Allowed

Sri B P Renukamba v. the Commissioenr

Karnataka HC19 Mar 2024WP/1236/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed writ petition and quashed cancellation order, directing BDA to execute sale deed for site allotted in first attempt.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; BDA to execute documents for site within one month.

What the court decided

Sri B P Renukamba Vs the Commissioenr — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:11246 WP No. 1236 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 1236 OF 2023 (BDA)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT B P RENUKAMBA

¶8

W/O B R PRAKASH, AGED 46 YEARS R/AT BYRAMANGALA POST BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGAR TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. H.C. SUNDARESH., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE COMMISSIOENR BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU – 560020.

¶13

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-II BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU – 560020.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C ULLAL., ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE CANCELLATION ORDER BEARING NO. BDA.DS.1075.Mu.JaANaKa6,4TH H/05-06 DATED 05.07.2005 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS PER ANNXURE-G AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER BEARING NO. BDA/DS2/ALLOTMENT/2020-21, DATED 08.03.2021 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-N, ETC.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:11246 WP No. 1236 of 2023

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 08.03.2021, by which the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) has reiterated the cancellation order that had been passed in respect of site No.1075, which had been allotted to the petitioner.

¶23

It is not in dispute that Site No.1075, measuring 20ft x 30ft, which was a site earmarked for Economically Weaker Section, was allotted to the petitioner on 04.02.2004 and the petitioner was called upon to deposit the site value of Rs.49,900/-, which was also deposited by the petitioner on 26.02.2004.

¶24

It is the case of the petitioner that instead of executing a sale deed in his favor in respect of the site allotted to the petitioner, the petitioner was issued with a show-cause notice as to why the allotment of site should not be canceled, since the said site had been allotted in the very first attempt made by the petitioner.

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11246 WP No. 1236 of 2023

¶26

Despite the reply being given to the said show-cause notice, the respondents did not proceed to pass any order, which led to the petitioner filing W.P. No.37768 of 2017 and this Court, by an order dated 02.12.2019 allowed the petition and directed the BDA to consider the representation filed by the petitioner, in the light of the decision referred to in the said representation.

¶27

Pursuant to the said order, the impugned order has been passed stating that the petitioner's allotment was required to be canceled since the petitioner was allotted the site in the very first attempt and that was impermissible.

¶28

A Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.1417 of 2008, decided on 10.11.2008, has held that merely because the applicant had not made the necessary attempts, that would not amount to a disqualification which entitled the BDA to cancel the allotment made in favor of an allottee.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:11246 WP No. 1236 of 2023

¶31

This order has also been taken note of in the earlier round of litigation and the BDA was directed to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders.

¶32

In the light of the decision rendered by the Division Bench in W.A. No.1417 of 2008, it is clear that merely because the petitioner had been allotted a site in the very first attempt, that cannot be a disqualification or an entitlement to the BDA to cancel the allotment.

¶33

Consequently, the impugned order cannot be

¶34

sustained and the same is quashed .

¶35

The BDA is directed to execute the necessary documents conveying Site No.1075 to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed .

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

RK CT: SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Sri B P Renukamba v. the Commissioenr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Sri B P Renukamba v. the Commissioenr

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

Sri Govindaraju Vs the Prl Secretary

C. Shanthamma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt Ashwathamma Since Dead Represented by Her Lr Sri Purushotham Vs Sri T N Rudresh

Smt Chenddyna Schae Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Manjula T D Vs Smt Kanakavalli

Sri.M.B. Narayanaswamy Vs Sri.B. Ashwathanarayana