the sites can be allotted to the deserving & needy. Such allotment was made in favour of the Petitioner on 09.02.2005 and the Registered Sale Deed evenly dated was also granted. However, the allotment of the site having been set at naught, as already mentioned above by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.9475/2015 vide judgment dated 18.07.2019, the Respondent – BDA is duty bound to make arrangement for the grant of alternate site. This has not been done till date and there is enormous delay which is not being plausibly explained despite solicitation.

¶27

¶28

WP No. 15649/2021

¶29

(b) Learned counsel for the petitioner is more than justified in contending that his client cannot put to the vagaries of the BDA and its officials in taking a decision as to the grant of alternate site and therefore, there should be a direction to them to allot a site on war footing considering their seniority, logistics and availability etc.,

¶30

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed in part; the Respondent – BDA is directed to allot an alternate site in favour of the Petitioner in accordance with the extent norms within an outer limit of six months. If delay is brooked, in addition to amounting to contempt of the Court, the officials responsible for brooking delay shall be personally liable for making payment of Rs.2,000/- per day on an application being moved by the Petitioner.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

Bsv

Smt Jabeen Gafoor v. Bengaluru Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Jabeen Gafoor v. Bengaluru 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

M/S. Scorpion Express Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Ram Rasayanic Pvt.Ltd.

Official Liquidator of Vs M/S Shree Kamachi Amman

M/S Kenplus Plastic Vs M/S Semindia Systems Private Limited

Sri a M Sharath Chandra Vs the Principal Secretary

K Muniraja Vs State of Karnataka

H S Puttakempanna Vs Mrs P Bharathi Davi