A registered sale deed transfers ownership rights to the purchaser, which cannot be unilaterally canceled by the seller without court involvement under the Specific Relief Act.

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner is before this Court seeking following reliefs;

"i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing the impugned sale deed dated 23.4.2018 executed by the respondent No. 2 in favour of the respondent No. 4 in respect of the schedule property which had been got registered in the office of the respondent No. 3 as document No. BDA-1- 00465-2018-19 in Book 1 and stored in CD No. BDAD 236 dated 25.4.2018 which is produced at Annexure 'B'.

ii) Consequently direct the respondent No. 3 to make an entry regarding the quashing of the sale deed dated 23.4.2018 executed by the respondent No. 2 in favour of the respondent No. 4 and got registered in its office as document No. BDA-1-00465-2018- 19 in Book I and stored in CD No. BDAD 236 dated 25.4.2018 which is produced at Annexure 'B' in their relevant registers.

iii) Pass an order prohibiting and restraining the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4 from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property in any manner.

iv) Grant cost of this petition.

v) And also grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice.

2. Case of the petitioner is that she was allotted a site bearing No.13 in block No.16 of Arkavathi Layout as per the allotment letter dated 30.12.2005 produced at Annexure-C and a lease-cum-sale agreement dated 07.06.2006 was also executed by the respondent -BDA vide Annexure-D. The said allotment was subsequently cancelled by the respondent -BDA and the cancellation deed was also executed as per Annexure-F on 01.10.2016 on the premise of the said site physically not being available. Thereafter, petitioner was allotted an alternate site bearing No.1020 of 19^th Block of Arkavathi Layout as per allotment letter dated 28.06.2016 as per Annexure-E and a sale deed dated 28.04.2017 was executed as per Annexure-A absolutely conveying the said property infavour of the petitioner and that possession certificate was issued on 05.07.2017 as per Annexure-G and katha was also transferred in favour of the petitioner.

3. When things stood thus, respondent -BDA executed another deed of sale dated 23.04.2018 as per Annexure-B infavour of respondent No.4 who since deceased now represented by his legal representatives as Respondent No.4(a), (b) and (c) conveying very same property which was conveyed in favour of the petitioner.

4. Counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of K. RAJU VS. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY reported inILR 2011 KAR 120 submits that respondent -BDA has no authority or jurisdiction to unilaterally cancel the sale deed without having recourse to the provisions of law as contemplated under Specific Relief Act . He submits the action of the respondent -BDA apart from being illegal is also ulterior inasmuch as the same has been made deliberately to cause hardship and prejudice to the petitioner. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent -BDA though fairly submits that the respondent -BDA did not have jurisdiction or authority to cancel the sale deed unilaterally in view of the judgment of this Court referred to supra, however, he fervently submits that the same was due to bonafide mistake and oversight and that the respondent -BDA has already issued notice to the respondent No.4 stating that the site which was allotted to the petitioner, in respect of which the deed of sale was executed to respondent No.4 would be cancelled and that an alternate site to the respondent No.4 would be allotted. Thus, he submits the remedial action is already un