Allowed

Sri. M S Diwakar v. the Bangalore Development Authority

Karnataka HC12 Feb 2024WP/298/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BDA allottee challenged cancellation of his site allotment on ground he failed to appear for lease-cum-sale agreement execution despite repeated representations. Court held endorsements went to an outdated address and representations were untraversed; cancellation unsustainable. Petition allowed with direction to allot alternative site in Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout.

What did the court decide?

Impugned cancellation set aside; BDA directed to execute lease-cum-sale agreement for site no.1455, Sector-D Block-6, Sy.no.59, Bheemanakupee, Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout within 8 weeks, subject to r

Sri. M S Diwakar Vs the Bangalore Development Authority — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:5914 WP No. 298 of 2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶7

WRIT PETITION No. 298 OF 2018 (BDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. M. S. DIWAKAR, SON OF SREERANGARAJAN MR. AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT # 345, 9^TH MAIN ROAD, 14^TH CROSS ROAD, BEHIND GANESH JUICE CENTRE, CMH ROAD, INDIRANAGAR II STAGE 560038.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. ABHINAY Y. T., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI KUMARA PARK WEST, PARLATTAYA S BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560020. Location: High Court REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. of Karnataka

¶14

THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-3, THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, KARNATAKA-560020.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:5914 WP No. 298 of 2018

¶19

QUASH THE ORDER OF CANCELLATION DATED 8.2.2017 PASSED BY THE R-2 [ANNEXURE-H] BY WHICH SITE BEARING NO.112, OF NAGARBHAVI II STAGE, 10 BLOCK, BENGALURU HAS BEEN CANCELLED. CONSEQUENTIALLY DIRECT THE BDA TO CONVEY THE SITE BEARING NO.112 OF NAGARBHAVI II STAGE, 10 BLOCK, BENGALURU BY EXECUTION ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs:

¶23

a) Quash the order of cancellation bearing no.BDA/US-3:1608:2016-17 dated 8.2.2017 passed by the 2^nd respondent (Annexure H) by which site bearing no.112 of Nagarabhavi II Stage, 10^th Block, Bengaluru has been cancelled.

¶24

b) Consequentially direct the BDA to convey the site bearing no.112 of Nagarabhavi II Stage, 10 Block, Bengaluru by executing all the necessary documents etc.

¶25

2. Sri Y.T.Abhinay, learned counsel for petitioner

¶26

submitted that in terms of application filed by petitioner, on 15.4.1999 respondent - BDA had allotted site no.112 of Nagarabhavi II Sage, 10^th Block in favour of petitioner and called upon him to pay sital value of 1,56,373/-. It was submitted that petitioner paid same on 30.07.1999. Thereafter respondent called upon petitioner to pay 322-/ towards slum

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:5914 WP No. 298 of 2018

¶28

clearance cess, which was also paid. But when petitioner sought for execution of sale deed by letters at Annexures-D1, E1, F1 and G dated 11.10.2000, 28.05.2015, 18.10.2016 and 18.01.2017 respectively, same fell on deaf ears.

¶29

On 08.02.2017 BDA passed impugned order cancelling allotment in favour of petitioner on ground that he had failed to come forward for execution of lease cum sale agreement. It was submitted that since petitioner had been submitting representations, which were kept pending, reason for cancellation was unsustainable. Therefore sought for quashing of endorsement and to direct respondent - BDA to execute sale deed in respect of said site.

¶30

On other hand, Sri Murugesh V. Charati, learned counsel for BDA sought to justify endorsement. It was submitted that as per conditions of allotment, petitioner was required to pay entire balance amount within a period of 90 days from date of allotment i.e. 15.04.1999. It was submitted that since petitioner paid balance amount on 30.07.1999 beyond period of 90 days, BDA was justified in invoking Rule 13 of Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Site) Rules

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:5914 WP No. 298 of 2018

¶33

It was further submitted that after cancellation of site no.112, allotted to petitioner, it was allotted to one Sri D. Prasanna Kumar. It was submitted that, since said allottee was not arrayed as party to writ petition, petitioner was not entitled for relief.

¶34

It was submitted that as per Court directions, BDA had furnished list of vacant sites in Nada Prabhu Kempegowda Layout and in case petitioner were to opt for any of them, same would be considered for allotment to petitioner.

¶35

In reply, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner would have no objection for allotment of site no.1455 in Sector - D Block no.6, Sy.no.59 of Bheemanakupee in Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout.

¶36

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition

¶37

record.

¶38

From above, it is seen that only reason mentioned

¶39

for cancellation of allotment of site no.112 to petitioner was that petitioner had not come forward for execution of leasecum-sale agreement despite, being informed by several endorsements. Perusal of said endorsements would indicate

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:5914 WP No. 298 of 2018

¶41

that they were issued in name of petitioner at his earlier address i.e., at No.17, 7^th Main road, Indiranagar II stage, Bengaluru-38. Whereas petitioner in his representation at Annexure-E1 dated 28.05.2015, had informed his subsequent address i.e. no.345, 9^th Main road, 14^th cross Road, Behind Ganesh Juice Centre, CMH road, Indiranagar 2^nd Stage, Bengaluru-38. Further fact that petitioner had earlier submitted representations at Annexurre-D1 under acknowledgement at Annexure-D2 and thereafter Annexure-F, acknowledging under Annexures-E2, F1 and F.2 etc. would indicate that petitioner had called upon BDA to execute lease cum sale agreement in favour of petitioner. Said representations are not traversed in objection or impugned endorsement. Therefore endorsement impugned in light of reasons stated therein would be unsustainable.

¶42

Consequently, writ petition is allowed. Impugned endorsement is set aside and direction is issued to respondents to forthwith execute lease cum sale agreement in favour of petitioner in Nadaprabhu Kempegowda layout i.e., site no. no.1455 in Sector - D Block no.6, Sy.no.59 of Bheemanakupee

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:5914 WP No. 298 of 2018

¶45

within a period of 8 weeks from date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶46

As pre-condition for above, petitioner is directed to return original allotment letter, possession certificates etc. in respect of site no.112 to respondent within a period of 15 days and also perform such other formalities, as may be informed by respondent and thereafter to execute sale deed as per

¶47

direction.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Psg*

Sri. M S Diwakar v. the Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. M S Diwakar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. v. Shankarachari Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. S. Shivappa Vs Sri Narayanappa

M/S Pedda Shiva Reddy Foundation Wellsprings Academy Vs State of Karnataka

Bapu Vs the Registrar

K Nagappa Vs K Hanumantharayappa

Sathguru School of Nursing Vs State of Karnataka