The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for fair and transparent allotment of public property, emphasizing the need for compliance with legal provisions, including the publication of notices and adherence to the rules governing allotment.

JUDGMENT

Alok Aradhe, Actg. C.J. - In both these writ petitions, a common issue with regard to validity of an order allotting the civic amenity site in favour of Karnataka State Kumbara Maha Sangha (hereinafter referred to as 'the Association' for short) is involved. Therefore, both these writ petitions were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order. For the facility of reference, facts from W.P. No. 13476/2013 are being referred to.

2. The Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority' for short) is constituted under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). It issued a public notice dated 30.10.2008 inviting bidders to purchase sites No. 28, 29 and 30 in Banashankari III Stage Layout. The petitioner submitted an application and participated in an auction and had offered the highest bid amount of Rs. 53,09,024/-. After payment of the aforesaid amount, the petitioner was allotted site bearing No. 29 and possession was handed over to him. After obtaining possession of the site, the petitioner constructed a residential building on the site. The petitioner was informed by the Authority that adjoining site is reserved to be used as a open space.

3. However, it appears that Association had submitted a representation to the State Government. Thereupon the State Government accorded approval for allotment of site measuring 50 x 80 feet. The association submitted a representation to the Authority on 03.08.2010 that site bearing No. 3486 be allotted to it. Thereafter, another representation was submitted on 19.08.2010 seeking allotment of site measuring 60 x 100 feet in Banashankari III Stage.

4. On the basis of the representation submitted by the Association, the Commissioner directed to make a search for the site and thereafter, the Commissioner of the BDA approved the allotment of a larger site bearing civic amenity Site No. 1 measuring approximately 10,200 situate in Banashankari III Stage for a period of 30 years to the Association and the same was approved by the Chairman of the Board. Thereafter, a resolution was passed on 25.09.2010 allotting the site to the petitioner and an order of allotment was issued in favour of the Association on 13.10.2010. A lease cum sale agreement was registered in favour of the Association on 19.11.2010.

5. The petitioner thereupon submitted a representation on 05.02.2011 stating that he had purchased a site No. 29 in a public auction and in the notification, it was mentioned that in front of site No. 29, Site No. 30 is situate, which is an open space. However, the aforesaid open space has been allotted in a clandestine manner to the Association. The petitioner therefore, sought reinstatement of the site as per the original layout plan. The petitioner thereafter, again submitted a representation on 20.09.2012.

6. Taking note of the representation submitted by the petitioner, the Authority sent a communication dated 07.11.2012 addressed to the State Government, in which it was stated that it is advisable to convert civic amenity Site to Association as a play ground and to allot an alternative site to the Association. However, no further action was taken. In the aforesaid factual background, these petitions have been filed inter alia on the ground that allotment has been made in contravention of Rule 3 of the Rules.

7. The petitioners have sought the relief of writ of certiorari for quashment of notice dated 16.07.2010 as well as quashment of order of allotment dated 13.10.2010. The petitioners also seek quashment of possession certificate. A bench of this court by an ad interim order dated 20.03.2013 had restrained the Association from carrying out any construction work. Admittedly, the site in question is a vacant plot.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the allotment has been made in favour of the Association in contravention of Rule 3 of the Rules. It is further submitted that under Section