SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 36685

- 1 -

WP No. 7086 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO. 7086 OF 2021 (BDA)

BETWEEN:

SMT. V. VIMALA

W/O SRI. H.R. NAGARAJ

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

NO.154, 11TH MAIN ROAD

MANJUNATH NAGAR

BENGALURU-560010

&PETITIONER

(BY SRI. GANAPATI S. SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER

T. CHOWDAIAHT ROAD

KUAMRA PARK WEST

BENGALURU-560020

&RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF

MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO ALLOT ALTERNATIVE

SITE IN ITS LAYOUT IN LIEU OF SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN THE NAME

OF PETITIONER AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO

REGISTER THE SAME IN HER NAME AND ETC.

*****

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

IN 8B9 GROUP, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

Digitally signed by

POORNIMA SHIVANNA

Location: HIGH COURT

OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

WP No. 7086 of 2021

1.

The petitioner is before this court for the following

reliefs:

i.

Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent

to allot alternative site in its layout in lieu of

schedule property in the name of petitioner and

further direct the respondent to register the same in

her name;

ii. Issue any appropriate writ, order or direction in the

circumstances of the case including an order as to

costs, to meet the ends of justice.

2.

The petitioner is the owner of the site bearing

No.1584 situate on VII Block of further extension of

Sir M.Vishweshwaraiah Nagara Layout, Bangalore,

having been allotted the said property by the

respondent on 6.2.2004, as regards which entire

consideration has been paid by the petitioner and

khata has been registered in the name of the

petitioner. When the petitioner had gone to the

property on 21.11.2004 the petitioner was informed

that the erstwhile owner of the said land had not

surrendered the property and that the said property

was under litigation. Hence the petitioner made a

- 3 -

representation

on

15.05.2010

for

allotment

of

alternate site.

3.

The respondent had replied by endorsement dated

14.06.2010 that the said application would be

considered and alternate site would be allotted.

However, no action was taken, as such the petitioner

issued a legal notice dated 23.06.2019 followed by

another notice on 3.06.2020, which did not evoke any

response, hence the petitioner is before this Court

seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

4.

The petitioner having been allotted a site and the said

site not being capable of being used by the petitioner

on account of the erstwhile owner not having

surrendered the property and taking into account the

submission of Sri.Lakshmeesh Rao, learned counsel

that the said property has been considered for

regularisation on account of the applications being

submitted by the land owners in possession under the

Ashraya scheme and allotted to several of them, the

- 4 -

respondent-BDA does not have possession of the

property to allot the same, I am of the considered

opinion that these facts being to the knowledge of the

BDA, the BDA ought to have allotted an alternate site

immediately on coming to know of the same instead

of making the petitioner run from pillar to post for the

last 12 years. Admittedly, first application has been

made on 15.05.2010 and the BDA was aware of the

fact that the said property is being utilized by State

for allotment by regularization.

5.

The petitioner having been allotted the site in the year

2004, till date the petitioner has not been able to use

the property despite the passage of 18 years and even

till date the representation submitted in the year 2010

is awaiting consideration by the BDA. There cannot

be any excuse for such a delay. Hence, the

respondent would also be liable to compensate the

petitioner for the said delay. Hence, I pass the

following:

- 5 -

ORDER

i)

The writ petition is allowed. A mandamus is

issued

directing

the

respondent

to

allot

alternate site to the petitioner within a period of

six weeks from today.

ii)

The respondent is also directed to make

payment

of

a

sum

of

Rs.2

lakhs

as

compensation which would probably cover the

property tax which has been paid by the

petitioner on the aforesaid property from the

year 2004 till date.

iii)

The State government would also have to

consider the applicability of the Real Estate

Regulation and Development Act, 2016 to the

Authorities like the BDA since the BDA is also a

developer of the property and involve in

developing and sale of the property (plots and

buildings) to the third party like individual

citizens.

- 6 -

iv)

Learned AGA is directed to bring the above

order to the notice of the Chief Secretary,

Government of Karnataka.

v)

Respondents to act on a print out of the

uploaded copy of this order on the website of

this Court, if so furnished by the petitioner,

without waiting for certified copy thereof. If

respondents have any doubt about the order,

respondents may ver

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top