Back
2010 Supreme(Kar) 1087
High Court of Karnataka
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER
K. Raju
Versus
Bangalore Development Authority By its Commissioner
Writ Petition No.11102 of 2008 C/w W.P.Nos. 16147 of 2009 & 16954 of 2009 (BDA)
Decided on : 15-12-2010
For the Petitioner:Smt. Pramila M. Nesargi, Sr.Adv. for M/s Pramila A/S, H.N. Shashidhara, Adv. For M/s Kesvy & Co., V.B. Siddaramaiah, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Basavaraj V. Sabarad, B.V. Shankara Narayana Rao, Advocate, R1 Sri K.M. Nataraj, Addl. Adv. General, R2 - M. Keshava Reddy, AGA.
The State Government has no authority to direct the BDA to allot the sites under ‘G’ category as per the circular dated 6.8.1997. The BDA cannot cancel the sale deeds executed by it earlier in favor of the allottees/their vendors.
Headnote:
The State Government has no authority to direct the BDA to allot the sites under ‘G’ category as per the circular dated 6.8.1997. The BDA cannot cancel the sale deeds executed by it earlier in favor of the petitioner/their vendors.
Fact of the Case:
The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) had allotted sites to various individuals under the ‘G’ category as per a circular issued by the State Government. Subsequently, the BDA issued notices to some of these allottees, informing them that their allotments had been canceled. The allottees challenged the cancellation notices by filing writ petitions in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the State Government had no authority to direct the BDA to allot sites under the ‘G’ category. The Court also held that the BDA could not cancel the sale deeds executed by it earlier in favor of the allottees/their vendors. The Court further directed the BDA to initiate action against its officers who were responsible for illegally bifurcating a civic amenity site.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Government has the power to direct the BDA to allot the sites under ‘G’ category as per the circular dated 6.8.1997? 2. Whether the BDA has the power to cancel the sale deeds executed by it earlier in favor of the petitioner/their vendors?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the State Government has no authority to direct the BDA to allot sites under the ‘G’ category as per the circular dated 6.8.1997. The Court reasoned that the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 and the Rules made thereunder do not confer any such power on the State Government. 2. The Court held that the BDA cannot cancel the sale deeds executed by it earlier in favor of the allottees/their vendors. The Court reasoned that once a sale deed is executed and registered, the BDA ceases to be the owner of the property and the purchaser becomes the absolute owner. The BDA cannot unilaterally cancel the sale deed.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the cancellation notices issued by the BDA and directed the BDA to initiate action against its officers who were responsible for illegally bifurcating a civic amenity site.
1. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in all these writ petitions, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common order.
2. In W.P.No. 11102/2008, the petition contends that he is the absolute owner of the site bearing No.11-A, 5th Sector, HSR Layout, Bangalore, measuring 50 ft. x 80 ft. formed by the Bangalore Development Authority (‘BDA’ for short). Originally, the site was allotted by the BDA is favour of S. Kumar Bangarappa on 20.6.2007. BDA executed a sale deed in respect of the said site in his favour, a copy of which is produced at Annexure ‘B’ Possession of the site was delivered to him on the same day as per the possession certificate at Annexure ‘C’. He sold the site in favour of Madhu Dhondiba Babar through a sale deed at Annexure ‘E’ dated 23.6.2007. Madhu Dhondiba Babar sold the said site as per the sale deed at Annexure ‘G’ dated 7.11.2007 in favour of the petitioner.
Subsequently, katha of the property was transferred in his favour by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike.
3. It is further contended that BDA has advertised in the newspaper announcing the sale of a corner site No.12 in Sector 5 of HSR layout, which is adjacent to the site purchased by the petitioner. The petitioner, who was interested in the adjacent site, participated in the bid. He is the highest bidder and the bid amount was `1,50,96,640/-. After receiving the entire bid amount, the BDA executed the sale deed dated 2.5.2008 in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said site. Thus, the petitioner is the owner of site bearing No. 11A and corner site bearing No.12 in Sector 5 of HSR Layout.
4. It is further contended that when this is the state of affairs, the petitioner came to know that a notice was issued by the BDA to S.Kumar Bangarappa informing him that the allotment of site bearing No.11-A in Sector 5. HSR layout had been cancelled by the Commissioner of the BDA by his order dated 31.7.2008. It is further contended that immediately thereafter, petitioner approached the BDA and obtained the notice dated 7.8.2008 by making an application under the Right to Information Act. In the said letter, the BDA had asked S.Kumar Bangarappa to return all the original documents and to execute the deed of cancellation. Therefore, petitioner has filed the writ petition for quashing the notice dated 7.8.2008 bearing No.BEMAAPRA:UKA-1/HSR/11(A)/2008-09 vide Annexure ‘N’ issued by the respondent pursuant to the order dated 31.7.2001 passed by the Commissioner of the BDA.
5. In W.P.No.16147/2009, the petitioners contend that the second petitioner’s mother late Smt. Anusuyamma was an applicant for allotment of a site from the BDA. On 9.3.1989, BDA allotted a site bearing No.563, 4th Block, Hennur-Bellary Road Layout, measuring 40 ft. x 60 ft. and possession of the said site was delivered to Smt. Anusuyamma and possession certificate was issued on 7.7.1989. The lease period had expired on 8.3.1999. Smt. Anusuyamma died on 28.3.2005. Anusuyamma had executed a Will bequeathing the said site in favour of the second petitioner. However, the respondents have allotted an alternative site No.3CC-907, I BLOCK, HRBR Layout, to the second petitioner instead of the aforesaid site as per the allotment letter dated 5.3.2007. In pursuance of the same, the respondent executed a registered sale deed in favour of the second petitioner as per the sale deed dated 19.4.2007 and possession certificate was issued on 21.4.2007. The second petitioner sold the said site in favour of the first petitioner for a valuable consideration as per the sale deed dated 4.8.2007 (Annexure ‘K’). Thus, the first petitioner is the owner in possession and enjoyment of the said site. The BDA has issued a show cause notice to the second petitioner dated 16.5.2009 calling upon him to show cause as to why the allotment of the site made in his favour on 5.3.2007 should not be cancelled, which was duly replied by the second petitioner. Thereafter, the BDA has
