IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.30240 OF 2019 (BDA) BETWEEN:
B. Munithimmaiah S/o late Betathimmaiah, Aged about 40 years, Mallathahalli, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru.
(By Sri. Nandish Patil, Advocate) AND :
Bengaluru Development Authority Rep. by its Commissioner, T. Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru – 560 020.
(By Sri. Bipin Hegde, Advocate) ... Petitioner … Respondent This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned demand made in allotment letter dated 28.06.2019 issued by the respondent vide Annexure-C and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Learned counsel Sri.Bipin Hegde accepts notice for the respondent.
2. The petitioner has challenged the endorsement dated 28.06.2019 issued by the respondent – Bangalore Development Authority wherein the petitioner has been directed to deposit the balance amount of Rs.24,59,900/- to proceed further for the execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of site No.3211 in Sir M.Vishveshwaraiah layout, Bengaluru.
3. The petitioner submits that the land belonging to her was acquired by the respondent in the year 2011. Under the incentive scheme, Bangalore Development Authority resolved to allot one site measuring 30’ X 40’ in Sir M.Vishveshwaraiah layout. Allotment letter was issued by the Bangalore Development Authority allotting site bearing No.3211 in Sir M.Vishveshwaraiah Layout in favour of the respondent. Thereafter respondent – Bangalore Development Authority has issued the endorsement demanding additional amount of Rs.24,59,900/- for allotment and execution of the sale deed. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in similar circumstances, sale deeds have been executed for other persons, in terms of sital value fixed as per the allotment letter i.e., Rs.4,47,395/- and accordingly the petitioner is entitled to the similar relief. Reliance is placed on the order of this Court in W.P.No.45209- 210/2015 and allied matters.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the same. However, the learned counsel submits that the matter requires to be re-considered in the light of the orders passed by this Court vis-à-vis allotment letter issued to similarly placed persons.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is not in dispute that the similarly placed persons are allotted the sites in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.45209-210/2015 and allied matters [D.D.04.12.2015] which has been followed by this Court in catena of decisions. In such circumstances, the petitioner herein is entitled to similar relief.
6. The respondent – Bangalore Development Authority shall re-consider the issue insofar as the value of the site is concerned, keeping in mind the decisions referred to supra and the allotment letter issued to similarly placed persons.
Accordingly, demand of sital value in terms of the allotment letter dated 28.06.2019 at Annexure-C is quashed. The proceedings are restored to the file of the respondent – Bangalore Development Authority to re-consider the demand of sital value in the light of the observations made herein above.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ag