IMPORTANT POINT
The High Court cannot travel beyond the scope of writ petition and issue directions and grant reliefs which are not prayed for in the writ petition by enlarging the writ petition on its own.

Headnote:(i) Constitution of India-Article 226-Writ jurisdiction-Scope of-High Court cannot travel beyond scope of writ petition-High Court cannot grant relief not sought for in writ petition by enlarging petition on its own.
       Aggrieved by allotment of land to 34 persons by the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "BDA", respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court challenging not only the said allotment but also some of the transfers of land whch had been effected by some of the said allottees. These 34 respondents were stated to be ex-Legislators, ex-Ministers, etc. who were members of the Legistators Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. (for short "the respondent-Society"). In the writ petition, it was averred that out of turn allotment had been given to these 34 persons and in violation of the Rules some of them had transferred the land and, therefore, that land should be resumed by the Government. The High Court while holding that the allotment of land was not validly made by the Society but at this belated stage the violation which had been committed should not render the allotment invalid, issued various directions which were not prayed for in the writ petition.
       Held : The High Court travelled way beyond the scope of the writ petition which was before it. The prayer in the writ petition was for quashing the out of turn allotments in favour of MLAs, MPs and others who were impleaded as respondents Nos. 4 to 38 before the High Court. The further prayer was that permission which had been granted to some of these MLAs, MPs others to transfer plots of land which had been allotted to them should also be quashed. It is pertinent to note that in this writ petition there was no challenge either to the registration of the respondent-Society with the BDA or to the allotment of land to the Society as such. As already noted, the challenge was to the allotment to the 34 persons who were stated to be members of the said Society. The High Court, on the other hand, not only came to the conclusion that bulk allotment of land was not permissible but also directed the constitution of a Committee to go into all allotments made by the BDA. The effect of this would be that the Committee which was sought to be constituted was empowered to carry out a roving and fishing inquiry with regard to allotments of land made by the BDA since the time it was constituted in the year 1976. There was neither any prayer in the writ petition to this effect nor do we find any affidavit having been filed by the respondents before the High Court in relation to such allotments of land to the Society and others. The writ petitioner had not chosen to enlarge the scope of the writ petition by amending his petition and, therefore, the High Court, in our opinion, was not justified in issuing the type of directions which it did. (Para 6)
       (ii) Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976-Sections 38 and 38B-Bulk allotment of land-Validity of-BDA allotting land in bulk to Co-operative Society-Society in turn allotting lands to its members who included legislators and Ministers-Writ petition seeking quashing of allotment to legislators and Ministers-Held : bulk allotment not prohibited under BDA Act-Allottees whose allotment was challenged were members of Society-They were entitled to allotment from out of land allotted to Society-Writ petition dismissed. (Para 8)
       (iii) Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976-Section 65-Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984-Rule 14-Restrictions and conditions on sale of lands by allottees-Government s power to grant directions to BDA-Certain members of society who get allotted lands from out of land allotted to society seeking permission to sell land-Members were legislators and Ministers-Government directing BDA to grant permission-At relevant time BDA Rule did not permit sale of allotted land by allottees-Subsequent amendment of Rules providing for sale of land under certain circumstances-Though sale in question illegal, same could be regularised on payment of 25 of sital value by purchaser in terms of amended Rules.
       Held : At the relevant time Rule 14 of BDA Rules, did not permit transfer of site on which building had not been erected. According to sub-rule (3), under certain conditions an allottee could only surrender the site in which case he was entitled to receive the value of the site plus 12 per cent interest thereon. It is only if a building was erected that permission could be given to sell the vacant site and building subject to payment of interest at the rate of 12 per cent on the allotted value of the site. The BDA permitted the allottees to sell the sites, inasmuch as under Section 65 of the Act the Government of Karnataka had issued a direction requiring the BDA to permit the said transfers. At the material time, the Government has no power to issue any directions which are in conflict with the provisions of the Act and, by necessary implication, in conflict with the Rules framed under the said Act. The directions which can be given under Section 65 are such which are necessary or expedient for the carrying out of the purposes of the Act. When Rule 14, as it stood in the year 1994-95, did not permit sale of vacant sites by an allottee to anybody else, even after getting permission from the BDA, the Government could not have permitted or directed the said land to be sold or transferred. This being the position, the transfer of land by 13 such ex-Legislators and ex-Ministers who were members of the respondent-Society, and whose names are included in the BDA s letter dated 27th/28th October, 1995 written to the Principal Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Department, Bangalore, was clearly illegal and the permission so granted and the consequent transfer of land would become liable to be set aside. But now after the amendment of the Rules in 1997, with effect from 6.2.1998 where there has been alienation of site in contravention of sub-rule (2), then on an application being made by the purchaser the said sale or alienation in his favour can be regularised on the purchaser paying an amount equal to 25 per cent of the sital value/determined at the rates specified by the State Government from time to time. Inasmuch as the permission which was granted in 1994 and 1995 for tansferring the land was illegal, the effect would be that the original allottees had transferred the land in violation of the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 and now after the amendment of the said Rule regularisation of the said alienation can take place by the purchaser paying the amount referred to in sub-rule (2A). If this payment is not made, the result obviously would be that the alienation will not be validated and the allotment of land itself would stand cancelled. It is obvious that under Rule 14 permission to transfer can be granted under the circumstances provided by sub-rule (3). The said sub-rule provides that an application for transfer can be made by an allottee on the grounds that (a) for reasons beyond his control he is unable to reside in the city of Banglore; or (b) by reasons of his insolvency or impecuniosity, it is necessary for him to sell the site and the building. The High Court has interpreted this Rule to mean that it is only for reason of insolvency that permission under sub-rule (3) can be granted. This does not appear to be correct because on the ground that the allottee is unable to reside in the city of Bangalore and also on the ground of impecuniosity, permission can be granted to sell the land or the land and the building constructed thereon, after the amendment of the Rule in 1998. (Paras 10, 11 & 13)
       Held consequently, the BDA will give an opportunity to the purchasers of land referred to in its letter dated 27/28th October, 1995 who had purchased the same from the members of the respondent-Society to get the transfer regularised on payment of 25 per cent of the sital value determined at the rates specified by the Government. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT

