Dr. Naveen S L Vs the Commissioner

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO ISSUE ALLOTMENT LETTER IN RESPECT OF SITE BEARING NO.2486, MEASURING 9 X 12 MTRS. SITUATED AT BANASHANKARI 6^TH STAGE, 3^RD BLOCK, BANGALORE AS ALTERNATIVE SITE IN LIEU OF SITE BEARING NO.833 MEASURING 9X12 MTRS, SITUATED AT 4^TH 'T' BLOCK FOR THE FURTHER EXTENSION OF BSK 6^TH STAGE AS PER THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 14.08.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-K.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed by the petitioners seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondent-BDA to issue allotment letter in respect of site bearing No.2486, measuring 9 X 12 meters, situated at Banashankari 6^th Stage, 3^rd Block, Bangalore as alternate site in lieu of the site bearing No.833 measuring 9 X 12 meters, situated at 4^th 'T' Block for the further extension of Banashankari 6^th Stage as per the endorsement dated 14.08.2019 as per Annexure-K.

¶25

The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner No.3S.Nagarajan was the allottee of the site bearing No.833,

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:120 WP No. 21556 of 2022

¶28

measuring East to West:12 meters and North to South: 9 meters, totally measuring 108 Sq.Mtrs., situated at 4^th 'T' Block for the further extension of Banashankari 6^th Stage, BDA Layout in terms of an allotment letter dated 07.02.2004 issued by the respondent-BDA. The petitioner No.3 had deposited entire sital

¶29

value of Rs.2,26,800/-. That the respondent-BDA had even executed registered sale deed in respect of the said site in favour of the petitioner No.3. After execution of deed of sale, the Khata of the site was also issued in favour of the petitioner No.3. Petitioner No.3 thereafter sold the said site in favour of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in terms of a registered deed of sale dated 28.11.2007 and the respondent-BDA has transferred the khata of the said site in favour of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2.

¶30

That the aforesaid site formed part of the land which was acquired by the BDA for further extension of the Banashankari 6^th Stage under notification dated 07.11.2002 and that certain disputes which were raised by the land owners in the writ petitions in W.P.No.44949/2003 C/w W.P.No.2057/2004, which were dismissed upholding the acquisition made by the respondent-BDA and that the said order is subject matter of writ appeal in W.A.No.1312/2006.

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:120 WP No. 21556 of 2022

¶33

That since there was a litigation, petitioner made representation to the respondent-BDA seeking allotment of alternate site. As there was no response, petitioners were constrained to file writ petitions in W.P. Nos.24001 and 40636-40637/2018 and the said writ petitions were allowed by this Court on 11.01.2019, directing the respondent-BDA to consider the representation. Non compliance of the order resulted in petitioners initiating the contempt proceedings in C.C.C.Nos.1000 and 1052-1053/2019. During the pendency of the said proceedings, respondent-BDA had issued an endorsement dated 14.08.2019 indicating availability of site bearing No.2486, at Banashankari 6^th Stage, 3^rd Block, Bangalore which could be allotted to the petitioners in lieu of the earlier site. That since the respondent-BDA had not taken any steps in allotting the said site to the petitioners, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition submits that the respondent-BDA having issued the endorsement dated 14.08.2019 as per Annexure-K during the pendency of the contempt proceedings undertaking to allot the alternate site

¶35

5 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:120 WP No. 21556 of 2022

¶37

mentioned therein, cannot shy away. As such a vested right is created in favour of the petitioners to seek direction to the respondent-BDA for allotment of the said site.

¶38

Learned counsel for the respondent-BDA on the other hand submits that in the challenge to the acquisition made by the land owners in respect of further extension of Banashankari 6^th Stage, the writ petitions have been disposed of upholding the acquisition in favour of the respondent-BDA and that only the writ appeal is pending consideration, in which persons similarly situated with that of the petitioner No.3 herein are also awaiting the results thereof. He further submits that the endorsement that was issued as per Annexure-K would not give any right in favour of the petitioners, inasmuch as the site indicated therein forms part of a layout which was formed prior to the further extension of Banashankari 6^th Stage, BDA Layout.

¶39

He further submits that there is no provisions under law to grant/allot the site in the previously formed layout, which was clarified in the said endorsement. He however fairly submits that the petitioners have two options, one, is to wait for the outcome of the writ appeal or to seek allotment in any of the subsequently formed layouts by making necessary

¶40

6 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:120 WP No. 21556 of 2022

¶42

representation to the respondent-BDA in this regard. If so

¶43

made, the same will be considered in accordance with law.

¶44

In response, learned counsel for the petitioners

¶45

submits that liberty be reserved to the petitioners to make a representation with a direction to the respondent-BDA to consider the same.

¶46

Submissions taken on record.

¶47

Petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioners to make necessary representation seeking allotment of the site in any of the subsequently formed layouts and the respondent-BDA to consider the same in accordance with law.

¶48

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

¶49

RL

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Dr. Naveen S L v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Naveen S L 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. Syed Adil Basha Quadri Vs Syed Azadullah

The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Vs K v Forgings Pvt. Ltd.

Axis Bank Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Muniyamma Vs State of Karnataka

V Ramaiah Vs State of Karnataka

R Suresh Vs the Bangalore Development Authority