Smt B R Kavitha v. the Bangalore Development Authority
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a BDA site allotment. Declining to set aside the impugned order due to non-payment of sital value and third-party interests, the court directed the authority to consider the petitioner's request for an alternate site within specified timeframes.
What did the court decide?
The authority is directed to consider the petitioner's written request for an alternate site within three months; all other contentions kept open.
What the court decided
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.9731 OF 2015(BDA)
BETWEEN:
SMT.B.R.KAVITHA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, W/O CHANDRASHEKAR, NO.48, 5TH MAIN, MUNESWARA BLOCK,LAGGERE, BANGALORE – 560 058.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B V SHANKARNARAYAN RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI.SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
- THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE – 560 020. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the cancellation of the site allotment was violative of principles of natural justice due to lack of notice or justified by the delay in remittance.
Whether the release of the impugned order is justified despite the statutory requirement to pay the sital value within the prescribed period.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a reprieve based on prior coordinate bench decisions or humanitarian grounds considering third-party interests.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Smt.B.R.Kavitha
- respondent
The Bangalore Development Authority
Coram
Krishna S.Dixit
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Karnataka HC
- Decided on
- · January
- Registered
- Case no.
- WP/9731/2015
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court