IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.49766/2014 (BDA) BETWEEN:
SMT.A.LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE R.ANJANEYALU AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT NO.989, 4TH M BLOCK 59TH C CROSS, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010 ... PETITIONER [BY SRI H.C.SUNDARESH, ADV.] AND:
THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE-560020 [BY SRI B.S.SACHIN, ADV.] …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 11.06.2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-N AND ETC.,.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the endorsement dated 11.06.2010 issued by the respondent, inter alia, seeking a direction to the respondent to consider the representation filed by her as per Annexures – P, R and S for accepting the balance sital value with interest and to execute the sale deed in respect of the site bearing No.1545, measuring 30’ x 40’ situated at 4th Block, further extension of BSK 6th Phase, Bangalore, pursuant to the allotment letter dated 07.02.2004 on the basis of the Circulars issued by the respondent dated 18.10.2007 and 18.11.2010.
2. The petitioner claims that her husband late.
R. Anjaneyalu was an ex-serviceman, who joined the Indian Army as a Soldier in the year 1947 and after completing 30 years of service in the Army, retired as a Junior Commissioned Officer in the year 1977. It is submitted that after retirement from service, the petitioner’s husband filed an application before the respondent for allotment of site measuring 30’ x 40’ under Ex-Serviceman Quota. After considering the application, the respondent - Authority has allotted the site bearing No.1684, measuring 30’ x 40’ situated at 9th Block, further extension of SMV Nagar, Bangalore and allotment letter was also issued in his favour. It is further submitted that the total sital value was Rs.2,26,800/-, after depositing the initial deposit amount of Rs.28,500/-, the allottee was required to deposit the balance sital value of Rs.1,98,800/- within the prescribed time. Accordingly, the petitioner’s husband has deposited Rs.1,50,000/- being part of the balance sital value before the respondent on 26.05.2004 in terms of Remittance Challan. However, some time was sought for the payment of balance sital value of Rs.48,800/-. After mobilizing the amount, the petitioner’s husband deposited the balance sital value of Rs.48,800/- in favour of the respondent through Pay Order dated 13.12.2004, the same was returned on the ground that there is no provision under the Rules for accepting the balance sital value beyond the stipulated time.
3. Pursuant to the Circulars issued by the respondent - Authority in the year 2007 and 2010, the petitioner filed representation before the respondent dated 06.03.2010 along with a D.D. bearing No.00782, dated 30.01.2010, drawn on H.D.F.C. Bank, Bangalore, for Rs.48,800/- being the full and final settlement of the sital value, being the legal representative of the deceased - allottee Sri. R. Anjaneyalu, but the same has been rejected in terms of the endorsement impugned herein. It is the case of the petitioner that even subsequent to the issue of endorsement dated 11.06.2010, the petitioner once again deposited the balance amount to the respondent through the Demand Drafts dated 20.11.2010, 27.05.2011 and 04.02.2012 for Rs.48,800/- with a request to accept the same and to execute the sale deed in respect of the site allotted along with the representation, but the same has not been responded to, by the respondent – Authority.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the Circulars issued by the respondent as well as the order of this Court in W.P.No.15726/2013 (D.D. 21.06.2013) submits that the respondent - Authority is obligated to consider the request of the petitioner to accept the balance sital value of Rs.48,800/- with interest at 21% per annum and to execute the sale deed in respect of the site allotted in favour of her husband in terms of the allotment letter.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent – Authority submits that in view of non-payment of the sital value within the prescribed time, the site allotted to the petitioner’s husband in terms of the allotment letter dated 07.02.2004 has been cancelled and the said site is already allotted to a third party. However, it is not disputed that the initial deposit of Rs.28,500/- and the deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- towards the balance sital value of Rs.1,98,800/- has not been refunded to the petitioner till date. On the other hand, the efforts made by the petitioner to pay the balance sital value by filing the representation in terms of the Circulars dated 18.10.2007 and 18.11.2010 has not been accepted by the respondent.
6. In the backdrop of the facts as narrated above, it is not in dispute that the attempts made by the petitioner to make the payment towards the balance sital value amounting to Rs.48,800/- has been turned down by the respondent - Authority. Considering the representations made along with the Demand Drafts and keeping in mind the Circulars issued by the respondent dated 18.10.2007 as well as 18.11.2010, the petitioner - wife of late R. Anjaneyalu, an ex-serviceman, is entitled to the similar relief as granted by this Court in W.P.No.15726/2013 (D.D.21.06.2013). Hence, the following.
ORDER The endorsement dated 11.06.2010 at Annexure – N issued by the respondent is quashed. The petitioner is directed to pay the entire balance of sital value with interest at 21% per annum to the BDA within four weeks from today. On receipt of the same, necessary documents may be executed by the BDA in respect of any alternative site available in the very same layout or in any other layout of equal dimension as per the original allotment letter, in favour of the petitioner in an expedite manner, in any event, not later than eight weeks from the date of payment of the balance sital value with interest made by the petitioner.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR