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