Allowed

Ms H C Meena Rani v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC6 Oct 2023WP/17179/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a site allotment by BDA. The Court held the cancellation order was illegal and based on erroneous reasoning, as the petitioner had not suppressed facts and it was the authority's duty to verify records.

What did the court decide?

The impugned cancellation order dated 01.02.2017 (Annexure-G) and all consequent orders were set aside.

Ms H C Meena Rani Vs the Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:36424 WP No. 17179 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 17179 OF 2017 (BDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MS. H.C. MEENA RANI W/O DINESH D N AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.52 PROMENADE ROAD, CLEVELAND TOWN NEAR SANTHOSH HOSPITAL BANGALORE-560 005.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. AJIT P B., ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMAR PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560020.

¶15

MR. SRIKANTHA SUBRAO KULKARNI S/O LATE SUBARAO PANDURANGA KULKARNI

¶16

AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:36424 WP No. 17179 of 2017

¶18

R/AT NO.6, SBI, COLONY JAMAKANDI BAGALKOTE DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-587 301.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. HITESH GOWDA B.J., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K. DIWAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2017 AT ANNEX-G ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT CANCELLING THE ALLOTMENT OF SITE BEARING NO.1308, SIR M VISVESWARAIAH LAYOUT, 8TH BLOCK, BANGALORE.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Heard Sri. Ajith P.B. learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. G.Lakshmeesh Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Sri.Hitesh Gowda B.J, learned counsel along with Sri.K.Diwakar for the respondent No.2.

¶25

Short question involved in this matter is in respect of the reasons assigned in the impugned site cancellation order dated 01.02.2017 produced at Annexure-G, whereby the site bearing Sy.No.1308

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:36424 WP No. 17179 of 2017

¶28

measuring 15X 24 sq.mtr. situated at 8th block, further extension of Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah Nagar, has been cancelled.

¶29

A reading of the contents at Annexure-G are explanatory. In that it is stated that in the application

¶30

filed by the petitioner seeking allotment of a site, had made a mention about petitioner having made two early attempts seeking allotment of site measuring 15 X 24 mtrs., and one attempt seeking allotment of site measuring 12 X 18 mtrs,. The contents of Annexure-G further states that since the date of birth of the petitioner

¶31

is 24.09.1971 and petitioner having made only two attempts for allotment of a larger sites, she was not entitled in the seniority list. However, the said communication further reads as under;

¶32

"vÀ¥ÀÄà ªÀiÁ»wUÀ¼À£ÀÄß G¯ÉèÃT¹ ºÀAaPÉ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:23.02.2005 gÀAzÀÄ ¤ªÉÃ±À£À gÀzÀÝw DzÉÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. ¸ÀzÀj ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀzÀ ºÀAaPÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀA§AzsÀªÁV ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ ¸ÀAzÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgÀÄ¥ÁªÀw ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀAvÉ w½¹ ¢£ÁAPÀ:11.08.2005 gÀAzÀÄ »A§gÀºÀ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ."

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:36424 WP No. 17179 of 2017

¶35

It is this reasoning which according to the petitioner, being contrary to the records furnished by the respondent-BDA

¶36

itself is called in question in this writ petition.

¶37

At this juncture, it is necessary to refer to the memo dated 19.10.2020 filed by the learned counsel for BDA along with documents, namely, a notification dated 09.09.2003 issued by the respondent-BDA calling upon the applications for allotment of sites referred to therein and the copy of the application filed by the petitioner.

¶38

Learned counsel for the respondent-BDA referring to terms and condition No.13 (a) & (b) in the said notification submits that previous attempts made for allotment of site of a lesser dimension will not be considered. However, he further submits that in the application filed by the petitioner, the petitioner apart from mentioning that she had made two attempts in respect of a larger dimension sites namely, 15X 24 meters on

¶39

¶40

NC: 2023:KHC:36424 WP No. 17179 of 2017

¶41

26.12.2002 and 07.06.2002 respectively had also

¶42

mentioned about one attempt having been made in respect of a lesser dimension of site i.e., measuring 12 X 18 meters on 29.11.2001. Thus, referring to contents of the application and the terms and condition No.13(a) of the notification, learned counsel for the respondent-BDA seek to justify that the petitioner ought not to have mentioned about the attempt made by her in respect of a site of a lesser dimension, therefore, the said mentioning amounts to a mistake on the part of the petitioner. As such, he submits, the reasoning assigned in the impugned order cannot be found fault with.

¶43

That the aforesaid submission of land counsel for respondent-BDA cannot be accepted for the following reasons;

¶44

(a) It is not the case of any suppression of the fact by the petitioner. Perusal of the contents of the application referred to above reveal, all that the petitioner has done is disclosing total number of attempts made by her in

¶45

¶46

NC: 2023:KHC:36424 WP No. 17179 of 2017

¶47

respect of a larger sites as well as the smaller site in the application.

¶48

(b) Terms and condition No.13(a) referred to

¶49

above, casts obligation on the respondent-BDA not to consider the attempts made in respect of a site of a lesser dimension. The said terms and condition does not even remotely suggest that the petitioner shall not disclose such information. In fact it is obligation on the part of the respondent-BDA to have verified the records before allotment of sites.

¶50

¶51

any suppression of fact or misleading of the fact as alleged in the impugned order at Annexure-G. The reasons assigned in Annexure -'G' which is extracted hereinabove

¶52

are per se illegal and untenable. The fault exclusively lies

¶53

at the doors of the respondent-BDA and the same cannot be rubbed against the petitioner.

¶54

In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The impugned order at Annexure-G is set aside

¶55

¶56

NC: 2023:KHC:36424 WP No. 17179 of 2017

¶57

as the same has been passed on an erroneous and baseless reasoning and all consequent orders passed pursuant to Annexure-G are also set aside. Needless to state that allowing of this petition and setting aside of the impugned order at Annexure-G shall not come in the way of respondent-BDA initiating proceedings if any, in accordance with law.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

Ms H C Meena Rani v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms H C Meena Rani v. the Commissioner

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

Sri. Manjunatha Seva Trust Vs Bengaluru Development Authority

Sri C M Venkataravanan Vs State of Karnataka

Sri H T Sathyanarayan Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Sri. Muneshwaraswamy Temple Development Trust (Regd), Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Sri. Venkatesh @ Venkateshappa, Vs the State of Karnataka

Siddalingaiah @ Siddalinge Gowda Vs State of Karnataka