IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1703 OF 2016 (BDA) BETWEEN:
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY ITS COMMISSIONER KUMARA PARK WEST T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU - 560 020. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI SACHIN.B.S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI KRISHNA KUMAR, S/O B.RATHNAIAH AGED 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.111/A, KRISHNAPPA COMPOUND, LALBAGH ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 027.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.C.SUNDARESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT.R.ANITHA, HCGP FOR R2) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.8999/16 DATED 31.03.2016.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The order passed by the learned single Judge dated 31.03.2016 is assailed by the Respondent-Bengaluru Development Authority (B.D.A. for short) in W.P.No.8999 of 2016. The subject matter of this writ appeal is cancellation of allotment dated 30.09.2004 made in favour of the petitioner- respondent. The prayer made by the appellant is to set aside the order of the learned single Judge dated 31.03.2016 passed in W.P.No.8999 of 2016.
2. The sum and substance of the case is that Respondent No.1 herein who was the petitioner in W.P.No.8999 of 2016 was allotted a site bearing No.96, Gnanabharathi, Block III (Nagadevanahalli) measuring 40’ X 60’ on 26.12.2000 with a condition that he should pay the initial deposit of Rs.44,400/- and the remaining amount of Rs.3,11,100/- within a period ninety days. Since the same has not been complied, a show-cause notice was issued by the appellant herein to the first respondent on 13.09.2002, calling upon the first respondent to make payment of remaining amount or face cancellation of the allotment. First respondent made several attempts to plead for extension of time for making payment. However, there was an order of cancellation dated 30.09.2004. Therefore, the first respondent filed an application in the year 2006 seeking to consider his case for re-allotment. However, appellant-B.D.A. rejected the requisition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a petition in W.P.No.8999/2016.
3. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed B.D.A. to consider the case of the petitioner as one who had applied for a lesser dimension site 30’ X 40’ instead of a bigger dimension and collect the appropriate price with interest and penalty, if any and to allot a site. Aggrieved by the said order, B.D.A. is in appeal.
4. The ground taken by the Appellant/B.D.A. is that the order passed by the learned single Judge is contrary to the Circular dated 18.11.2010. The said Circular was passed as a benevolent gesture to economically weaker section to condone the delay in payment of allotment price by allottees who had been allotted sites of lesser dimension, i.e., 20’ X 30’ and 30’ X 40’ between the period 2000 to 2010. In this case, petitioner got allotted a site measuring 40’ X 60’. Under these circumstances, the petitioner does not get the benefit under the said Circular and hence, the order of the learned single Judge is unsustainable in law.
5. Learned counsel for first respondent submits that there is no rationality in the Circular issued by the B.D.A. in extending the benefit who gets allotment of sites measuring 30’ X 40’ or 20’ X 30’. On this ground of irrationality, the said Circular has rightly been not considered and the learned single Judge directed the B.D.A. to extend the same benefit to first respondent also considering his claim for lesser measurement site of 30’ X 40’.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant/B.D.A., learned counsel for the respondents and perused the pleadings urged by both sides and also the material available on record.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner who was allotted a site 40’ X 60’ in the year 2000 with a condition that he should pay the remaining amount of Rs.3,11,100/- within a period of ninety days did not deposit the said amount within the stipulated period. This conduct of the petitioner disentitles him for consideration of his case as per the Circular dated 18.11.2010. The object of the Circular is to benefit the economically weaker section who had been allotted sites of lesser dimension, i.e., 20’ X 30’ and 30’ X 40’ and what has been allotted to economically weaker section people cannot be extended to the persons who got allotment of higher dimension sites. Under these circumstances, the reasons assigned by the learned single Judge in setting aside the rejection order is contrary to the Circular and petitioner who is first respondent herein had to satisfy all the terms and conditions of the allotment. In the circumstances, we hold that the order passed by the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. Hence, the writ appeal is allowed.
It is needless to state that the petitioner should be refunded the amount paid by him with admissible interest as per law.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE dh