2021 Supreme(Kar) 160

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B.V.Nagarathna, N.S.Sanjay Gowda, JJ.
Syndicate Bank, Bangalore - Appellant
Versus
M/S. Manyatha Residents Association Represented By Its Secretary and Ors. – Respondents
WRIT APPEAL No. 2872, 2505, 2708, 2918, 2919 of 2013 (BDA)
Decided On : 26-02-2021

Point of law :Allotment -Learned Single Judge has misdirected himself in considering the eligibility of the allottees to be allotted the civic amenity sites and the purpose of allotment in terms of the 1989 Rules, which we have held do not apply to these allotments in the present cases. Consequently, the learned Single Judge was also not right in holding that the petitioners had the locus standi to challenge the allotments

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 – Article 226 - Rule 3 of the BDA (Allotment of Civic Amenity Site) Rules, 1989 – Rule 3 - Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 – Section 2(bb)and 32(5) – Trust – Land - All these five cases in this batch are filed by entities mentioned hereunder, against order passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (BDA) connected with Writ Petition No.6452 of 2011 (BDA) - First writ petitionerResidents' Association, represented by its Secretary, is an association registered under Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1961 and it represents members of Association comprising of owners of houses or sites in residential layout, formed by Promoters Private Limited in about 82 acres of land, duly approved by the Bangalore Development Authority - There are other individual writ petitioners also who joined the Residents Association in filing Writ Petitions- Whether the petitioners have locus standi to challenge the allotment made in favor of the respondents.

Finding of the court:

In this context, it is relevant to refer to order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition disposed wherein the allotment of civic amenity site Nightingales Medical Trust (respondent No.3 in the aforesaid writ petition) was assailed - That was for the purpose of running of a geriatric institute to provide health and medical care facility to aged persons, mentally and physically challenged persons and also to persons who are in constant and regular need of medical care, etc - In that writ petition, it was observed that writ petitioner therein i.e., Promoters Private Limited had no right in Site No.4 allotted to Medical Trust arid the writ petition was not filed espousing a public cause - Hence, it was dismissed -Ratio of the said judgment squarely applies in these cases also - Court may also add that even if these writ petitions were filed in public interest, in view of aforesaid discussion, court do not find any illegality in the allotment of civic amenity sites to the respondents / allottees on the basis of lease to the three organizations in these cases - Uncertainty caused to the allottees on account of this frivolous litigation and not being able to make use of sites for over a decade must be compensated - In the circumstances the writ petitioners are directed to pay a sum to each of the allottees in the instant cases, namely, to Syndicate Bank, Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL) and Company Limited -Said cost shall be paid to them within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

Result: – Order accordingly.