Dismissed

Smt.Tara N v. the Bengaluru Development Authority

Karnataka HC13 Mar 2023WP/5582/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the BDA Commissioner's order denying permission to remit delayed payment for a cancelled site allotment. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the statutory payment period had expired before the pandemic notification and no relief could be granted on grounds of mercy.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed with costs having been made easy.

Smt.Tara N Vs the Bengaluru Development… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 5582 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 5582 OF 2023 (BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT.TARA N, W/O DEVRAJ S, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO 380(12), 5^TH CROSS, 6^TH MAIN, N R COLONY, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.G K BHAT.,SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SMT. SUDHA D, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE 560 020. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶14

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MURUGESH V CHARATI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE COMMUNICATION DTD 08.02.2023 BEARING NO.BEM APRA/UKA-3/B7/SD/2085/2022-23 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT THROUGH THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-3 AS PER ANNX-F AND ETC.,

¶15

¶16

WP No. 5582 of 2023

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petitioner lady claiming to be a person belonging to Economically Weaker Section is knocking at the doors of writ court for assailing the endorsement dated 08.02.2023 at Annexure-F whereby her request for permission to remit the amount due albeit with delay and thereby revive the allotment cancelled vide order dated 13.12.2022, has been negatived.

¶20

Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner

¶21

vehemently argues that her client had suffered COVID infection and that even otherwise the COVID times need to be excluded while computing the three year period for making payment towards the price of site in question. He adds that the law should be interpreted in a humane way and reprieve should be granted to the petitioner regard being had to the financial difficulty.

¶22

¶23

WP No. 5582 of 2023

¶24

The learned Panel Counsel on request having accepted notice for the respondent opposes the petition making submission in justification of the impugned endorsement. He also points out that the Commissioner’s order dated 13.12.2022 whereby allotment of the site has been rescinded having not put in challenge, the Writ Court cannot interfere.

¶25

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

¶26

(a) Firstly, there is no dispute as to the fact that the allotment of the subject site was made on 21.12.2016 and the entire remittance of the amount ought to have been made within the statutory period as provided under the provisions of Rule 13 of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984. Admittedly, no remittance is made of the remainder of the price within the stipulated period. The contention of petitioner’s counsel that the COVID pandemic times need to be

¶27

¶28

WP No. 5582 of 2023

¶29

excluded while computing the period cannot be sustained, since the COVID as a pandemic was notified only w.e.f. from 24.03.2020, that is long after the statutory period for making the payment had expired.

¶30

(b) There is yet another reason for not accepting the contention founded on the COVID pandemic inasmuch as, there is absolutely no whisper about the same in the interaction between the Petitioner and the Respondent – BDA in that connection. Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the Petitioner was not able to locate the pleadings in connection with the COVID pandemic having struck the Petitioner or anyone in her family, for justifiably claiming reprieve on that basis.

¶31

(c) The allotment of house sites is done under the provision of the 1984 Rules which prescribe certain parameters & conditions. The allottee has to remit the allotment price within the statutory period failing which, the allotment stands rescinded and the site would go back to the pool for being notified for fresh allotment. The BDA

¶32

¶33

WP No. 5582 of 2023

¶34

being a statutory authority, cannot sympathize with the allottees by showing concession in the matter of payment of price or the period within which such payment should be made, de hors the 1984 Rules. No relief can be granted to the Petitioner on grounds of mercy; otherwise, this Court will by laying a very bad precedent that would breed more injustice to the public at large, members from whom may be in queue for multiple attempts.

¶35

In the above circumstances, the Petition being devoid

¶36

of merits is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is, costs having been made easy.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Bsv

Smt.Tara N v. the Bengaluru Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Tara N v. the Bengaluru Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. a Ramamurthy Vs State of Karnataka

M S Saileela Vs the Commissioner

Sri Mukundaiah C v Vs the State of Karnataka

C N Srinivasa Rao Vs State of Karnataka

Sri S Rajashekar Vs Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (Bmrcl)

M/S Indus Tech Park Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer