Allowed

Sri Tungabhadra Vidya Samsthe (R) v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2024WP/4480/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside the cancellation order dated 24.09.2020 passed by the Bengaluru Development Authority regarding a civic amenity site allotted to the petitioner society. The order was quashed due to procedural lapse as no notice was issued and the agreement violations were not specified.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 24.09.2020 passed by the third respondent is set aside. The authority is at liberty to initiate fresh action if there are violations.

Sri Tungabhadra Vidya Samsthe (R) Vs the State of… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:2739 WP No. 4480 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 4480 OF 2021 (BDA)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI TUNGABHADRA VIDYA SAMSTHE (R) (EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION IN RURAL AREA AND CHARITABLE OLD AGE HOMES) N.H.206, NEAR DY.S.P. OFFICE, TARIKERE-577228 CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI. B.C.UTSAV, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. UGRAPPA V S.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001

¶13

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, STATE OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK (EAST) BANGALORE-560020

¶15

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NO.1, WEST SUB DIVISION,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:2739 WP No. 4480 of 2021

¶18

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BANGALORE-560020

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. YOGESH D.NAIK, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2;

¶21

SRI. UNNI KRISHNAN M, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4)

¶22

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN RESPECT OF CA SITE NO.CA-01/C SITUATED AT RAILWAY MEN HBCS LAYOUT, NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE FROM THE OFFICE OF RESPONDENT NO.3 AND TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED CANCELLATION ORDER DTD.24.9.2020 AT ANNEXURE-N ISSUED BY RESPONDENT.3 CONSEQUENTLY TO DECLARE THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IS ILLEGAL AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner - Society was allotted a Civic Amenity site bearing No.CA-01/C in Railway Men, HBCS layout, Ramakrishnanagar, Nandini layout, Bengaluru. Subsequently possession certificate/sale-cum-lease agreement were also executed by the Bengaluru Development Authority in favour of the petitioner/society. Thereafter, the petitioner is said to have put up an old-age home on the Civic Amenity site. However, by way of impugned order dated 24.09.2020 (Annexure-N to the writ petition), the third respondent/Bengaluru Development

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:2739 WP No. 4480 of 2021

¶28

Authority cancelled the allotment of Civic Amenity site to the petitioner/society on the ground that the said Civic Amenity site is required for school ground. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶29

It is contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner/society that once the Civic Amenity site was allotted to it, the third respondent could not have been cancelled the allotment, as it has not violated any of the terms and conditions of the lease-cum-sale agreement. It is also contended that the order of cancellation has been passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner/society.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/Benglauru Development Authority admits that no notice has been issued to the petitioner. However, he submits that the petitioner/society has violated certain terms and conditions of lease-cum-sale agreement which unfortunately does not form part of the impugned order. He further fairly submits that the third respondent/Bengaluru Development Authority will reconsider the case of the petitioner/society in the manner known to law and after giving due opportunity of hearing, will

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:2739 WP No. 4480 of 2021

¶33

take a decision, whether to cancel the allotment or not. He also

¶34

admits that in the light of not issuing notice to the petitioner/society and in the light of not mentioning in the impugned order, as to how the petitioner/society has violated any of the terms and conditions of the agreement of leasecum-sale which authorizes the Bengaluru Development Authority to resume the land, the same may be set aside, reserving liberty to the Bengaluru Development Authority to initiate fresh action against the petitioner/society.

¶35

Admittedly, subsequent to issuance of lease-cumsale agreement, no notice has been issued to the petitioner/society stating as to what are the terms and conditions of the lease-cum-sale agreement which have been violated by the petitioner/society which entails resumption of the land, for that reason, the impugned order is required to be set aside.

¶36

Hence, the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i) The impugned order dated 24.09.2020 vide Annexure-N to writ petition, passed by the third respondent is hereby set aside.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:2739 WP No. 4480 of 2021

¶41

ii) It is needless to state that third respondent/Bengaluru Development Authority is always at liberty to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law, if there is any violation of the terms of lease-cum-sale agreement by the petitioner/society.

¶42

Writ petition is disposed off accordingly.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Sri Tungabhadra Vidya Samsthe (R) v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Tungabhadra Vidya Samsthe (R) v. the State of Karnataka

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

Mr Abdul Wajid Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Ranganayaki Vs Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation

Sri. M. Kempaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Pillappa Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri R Srinivasan Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

K Shivaprasad Vs the State of Karnataka