Kirpal, J.-

Civil Appeal Nos. 456-458 of 2000 (Arising out of Special Leave Petitions Nos. 19742-44/1999)

Special leave granted.

2. Aggrieved by allotment of land to 34 persons by the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "BDA)", respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court challenging not only the said allotment but also some of the transfers of land whch had been effected by some of the said allottees. These 34 respondents were stated to be ex-Legislators, ex-Ministers, etc. who were members of the Legistators Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. (for short "the respondent-Society"). In the writ petition, it was averred that out of turn allotment had been given to these 34 persons and in violation of the Rules some of them had transferred the land and, therefore, that land should be resumed by the Government.

3. The aforesaid writ petition was filed in the High Court by an Advocate who stated that he had no personal interest in the matter but was aggrieved by the breach of the rule of law stated to have been committed by the Government of Karnataka and the BDA. The appellant (BDA) herein as well as the State of Karnataka represented before the High Court that the allotments had been made in accordance with the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the Rules framed thereunder. It was stated that the respondent-Society had been registered in the year 1981 and bulk allotment had been made to the Society which, in turn, allotment plots of land to its members. The details with regard to allotment of land by the BDA to the said Society are as under :

Authority Government Order No of sites Name of the Resolution and approved for Layout No. & Date No. & Date allotment

272/2-4-81 HUD 225 MNX 81 100 Further Extn. of Dt. 10/14-7-81 Mattadahalli

139/17-7-86 HUD 339 MNX 86 56 Koramangala 4th B Dt. 24-10-86 Block

251/23-10-86 HUD 339 MNX 86 99 Koramangala, Gangena- Dt. 30-1-87 halli & Sarakki

587/3-7-87 HUD 339 MNX 86 100 Rajmahal Vilas Dt. 30-9-87 (Lottergollahalli)

379/16-1-87 HUD 347 MNX 88 249 Rajmahal Vilas II Stage Dt. 14-12-88 (Bhoopasandra) and Hosur Sarjapur Road

Total 604

It was also contended by the respondents that the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of laches, inasmuch as allotment of land had taken place between 1981 and 1987 whereas the writ petition itself was filed in 1996. It was also contended that third party interest had arisen and it would be unfair and unjust that allotment of land should be cancelled especially when some, if not most, of the allottees had already spent considerable amount of money and raised construction on the plots so allotted. Defending the allotment made to the respondent-Society, the BDA relied upon the provisions of Section 38-B which was introduced in the Act with effect from December 1975 which in term permitted bulk allotment of land to Housing Co-operative Societies for allotment to its members.

4. The High Court came to the conclusion that allotment of land was not validly made to the respondent-Society. It also held that at this belated stage the violations which had been committed should not render the allotment invalid but nevertheless it observed that the said allotment required reconsideration of the cases. The High Court then issued the following directions :

"Under the circumstances of the case and keeping in view the position of law as noticed herein above, these positions are allowed by issuance of the following declarat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 124

IMPORTANT POINTThe High Court cannot travel beyond the scope of writ petition and issue directions and grant reliefs which are not prayed for in the writ petition by enlarging the writ petition on its own.

IMPORTANT POINT
The High Court cannot travel beyond the scope of writ petition and issue directions and grant reliefs which are not prayed for in the writ petition by enlarging the writ petition on its own.