Unilateral cancellation of a registered sale deed by the vendor is illegal; only a competent court can order such cancellation under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act.

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner is before this Court claiming to be the owner of land in Sy.No.109/3 measuring 2 acres 4 guntas and 38 guntas in Sy.No.109/7 of Kommaghatta village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, which was acquired by respondent - BDA for the purpose of formation of Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout. That award was passed in terms of which petitioner was held to be entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.10 lakhs and developed land to an extent of 18926 sq. ft. in the form of four sites. In furtherance thereof, respondent -BDA allotted site bearing Nos.3299, 3300, 3301 and 3302 forming part of land in Sy.No.35/2 of Bheemana Kuppe village, Sector- F, 7^th block, Kempegowda Layout vide letters of allotment produced at Annexure-E series. That deeds of sale dated 21.06.2017 were executed and registered in respect of aforesaid sites by the respondent -BDA in terms of deeds of sale produced at Annexure-F series. Possession of the aforesaid sites delivered and katha was registered. That petitioner has been paying the property tax in respect of aforesaid sites.

2. When things stood thus, representative of the respondent -BDA had informed the petitioner that respondent - BDA is proposing to allot the very same sites in favour of one M.Ramaiah on the premise that land in Sy.No.35/2 over which said sites are located belonged to Sri.M.Ramaiah and who is also entitled for allotment of developed area. That respondent -BDA has issued a notice dated 05.01.2018 produced at Annexure -L and that by the very same notice had called upon the petitioner to cancel the deeds of sale on his own and to submit the records to respondent -BDA in this regard, failing which the respondent -BDA would initiate action in accordance with law.

3. In response thereof, the petitioner had submitted his reply dated 12.1.2018 wherein the petitioner apart from denying the contents of the notice had specifically contended that said M.Ramaiah did not have any right to seek allotment of the very same sites inasmuch as only extent of 9 guntas out of 3 acres 9 guntas of his land was acquired and that he was paid compensation in a sum of Rs.2,42,00,000/- and he did not have any right to seek allotment of sites. That since the respondent-authorities have threatened to take action in pursuant to Annexure -L, petitioner is before this Court.

4. Sri. D.L.Jagadesh, learned Senior counsel reiterating the averments and grounds urged in the petition refers to the judgment passed by this Court in the case of K. Raju vs. Bangalore Development Authority reportedILR 2011 KAR. 120 and also another judgment in the case ofBINNY MILL LABOUR WELFARE HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED VS. D.R. MRUTHYUNJAYA ARADYA reported inILR 2008 KAR. 2245 submits that it is settled position of law that once the deed of sale is executed it cannot be cancelled unilaterally except by a decree by competent Court of law. He further submits that respondent -BDA without resorting to said action cannot call upon the petitioner to unilaterally cancel the said deeds of sale nor can they threatened the petitioner of they taking action in failure of cancellation of sites by the petitioner on its own.

5. In response, learned counsel for the respondent - BDA submits that notice at Annexure-L came to be issued in view of the demand made by Sri.M.Ramaiah owner of the land in Sy.No.35/2, over which the sites have been formed and allotted to the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner was not denied of his entitlement but was only called upon to surrender the said sites to accommodate the claim of the said M.Ramaiah. He submits that there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the respondent -authorities. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition.

6. Heard. Perused the records.

7. There is no dispute of the fact that land belonging to the petitioner was acquired and he was held entitled for payment of compensation in the form of money as well as in the form of developed area to an extent of 18,926 sq.f