Once a sale deed is registered, title transfers to the purchaser and cannot be unilaterally cancelled or altered without court intervention.

ORDER :

K.S. HEMALEKHA, J.

These writ petitions are directed against the endorsement issued by the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA), calling upon the petitioners to surrender the original documents relating to site Nos.2521 and 2522 situated at Sir M Vishweshwaraiah Layout, 2^nd block, Bengaluru on the ground that the said sites are corner sites required to be disposed of only through public auction under the Bengaluru Development Authority (Disposal of Corner Sites and Commercial Sites) Rules, 1984 (‘Rules, 1984’ for short). The petitioners, who are in possession under the registered sale deed executed by BDA in 19.10.2004 and 15.02.2006 respectively, challenged the legality of the said endorsement and the consequential auction proceedings, whereby respondent Nos.3 and 4 have been issued sale deeds and possession certificates.

2. As the issues involved in both petitions arise out of the same layout, same block, adjoining sites and common legal questions, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

Brief facts W.P.No.19707/2023:

3. The petitioner was allotted site No.2521, measuring 30x40 feet in 2003 as an intermediate site in Sir M Vishweshwaraiah Layout (Sir M.V.V Layout). A registered sale deed was executed in his favour on 19.10.2004, followed by issuance of possession certificate and katha. The petitioner has been in possession for nearly two decades, paying taxes and maintaining the site. On 19.08.2023, the BDA issued an endorsement directing him to co-operate for cancellation of the sale deed stating that the site was auctioned on 01.06.2023 and respondent Nos.3 and 4 were successful bidders. The petitioner contends that his site was never a corner site and that the BDA has illegally treated his long standing allotment as void after altering the layout and auctioning the site.

Brief facts W.P.No.12656/2023:

4. The petitioner was originally allotted a different site but, after multiple alteration was allotted site No.2522, measuring 9x12 meters by BDA in 2006. A registered sale deed was executed on 15.02.2006, thereafter; possession certificate and katha were issued. It is stated that she has been in lawful possession since then. On 19.08.2023, BDA issued endorsement, asking her to return the original document, stating that the site is a corner site and was wrongly allotted. Meanwhile, the BDA conducted an auction on 10.06.2023, and respondent Nos.3 and 4 became successful bidders and having issued a registered sale deed and possession certificate. The petitioner challenges the endorsement and the auction, contending that the site of the petitioner was never a corner site and that the auction was void.

Objections of respondent Nos.1 and 2 are common in both cases:

5. It is stated that both sites Nos.2521 and 2522 were always corner sites as per the approved layout plan. It is further stated that allotments made in 2004 and 2006 were illegal, contrary to Rule 3 of the Rules, 1984, which mandates that the corner sites can only be disposed by auction. It is further stated that the allotments were made due to oversight, mis-measurement and internal errors and that the petitioners were asked to return the original documents so that an alternative sites could be allotted but instead they have approached this Court. It is the contention of the respondents that impugned endorsement are only a show cause notices and the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not maintainable. It is further stated that BDA has already lawfully auctioned the corner sites, registered sale deeds in fa