Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.
CHAIRMAN, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY—Petitioner
versus
SMT. RADHA BAI & ORS.—Respondents
Writ Petition No. 24560 of 2000—Decided on 4.1.2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner:Mrs. M.R. Vanaja, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2: In person.
For the Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4: Served.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 25 - Constitution of India 1950 - Articles 226 and 227 - Allotment of site - Bonafide mistake committed by the Board in the initial allotment made - Since transaction relating to allotment of site and payment of sital value had reached finality - Not permissible for Board to insist upon allottee to pay higher sital value - Demand· quashed as being highly unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory in nature and without authority of Law - Board directed to allot site without insisting for payment of enhanced rate.
Held: Since the transaction relating to the allotment of the site and payment of the sital value had reached finality, it is not permissible for the B.D.A. to insist upon the allottee. i.e. the contesting respondents to pay higher sital value as has been done in the instant case. Under these circumstances, if the contesting respondents instead of approaching respondents 3 and 4 were to approach this Court seeking for quashing of higher sital value demanded, in my view, the demand made for higher sital value by the B.D.A. would have been quashed on the ground that such demand made is highly unreasonable arbitrary and discriminatory in nature and without the authority of law. These matters this Court, while exercising its equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot overlook. The power of this Court is required to be exercised to undo the injustice. (Para 6)
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.—The petitioner, in this petition, is the Chairman of the Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as “the BDA”), This case is a classic example which depicts the tale of the struggle and the hardship undergone by an allottee of a small site allotted by the then Trust Board, for a period of about 24 years to get the site free from litigation.
2. The few facts that may be relevant for the disposal of this petition, which are not in serious dispute, may be stated as hereinunder :
(a) the year 1975, the then City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trust Board’), had acquired site bearing No. 2 in Survey No. 23 of Gangenahalli, Bangalore, belonging to the first respondent; and since the first respondent did not receive any compensation towards the value of the said site, the Trust Board had, by means of allotment letter dated 21st of January, 1976, allotted site bearing No. 347 measuring 30’ x 50’ situated at Hebbal Gangenahalli, at an allotment value of Rs. 5,137/- in favour of the first respondent. Pursuant to the allotment of the site made in her favour, the first respondent paid the sital value in two instalments. The first instalment of Rs. 1,392/- was paid on 2nd of February, 1976 and the second instalment of Rs. 3,845/- was paid on 18th of January, 1977. It appears that since the said site allotted to the first respondent was under litigation, the BDA allotted an alternate site bearing No. 74 measuring 30’ x 50’ in Survey No. 34 of Madiwala, by means of allotment letter dated 6th of April, 1989, jointly in favour of respondents 1 and 2. Pursuant thereto, the first respondent had paid an additional sum of Rs. 333/- towards the interest for the belated payment of the value of the site allotted to her; and thereafter, by means of another letter of allotment dated 16th of April, 1990, the dimension of the site was limited to 30’ x 40’ and it was jointly allotted in favour of respondents 1 and 2 and Possession Certificate dated 14th of March, 1991 was issued. According to the case of respondents 1 and 2, though the Possession Certificate was issued, they were not actually put in possession of the said site and the said site could not have been allotted to them in view of the litigation pending in respect of the said site, in O.S. No. 1944/ 1991 and the interim order of stay granted in the said suit. Thereafter, though the first respondent had paid the value of the site allotted in her favour as far back as in the year 1977, since respondents 1 and 2 were not put in possession of any site, they had filed a complaint in Complaint No. 3058/ 91 before the fourth respondent. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as “the District Forum”) The District Forum, on consideration of the respective claims of the B.D.A. and respondents 1 and 2, by means of its order dated 18th of October 1993, directed the B.D.A. to pay interest at 14 per cent on the entire value paid by the first respondent from the date of payment of the last instalment till the date the B.D.A. puts respondents 1 and 2 in possession of the allotted site, i.e. site bearing No. 74 of Survey No. 34 of Madiwala village or until such time an alternate site is allotted to her. The operative portion of the said order dated 18th of October, 1993 reads as follows :
“6. Hence, the following order is passed :
ORDER
The opposite party is directed to pay interest at 14% p.a. on the entire amount paid by the complainant excluding the interest amount of Rs. 333/- from the date the last instalment was paid and upto the date the complainants are going to be put in possession of the allotted site in question or until such time an alternate site is allotted to her, if such a course is available to the opposite party. The complainants are entitled to costs of Rs. 200/-.”
(b) Appeal No. 608/1993 filed against the said order before the Karnataka State Consumer Disp
