Dismissed

B.S. Ramakrishnan v. the Bangalore Development Authority

Karnataka HC7 Mar 2023WP/25253/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging BDA endorsements imposing penalty and setting a price for marginal land allotment, holding the court should not be lenient with encroachers on public property.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted three months to remit the outstanding amount demanded in the endorsement; otherwise liable to removal and public auction.

B.S. Ramakrishnan Vs the Bangalore Development Authority — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 25253 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 25253 OF 2015 (BDA)

BETWEEN:

B.S. RAMAKRISHNAN,

SINCE DEAD BY LRS

1A) B A GEETHA,

¶11

W/O LATE B R ANIL KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.1713, 8^TH CROSS, 17^TH A MAIN, J.P. NAGAR, 2^ND PHASE, BANGALORE.

¶12

1B) B A ANAGHA,

¶13

S/O LATE B R ANIL KUMAR,

¶14

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NO.1713, 8^TH CROSS,

¶15

17^TH A MAIN, J.P. NAGAR,

¶16

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

2^ND PHASE, BANGALORE.

¶18

(BY SRI. H S SANTHOSH.,ADVOCATE)

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA KRUPA, BANGALORE-560 020. RERPESENTED BNY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶22

THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA KRUPA, BANGALORE-560 020.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. K KRISHNA .,ADVOCATE)

¶25

¶26

WP No. 25253 of 2015

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENTS AT ANNX-A DATED 30.11.2007 AND ANNX-B DATED 05.01.2015 AND ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO ALLOT THE MARGINAL LAND IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AT THE RATE PREVAILING IN THE YEAR 2007.

¶28

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Petitioner having deceased pendente lite , his LRs having been brought on record, represent his estate and seek to lay a challenge to the Endorsements dated 30.11.2007 & 05.01.2015 issued by the Respondent – BDA

¶31

respectively at Annexures A & B. The same are reproduced below for the ease of understanding:

¶32

Annexure-A:

¶33

“¸ÀÆZÀ£Á ¥Àv

¶34

¤ªÀÄUÉ ºÀAaPÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄªÀ ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ¸ÀASÉå:1713 ºÀAvÀ 2£ÉÃ ¥sÉÃ¸À, ¸ÁgÀQÌ §qÁªÀuÉUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖAvÉ ¸ÀzÀj ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆA¢PÉÆArgÀÄªÀ CAa£À eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄªÀiÁqÀ®Ä PÉÆÃj ¢£ÁAPÀ: gÀAzÀÄ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ CfðAiÀÄAvÉ ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV ¸ÀzÀj¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀPÉÌ zÉÆgÉAiÀÄ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ CAa£À eÁUÀ 89:37 Z.À «ÄÃ. ªÀÄAdÆgÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ¸ÀzÀj CAa£À eÁUÀPÉÌ ¥Àæw ZÀzÀÄgÀ «ÄÃlgÉÎ jÃ 11713-00 gÀAvÉ MlÄÖgÀÆ 1046790-00 ºÁUÀÆ zÀAqÀ ZÀ. «ÄÃ UÉ gÀÆ 2420-00gÀAvÉ gÀÆ 2327967-00 MlÄÖ gÀÆ 33,74,757 UÀ¼À£ÀÄß F ¥ÀvÀæ vÀ®Ä¦zÀ 300 ¢ªÀ¸ÀzÉÆ¼ÀUÁV ¥ÁªÀw¹ ZÀ®£ï£ÀÄß F PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¤ÃqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ 300 ¢ªÀ¸À PÀ¼ÀzÀ°è ©¯ï ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀAzÁAiÀÄªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ.”

¶35

¶36

WP No. 25253 of 2015

¶37

Annexure-B:

¶38

“ CAa£À eÁUÀzÀ ¸ÀÆZÀ£Á ¥Àv

¶39

«µÀAiÀÄ: ¸ÁgÀQÌ 2£ÉÃ ¥sÉÃ¸ï §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ¸ÀASÉå 1713UÉ ºÉÆA¢PÉÆArgÀÄªÀ 89.37 ZÀzÀgÀ «ÄÃlgï CAa£À eÁUÀPÉÌ ªÀiË®åªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä «ZÁgÀzÀ §UÉÎ. G¯ÉèÃR: 1. ªÀiÁ£Àå DzsÀåPÀëgÀ CzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå:243, ¢£ÁAPÀ:25-10-2014. 2.ªÀiÁ£Àå DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ DzÉÃ±À¸ÀASÉå:4959,¢£ÁAPÀ:29-10-2014. *****

¶40

F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¤ªÀÄUÉ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄªÀÅzÉ£ÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÁgÀQÌ 2£ÉÃ ¥sÉÃ¸ï §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ¸ÀASÉå 1713UÉ ºÉÆA¢PÉÆAqÀAwgÀÄªÀ CAa£À eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß MlÄÖ 89.37 ZÀ.«ÄÃ D¼ÀvÉAiÀÄÄ¼Àî CAa£À eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ G¯ÉèÃTvÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ºÀAaPÉ ªÀÄr, ¥Àæw ZÀ.«ÄÃ UÉ 51,667/- gÀAvÉ MlÄÖ gÀÆ.46,17,480.00 UÀ¼À£ÀÄß «¢ü¸À¯ÁVzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ MvÀÄÛªÀj eÁUÀzÀ ªÀiË®å gÀÆ.46,17,480/- MlÄÖ jÃ.92,34,960/-UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃªÀÅ F ¥ÀvÀæ vÀ®Ä¦zÀ 60 ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÉÆ¼ÀUÁV CAa£À eÁUÀzÀ ªÀiË®åªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¹ CzÀgÀ ZÀ®£ï C£ÀÄß F PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¸À°è¹ CAa£À eÁUÀzÀ ¸Áé¢üÃ£À ¥ÀvÀæ/±ÀÄzÀÞPÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.”

