The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the BDA to act fairly and reasonably in its decisions, especially in matters involving property rights, and to ensure compliance with constitutional provisions such as Article 14.

JUDGMENT

B.M. Shyam Prasad, J. - The petitioners, in seeking the following relief/s, seek vindication of their exclusive rights to the property measuring east to west 21 feet and north to south 54 in Sy. No. 43 of Yedeyuru, BSK II Stage, Bengaluru [the subject property]. The petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:

[i] for quashing the order dated 07.11.2016 issued by the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority [the second respondent and hereafter referred to as the BDA] permitting re-conveyance of the subject property in favour of the third and the fourth respondents;

[ii] for declaration that the sale deed dated 03.02.2017 executed by the BDA in favour of the third and the fourth respondents is null and void and not binding on the petitioners, and

[iii] for direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioners' representation [Annexure-N] and confirm the allotment of the subject property in favour of the first to third petitioners.

1. The first to third petitioners are the grandchildren of one, Smt. Munithirumalamma, who admittedly owned land measuring 1 acre 20 Guntas in Yedeyuru Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South taluk (subject land). The fourth petitioner claims rights to the subject property under the other petitioners.

2. The petitioners assert rights to the subject property under the judgment and decree in the original proceedings in OS No. 5171/1980 which is confirmed in appeal by this Court. The first to third petitioners' Power of Attorney, Sri Vasudevan C, has transferred the subject property in favour of Sri Fakeer Nagappa Savanoor under the sale deed dated 28.05.2015. Sri Fakeer Nagappa Savanoor in turn has transferred the subject property in favour of the fourth petitioner under the sale deed dated 07.07.2017. On the other hand, the fourth and the fifth respondents stake claim to the subject property under the impugned sale deed dated 03.02.2017 executed in their favour by the BDA.

3. The petitioners' case is that the subject land was notified in the year 1963 for acquisition by the City Improvement Trust Board [CITB]. Smt. Munithiurmalamma, who had transferred certain portions of the subject land as revenue sites, submitted her application dated 10.10.1963 requesting the CITB to re-convey the portion retained by her. In the year 1976, the BDA called for applications for re-conveyance of revenue sites in acquired lands, including the subject property. Smt. Munithirumalamma, again filed an application requesting for allotment/reconveyance of the extent measuring 26 feet on the southern side, and 129 feet of the northern side and east-west 172 feet. The BDA by its letter in No. BDA/Revenue Site/E(s) 4175/76-77, communicated its willingness to re-convey the aforesaid extent in favour of Smt. Munithirumalamma and thereafter, she also filed an affidavit pursuant to this Communication. Smt. Munithirumalamma retained ownership of the subject property, a smaller extent, because it comprised of a dwelling place, and she continued in possession thereof during her lifetime.

4. The petitioners assert that as the BDA did not complete the reconveyance for the subject property, Smt. Munithirumalamma's only son, Sri Ramaiah was constrained to initiate suit in OS No. 5171/1980 on the file of the III Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore for declaration that he is entitled for ownership of the property measuring 26 feet of the southern side, 129 feet on the northern side, and 172 feet east-west, and for a direction to the BDA to allot site and deliver possession in law. On the demise of Sri. Ramaiah, his sons and legal heirs, the first to third petitioners, have continued the suit in O.S. No. 5171/1980. Ultimately, this suit is decreed on 20.11.1991 declaring that these petitioners are entitled to allotment from the BDA. The BDA has called in question this judgment and decree dated 20.11.1991 before this Court in RFA No. 206/1992, but the appeal is dismissed on merits on 03.11.1999 with certain directio