Mrs. Francis Balaraj Vs the Commissioner

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:636 WP No. 10588 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 10588 OF 2019 (BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MRS. FRANCIS BALARAJ, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O A. SAVARIDAS, RESIDING AT NO.190, MANJUNATHA LAYOUT, DEVASANDRA EXTENSION, BEHIND JAMES PRIMARY SCHOOL, KRISHNARAJAPURAM, BANGALORE - 560 036.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. BHOJARAJA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER, THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020.

¶14

THE REVENUE OFFICER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, EAST DIVISION, H.S.R.SHOPPING COMPLEX BANGALORE - 560 102.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, NO.3, EAST SUB-DIVISION,

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:636 WP No. 10588 of 2019

¶18

HSR SHOPPING COMPLEX, BANGALORE - 560 102.

¶19

THE AIRCRAFT EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., OFFICE AT NO.3, SHIBHADAS TOWERS, 2ND ROAD, RAJARAM MOHAN RAI EXTENSION, K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 027, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. AJAY KUMAR M, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; R4 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ENDORSEMENT DATED 06.12.2018, ISSUED BY THE R-2 AT ANNX-E. DIRECT THE R-2 TO EXPEDITIOUSLY ISSUE KATHA CERTIFICATES TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE SITE PURCHASED BY HIM.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner claiming to be the purchaser of the site bearing No.1224/B, 'A' Block, Kudlu and Singasandra Village, Sarjapur and Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk having purchased the same from respondent No.4 - Society in terms of

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:636 WP No. 10588 of 2019

¶29

the Deed of Sale dated 16.12.2010, is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶30

" a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other similar writ or order or direction quashing Endorsement bearing No.BDA/RO/(E)//2018-19 dated 06.12.2018 issued by the 2^nd respondent at Annexure-E.

¶31

b. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other similar writ, order or direction, directing the 2^nd respondent to expeditiously issue katha certificates to the petitioner in respect of the site purchased by him.

¶32

c. Pass such other order that this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interests of justice and equity in the facts and circumstances of the case."

¶33

The case of the petitioner is that the site which is purchased by the petitioner forms part of a layout formed by respondent No.4 - Society and development of which was approved by the respondent-BDA. Thus, after purchasing of the site as above, the petitioner filed an application before respondent No.2 seeking registration of Khata, in respect of the aforesaid site, in favour of the petitioner. However, the respondent-BDA has not taken any action on the said application.

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:636 WP No. 10588 of 2019

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged, submits that there is no impediment either in law or on facts for the respondent-BDA to register the Khata in the name of the petitioner. That for the reasons best known, the respondent-authorities are not taking any action.

¶37

In response, learned counsel for the respondentBDA vehemently submits that the layout formed by respondent No.4 - Society which was approved by the respondent-BDA was subject to certain conditions to be complied with in terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. In that, the release of the sites were subject to respondent No.4 - Society complying with the conditions that were imposed while issuing the development plan, in terms of which the respondent No.4 - Society ought to have formed CA sites and handed over the same to the BDA and since respondent No.4 - Society did not comply with the said condition, the respondent-BDA has not released all the sites.

¶38

Today the learned counsel for

¶39

respondent-BDA files a memo along with certain documents. Taking this Court through the said documents at particularly

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:636 WP No. 10588 of 2019

¶42

one at Annexure - R3, he submits that total number of sites which are formed in the said layout are 4150 of which only 3725 sites have been released in four stages and there are still 425 sites remain unreleased. He also refers to the letter dated 06.11.2008 produced at Annexure-R7 issued by respondent No.4 - Society, wherein it is stated that CA sites which were required to be handed over to the BDA have been encroached upon and that respondent No.4 - Society would have the encroachment cleared at its cost and has further undertaken and agreed that only thereafter, all subsequent sites could be released.

¶43

Learned counsel for the respondent-BDA further submits that in furtherance of the said letter, respondent No.4 - Society had also issued an undertaking as per Annexure-R8 reiterating its commitment to have the encroached CA sites cleared/vacated. It is acting upon this solemn undertaking of the respondent No.4 - Society, the BDA had agreed to receive the Relinquishment Deed as produced at Annexure-R10. It is his submission that contrary to the promises and undertaking given by respondent No.4 - Society, it has failed to fulfill its obligation and thereby has violated the

¶44

6 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:636 WP No. 10588 of 2019

¶46

terms and conditions that were imposed while issuing the development plan. He also submits that the respondent-BDA has initiated proceedings on its own to have encroachments of

¶47

the CA sites cleared/vacated from the encroachers at its own cost and it is also contemplating taking action against respondent No.4 - Society.

¶48

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is the purchaser of the unreleased sites which has been sold by respondent No.4 - Society in contravention to the conditions that were imposed and in contravention to the undertaking given by respondent No.4 - Society itself. Therefore, he submits that there is no obligation on the part of the respondent-BDA to make Khata in favour of the petitioner.

¶49

However, learned counsel for the

¶50

respondent-BDA fairly submits that without prejudice to the action that is required to be taken by the BDA, request for the registration of Khata in respect of the site purchased by the petitioner would be considered and the same shall not be treated as a precedent for other cases.

¶51

7 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:636 WP No. 10588 of 2019

¶53

Heard. Perused the records.

¶54

It is not in dispute that the layout in which the petitioner has purchased the site consists of 4150 sites of which admittedly 3725 sites have been released and only 425 sites are stated to have not been released for the reasons of respondent No.4 - Society not complying with the undertaking given by the BDA. The fact remains that in the development plan, even 425 sites were approved, its only that the same have not been released. Merely because there are same encroachment over CA sites, the title of the property purchased by the petitioner would not get affected more particularly for the reason that respondent No.4 - Society has already executed Relinquishment Deed in favour of BDA. Having said that, it is open for the respondent-BDA to take such action as contemplated under law against respondent No.4 - Society for purported violation of the terms of the sanctioned/development plan.

¶55

Reserving liberty to the respondent - BDA to take such action, this Court is of the considered view that, a direction is required to be issued to the respondent - BDA to

¶56

8 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:636 WP No. 10588 of 2019

¶58

make the khatha in favour of the petitioner in respect of the site which is purchased from respondent No.4 - Society, if the petitioner otherwise is found to be entitled under law.

¶59

It is made clear that it is in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the matter the above order is passed and the same shall not be treated as precedent for other cases. The respondent - BDA shall initiate such action and ensure the compliance of the terms of the sanctioned plan by respondent No.4 - Society.

¶60

Similarly, respondent No.4 - Society who has given undertaking to the BDA as noted above shall ensure that the same is adhered to, as expeditiously as possible.

¶61

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶62

SJK

¶63

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 CT: BHK

Mrs. Francis Balaraj v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Francis Balaraj v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri G Chikka Bayanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. N R Amarnath Vs the Commissioner

Vemuri Sambashiva Rao Vs the Commissioner

Sri v Muralidhara Vs Special Land Acquisition Officers and Competent Authority

Smt. Anjala Nirmala, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Ashwathamma Vs the State of Karnataka