Civic amenity sites can be allotted for various purposes, including religious, unless specifically reserved otherwise by formal notification.

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner, a Society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Society Registration Act, 1960 comprises of members who happen to be owners of houses/sites in a residential layout. It seeks to lay a challenge to the allotment of the subject sites in favour of the 4th respondent-Trust. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that: This civic amenity site having been reserved for educational purpose could not have been allotted for religious purpose; the 4th respondent not even being the applicant, no allotment could have been made in its favour. In support of his submission he banks upon a ruling of the Apex Court and of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

2. After service of notice, the respondent-State has entered appearance through the AGA. The respondent-BDA is represented by its Sr. Panel Counsel who has filed the Statement of Objections on 21/6/2022 opposing the petition. The respondent BBMP speaks through its Panel Advocate. The allottee-Trust is represented by a private counsel. All they make submission in justification of the impugned allotment and the conveyance that followed it.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

(a) The subject site is designated as a civic amenity site, is not in dispute. A civic amenity site cannot be allotted for a purpose which does not partake the character of civic amenity, is also not disputed by the other side. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the subject civic amenity site is reserved for educational purpose and therefore cannot be allotted for any other purpose, is bit difficult to countenance when no notification reserving the said site for educational purpose having been produced or pointed out. The argument of petitioner's counsel that the subject site was earlier notified for educational purpose only and therefore it should be presumed that it was reserved for the said purpose, is too far fetched an argument. Earmarking a site as a civic amenity site is one thing and reserving it for one of the civic amenity purposes is another. The second has to be done by a notification consistent with Sec.38A of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 r/w Rule 3 of the extant Allotment Rules. In other words, the definition of the term 'civic amenity' given under Sec.2(bb) of the Act being too inclusive, such a site can be allotted for the purpose of any of the civic amenities which under clause (iv) of Sec.2(bb) which includes religious purpose as well.

(b) The vehement submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.10750/2013 between BHARAT PETROLEOUM CORPORATION LTD., vs. DR.HARISH V.IYER, decided on 29/11/2013 supports case of his client, is bit difficult to agree with. True it is that at para 14 there is discussion about the provisions of Secs.38 and 38A of the 1976 Act and Rule 3 of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites) Rules, 1989. The case involved allotment of a civic amenity site to a bank when it was earmarked for a park. That is not the case here. This difference makes the decision uninvokable for the case at hands. It hardly needs to be stated that a decision is an authority for the proposition that it actually lays down in a given fact matrix and not for all that which logically follows from what has been so laid down vide QUINN vs. LEATHAM, 1901 AC 495. For the same reason much milk cannot be drawn from the Co-ordinate Bench decision in W.P.No.41717/2011 between MANYATA RESIDENTS ASSN. and ANOTHER vs. STATE and OTHERS decided on 6/3/2013.

(c) The second submission of the petitioner's counsel that the 4th respondent-Trust had never applied for allotment of the subject site and therefore the allotment in question could not have been made in its favour, is bit difficult to countenance. The said respondent had applied for and was