¶41

2. After service of notice, the Respondents having

¶42

entered appearance through their Sr. Panel Advocate have filed the Statement of Objections resisting the Writ Petition. The learned Panel Counsel makes vehement submission in justification of the impugned Endorsements to the effect that Petitioner having encroached BDA site adjoining his, has got allotment and therefore, fine has been levied for the period of encroachment normatively

¶43

and as a consequence, Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶44

¶45

WP No. 25253 of 2015

¶46

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶47

and having perused the Petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

¶48

I) Petitioner being the owner of his present site by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated 11.09.2002 had encroached the adjoining BDA site admeasuring 961.97 Sft; on his application dated 16.07.2003, the subject adjoining site came to be allotted to him in terms of BDA Resolution vide subject No.249/96 passed in the meetings held on 11.12.1996 & 13.12.1996 which reads as under:

¶49

“If the applicant is the first or subsequent purchaser of BDA site from the original allottee, the cost of the marginal land should be fixed at the rate at which he purchased the site (as evidenced by the sale deed) or at one and half times the BDA’s current allotment rate, whichever is higher.”

¶50

II) For the encroachment period, Petitioner had been levied the penalty in terms of BDA Resolution No.135/2005 passed in its meeting held on 18.10.2005 and the same reads as under:

¶51

¶52

WP No. 25253 of 2015

¶53

“ a) To levy penalty at the market rate along with the cost of the marginal land, in the cases where the compound wall/buildings were constructed by encroachment prior to the allotment of such marginal land, and

¶54

b) To levy penalty of Rs.100/- per sq.feet along with the cost of marginal land, in cases where the marginal land was fenced to prevent the encroachment before its allotment.”

¶55

There is no dispute that the site bought by the Petitioner measures 143 Sq.mtrs and the marginal site given to him on encroachment measures 89.37 Sq.meters. In fact, Petitioner is found to have constructed a part of the building along with a staircase by encroaching the marginal site much before its allotment.

¶56

III) Petitioner is stated to have paid Rs.16,75,000/as reflected in the Sale Deed itself and that works out to Rs.11,7113.29/- per Sq.mtr. The Market Price as per the notified Guideline Value as on 19.04.2007 is Rs.2420/- per Sft and therefore, the computation was earlier worked out as under:

¶57

Penalty amount for encroachment Rs.23,27,967-00 Cost of the marginal land Rs.10,46,790-00

¶58

¶59

WP No. 25253 of 2015

¶60

(89.37 sq.mtrs x Rs.11,713=10,46,790)

¶61

Accordingly, the BDA sent a letter dated 30.11.2007 calling upon the Petitioner to pay the aforesaid sum. Instead of making payment, he gave a representation dated 26.03.2008 for scaling down the amount by waiving the penalty. This was rejected vide Endorsement dated 17.06.2008.

¶62

IV) Petitioner deposited only a sum of Rs.11,00,000/that too on 10.09.2014 accompanied by another representation dated 16.09.2014 seeking reduction of the penalty for encroaching the marginal land. The Chairman of the BDA taking lenient view of the matter, made an order dated 28.10.2014 for allotment of the marginal land at the then Market rate with penalty as well since, Petitioner illegally had put up construction in the marginal land and was using it for several years without paying a single rupee. The Market Value for the registration year 2014-15 for the said site was Rs.4800/- per Sft and

¶63

¶64

WP No. 25253 of 2015

¶65

accordingly, the computation of the price and penalty are

¶66

worked out as under:

¶67

Cost of the marginal land Rs.46,17,480-00 (89.37 sq.mtrs x Rs.51,667) Penalty for encroachment Rs.46,17,480-00 (89.37 sq.mtrs x Rs.51,667)

¶68

Total

¶69

---------------------Rs.92,34,960-00

¶70

(Penalty has been worked out in terms of Clause A of BDA Resolution dated 18.10.2005 since the marginal site was put to use by the Petitioner by erecting the structures, as if he was the owner thereof.)

¶71

V) There is a lot of force in the submission of learned

¶72

Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the BDA that the Writ Court is expected to function as the custodian of public properties and therefore, those who have barged into such properties, should not be shown leniency when encroached properties are being allotted on payment of price in terms of notified Guideline Value coupled with levy of fine. An argument to the contrary not only would imperil the public properties but also would promote their illegal encroachment, the encroachers trying to seek allotment by a sort of deterrence kind.

¶73

¶74

WP No. 25253 of 2015

¶75

In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is, costs having been reluctantly made easy. However, in the fitness of things, Petitioner is granted a period of three months for remitting the remainder of the amount as demanded in the impugned Endorsement dated 05.01.2015 at Annexure-B, failing which, he can be removed by the Respondent – BDA by using police force if need be and the marginal land may be notified for allotment by way of public auction in accordance with law.

¶76

Sd/JUDGE

¶77

Bsv

B.S. Ramakrishnan v. the Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.S. Ramakrishnan 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

T v Sundar Raj Vs State of Karnataka

N Krishna Moorthy Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

Sri v Hanumantarayappa Vs the Chairman

Smt Jayalakshmi, Vs Smt Yellamma

Smt Shabhana Banu Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri B Devaraj Vs Bangalore Deveopment Authority