Akshaya Villa Owners Association Vs Bangalore Development Authority

AKSHAYA VILLA OWNERS ASSOCIATION, O/A. AKSHAYA CLUB HOUSE, SEEGEHALLI, HOSKOTE MAIN ROAD, KANNAMANGALA POST, KADUGODI, BANGALORE-560067. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MR.SRINIVAS REDDY GOLI, S/O. DAMODAR REDDY GOLI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

¶10

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

MR SRINIVAS REDDY GOLI S/O DAMODAR REDDY GOLI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O VILLA NO.28, AKSHAYA, SEEGEHALLI, HOSKOTE MAIN ROAD, KANNAMANGALA POST, KADUGODI,

¶12

BANGALORE-560067. …PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI DEEPAK S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, NO.1, ‘T’ CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560002. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶16

JSS MAHAVIDYAPEETHA DR. SHIVARATHRI RAJENDRA CIRCLE, AGRAHARA, FORT MOHALLA, MYSORE-570004.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:42567 WP No. 30585 of 2018

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI B.S. KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI H.P. VEERABHADRASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED 05.03.2018 BEARING NO.0587 ISSUED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT BDA IN FAVOUR OF 2^ND RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO SCHEDULE PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHMENT OF SCHOOL UNDER BDA (ALLOTMENT OF CIVIC AMENITIES SITES) RULES, 1989 AS NOT ONLY HIGHLY ARBITRARY ILLEGAL BUT AND IN GROSS VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14, 21 AND 300A OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ALSO CONTRARY TO REGULATION 7.1(2) OF RMP 2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶27

“i. Issue writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or directions quashing the allotment letter dated 05.03.2018 bearing No.0587 issued by the 1^st respondent BDA in favour of 2^nd respondent with respect to Schedule Property for the purpose of establishment of School under BDA (Allotment of Civic Amenities Sites) Rules, 1989 as not only highly arbitrary illegal but and in gross violation of Article 14, 21 and 300A of

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:42567 WP No. 30585 of 2018

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Constitution of India and also contrary to Regulation 7.1(2) of RMP 2015. (Annexure A)

¶31

ii. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions declaring the action of Respondent No.1 as grossly in violation of the order dated 22.03.2017 passed in WP No.16085-86/2015 by this Hon'ble Court (Annexure B)

¶32

iii. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions declaring the action of Respondent No.1 in not consider petitioner's representations dated 29.05.2017 and 30.10.2017 thereby allotting the Schedule Property to Respondent No.2 is highly arbitrary and illegal. (Annexure C and C1)

¶33

iv. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions directing the Respondent No.1 to convey the rights/ hand over the Schedule Property to Petitioner No.1 association as per Regulation 7.1(2) of RMP 2015. (Annexure-S)

¶34

v. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions directing the Respondent to consider representations dated 29.05.2017 and 30.10.2017 and refund Rs.89,23,343/- paid by the Petitioner

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:42567 WP No. 30585 of 2018

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

association towards the allotment of Schedule Property along with 18% interest from the date of receipt of payment till date of realization. (Annexure C and C1)

¶39

vi. Issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the Respondents deemed fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶40

The 1^st Prayer seeks to quash the allotment letter dated 05.03.2018 issued by respondent No.1Bangaluru Development Authority (‘BDA’ for short) in favour of respondent No.2 in respect of the schedule property for establishment of a school under BDA (Scheme) Rules, 1989 (‘Rules,1989’ for short), on the ground that it is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the Regulations to 7.1 (2) of Revised Master Plan, 2015 (‘RMP, 2015’ for short).

¶41

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the allotment dated 05.03.2018 in favour of respondent No.2 has been withdrawn by respondent No.1BDA and that a different site was allotted to respondent

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42567 WP No. 30585 of 2018

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

No.2 on 21.09.2021. In support of his submission, the allotment letter dated 21.09.2021 has been produced and submits that prayer No.1 does not survive for

¶45

consideration.

¶46

The said submission is recorded. In view of the subsequent allotment in favour of respondent No.2, prayer No.1 stands rendered infructuous.

¶47

The petitioner, is Akshaya Villa Owners Association (‘Association’ for short), represents the residents of a private villa layout originally developed as ‘Red Stone Private Layout’, later renamed as ‘Akshaya Layout’, situated at Seegehalli, Hoskote Main Road, Kannamangala Post, Kadugodi, Bengaluru. The layout was approved by the BDA on 31.08.2004. As per BDA norms, 15% of the land was earmarked for parks and open spaces, 3% for civic amenity sites and 32% for roads. A relinquishment Deed dated 03.12.2004 was executed by the developer in favour of the BDA. Subsequently, RMP, 2015 came into force on 25.06.2007.

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:42567 WP No. 30585 of 2018

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends

¶51

that under Regulation 7.1(2) of RMP, 2015, a developer must earmark 5% of the total plot area for civic amenities, develop the same, and hand it over to the registered resident’s association for maintenance. The mode of handing over is to be decided by the authority. The petitioners' association, having paid `89,23,343/- to BDA on various dates towards the allotment of the civic amenity site, later realized that under Regulation 7.1(2), such sites are to be handed over to the local association for maintenance and not leased under Rules, 1989.

¶52

Representation was submitted on various dates

¶53

seeking application of RMP, 2015 and refund the amount paid. He submits that in W.P.Nos.16085-86/2015 filed by the petitioners, this Court had directed BDA to consider the petitioners’ representation within six months. It is contended that the BDA has not complied with said direction in light of Regulation 7.1(2).

¶54

7 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:42567 WP No. 30585 of 2018

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

The Regulation 7.1(2) of RMP, 2015 reads as

¶58

under:

¶59

“ 7.1. Regulations for Residential Development Plan:

¶60

1. xxx

¶61

2. A minimum 5% of total plot area shall be provided for Civic amenities and the owner or developer shall develop such civic amenities which finally shall be handed over to the local residents association for maintenance. The mode of such handing over shall be decided by the authority.”

¶62

The above regulation signifies a shift in

¶63

planning policy under RMP, 2015, wherein civic amenity areas in private developments are intended to remain community assets, to be developed jointly by the promoter and the residents' association. The authority's role is limited to determining the mode of transfer since this Court has already directed consideration of the petitioners’ representation, the BDA-authority is now bound to re-examine the petitioners’ representation afresh in right of Regulation 7.1(2) of RMP, 2015 and record a

¶64

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:42567 WP No. 30585 of 2018

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

reasoned decision. The reliance solely on Rules, 1989, for allotment without examining the provisions of the Regulation 7.1(2), would defeat the statutory intent object and of RMP, 2015. For the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the following:

¶67

ORDER

¶68

i. The petition is allowed in part .

¶69

ii. The BDA is directed to consider the petitioners’ representation dated 29.05.2017 and 30.10.2017 at Annexures-C and C1 and any earlier pending representations in accordance with Regulation 7.1 (2) of RMP, 2015 in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶70

iii. The BDA shall also consider the petitioners’ request made for refund of the amount paid and pass appropriate orders in accordance with Regulation 7.1(2) of RMP, 2015..

¶71

Sd/-

¶72

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶73

AT

¶74

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Akshaya Villa Owners Association v. Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshaya Villa Owners Association v. Bangalore Development Authority

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 Srinivas S Gowda Vs Smt Hemalatha M

Sri Satish Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Lakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Janardhan Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri S C Sharma Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

N R Nagaraj Vs the Commissioner