Back
2017 Supreme(Kar) 927
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.
The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority – Appellant
Vs.
Dr. Rajvir P. Sharma – Respondent
R.F.A. No.1701 of 2016
Decided On : 01-09-2017
For the Appellant :Sri. Vikram Huligol, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri. Anant Mandagi Senior Advocate, A/W Sri. A.R. Vivek, Advocate
The court emphasized the importance of admissions in reaching a judgment and decree, as provided under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.
Headnote:
CPC - Cancellation of Allotment - Rule 13(9) of the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 - The court allowed the application under Order XII Rule 6 r/w Section 151 of the CPC and decreed the suit, holding the cancellation order null and void. The BDA admitted in a letter that the plaintiff did not submit a false affidavit, contrary to the reason for cancellation. The trial court's decision was upheld on appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought a declaration that the cancellation of the allotment of a property by the BDA was null and void, alleging that the plaintiff had submitted a false affidavit. The trial court decreed the suit on the basis of the BDA's admission in a letter that the affidavit was not false.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found that the BDA's admission in a letter contradicted the reason for cancellation, leading to the decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff's affidavit was false, justifying the cancellation of the allotment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the BDA's admission in a letter that the plaintiff did not submit a false affidavit, which contradicted the reason for cancellation, leading to the decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the trial court's decision to allow the application and decree the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
1. The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), Bangalore, represented by its Commissioner has filed this appeal assailing the order passed in O.S.No.25449/2009 dated 18/08/2016 by the XXVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Mayo Hall, Bangalore. On an application under Order XII Rule 6 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the trial court decreed the suit on the basis of the admissions made in letter dated 06/03/2013 written by BDA to the State Government.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to, in terms of their status before the trial court.
3. Respondent filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration that the order dated 17/02/2009, canceling the allotment of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff as null and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their men, agents or anybody claiming under them acting upon the order passed by the defendant dated 17/02/2009.
4. It is the case of the respondent-plaintiff that he had made an application to the defendant- authority seeking allotment of a site in Sir.M.Vishweshwaraiah Layout. That he was allotted a site bearing No.1542/1, situated at 1st Block of the Layout by Allotment Letter dated 11/08/2003. That BDA executed a registered sale deed dated 20/11/2003 in favour of the plaintiff and a Katha Certificate was also issued in his name. According to the plaintiff, he has been regularly paying the taxes on the said site and has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit site.
5. It is the further case of the plaintiff that after a lapse of about five years after the execution of the sale deed in his favour, BDA issued a show cause notice dated 11/09/2008 alleging that his wife Smt. Nagambika Devi owns a site in her name bearing No.24 situated at HSR Layout, Bangalore. That on 19/08/2003, the plaintiff has sworn to a false affidavit, stating that, neither he, his wife nor his children own any house or site property allotted by any society or association. That the plaintiff had violated Rule-13(9) of the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’ for the sake of brevity). The plaintiff replied to the said notice on 10/10/2009 denying the allegations levelled against him in the show cause notice. According to him, the Government of Karnataka through its appropriate authority perused the entire notice and passed an order dated 06/08/2008 to the effect that the plaintiff had not filed any false affidavit before the BDA regarding allotment of the site. That the affidavit filed by the plaintiff was not in violation of Rule-13(9) of the Rules and that the allotment of suit site to the plaintiff was not liable to be cancelled.
6. According to the plaintiff, the BDA allotted the suit site in favour of the plaintiff on 16/08/2003 and the sale deed had been executed in his favour by the BDA after due compliance of eligibility criteria and formalities. In fact, the plaintiff had sworn to an affidavit, which was in Kannada and the plaintiff did not know reading or writing of Kannada. Even then, he had not committed any error and had not sworn to any false affidavit. That, as on the date of the application for allotment of site i.e., in January 2003, and on 16/08/2003 i.e., the date of execution of the sale deed by the BDA in favour of the plaintiff, neither the wife of the plaintiff nor his children were owning any other site in Bangalore City. That on 19/08/2003, plaintiff had filed an affidavit in accordance with the defendant’s draft given by the BDA.
7. That the plaintiff had provided an advance intimation to the Government of Karnataka in accordance with All India Service Conduct Rules, on 08/10/2003 regarding allotment of sites. That on 20/11/2003, defendant executed an absolute sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of the suit site. The plaintiff had also intimated to the State Government about the registration of the property by
