IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.31699/2017 (LA-BDA) Between:
Mr.Dennis Jacob, Aged about 58 years, Son of Sri.Sunny Jacob, Residing at Blessing, No.26, 2nd Cross, Murthy Badavane, Geddalahalli, Bengaluru-560 077. Rep. by GPA Holder Sherin Michael, Aged about 55 years, W/o.Prakash Earnest Michael, R/at No.26, House List No.45/2, 1st Main, 2nd & 3rd Cross, Geddalahalli, K.Narayanapura (P), Bengaluru-77. ... Petitioner (By Sri.Shankaranarayana Rao.B.V, Advocate) And:
1. Bangalore Development Authority, T.Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru-560 020, Represented by its Commissioner.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Development Authority, T.Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru-560 020.
3. The Deputy Secretary-1, Bangalore Development Authority, T.Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru-560 020. ... Respondents (By Sri.A.M.Vijay, Advocate for R1-R3) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to expeditiously refund a sum of Rs.16,27,560/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty Only) along with interest @ 18% per annum in terms of pending representation dated 25.10.2016 (Annexure-D) without brooking any further delay in the matter and etc., This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the court made the following:-
ORDER Petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, it is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to refund a sum of Rs.16,27,560/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. The petitioner also seeks for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to allot a site measuring 30 X 40 feet, free of cost in terms of the representation dated 25.10.2016.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that on 15.04.1996, the petitioner purchased the land measuring 16X40 feet at Sy.No.79 situated at Malathahalli Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore. The Bangalore Development Authority issued a preliminary notification dated 08.04.2003 under the Bangalore Development Authority Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ for short) for acquisition of the land comprising 4 acres 3 guntas of land in Sy.No.79, Malathahalli Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore. The State Government issued a final notification on 09.09.2003. A Bench of this Court by an order dated 30.09.2004 in JUNJAMMA v. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY– 2004 (7) KLJ 677, issued certain directions to the Bangalore Development Authority for allotment of alternative site to the land owners who have purchased the land /site before the issuance of preliminary notification. Upon the assurances and representations held out by the Bangalore Development Authority, petitioner executed a registered relinquishment deed dated 07.10.2016 relinquishing the revenue site owned and possessed by him in favour of the Bangalore Development Authority, under which, Bangalore Development Authority agreed to allot an alternative site free of cost to the petitioner. Subsequently, the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the alternative site and a sum of Rs.16,27,560/- was recovered from the petitioner towards the sale consideration of the alternative site. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this petition that the petitioner has confined his relief only to the refund of the amount which he was under the obligation to pay. It is further submitted that in case the respondents are permitted to retain the amount, the same amounts to unjust enrichment and the respondents who are instrumentality of the State cannot be permitted to act in an unfair, irrational and unreasonable manner.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner on his own will paid a sum of Rs.16,27,560/-.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is not in dispute that the land belonging to the petitioner was acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority in exercise of the powers under Section 35 of the Act. It is also not in dispute that a Bench of this Court in Junjamma’s case supra had directed the Bangalore Development Authority to allot alternative site to the land loosers. The petitioner is admittedly the land looser. The petitioner was entitled for allotment of the land in pursuance to the direction issued by the Bench of this Court in Junjamma ‘s case.
8. The relinquishment deed dated 07.10.2016 was executed in favour of the petitioner which contains the following stipulation.
“The property mentioned in the schedule was handed over to the second party and second party agrees and allotted alternative site bearing number 1112 measuring 108.00 sq.mtrs of site in Banashankari 6th stage, 11th Block Extension with free of cost as alternate site in lieu of the schedule property relinquished by the first party.”
9. Thus, it is evident that under the relinquishment deed, the petitioner was entitled to allotment of alternative site bearing No.1112 measuring 108.00 sq.mtrs, with free of cost. However, surprisingly, the respondents executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid site for a consideration of Rs.16,27,560/-. It is further stated that the action of the respondents in recovering a sum of Rs.16,27,560/- from the petitioner towards the cost of the plot is in violation of the Constitutional guarantee afforded to the petitioner under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The petitioner could not have deprived his right to hold the property except in a manner known to law.
10. Besides that, it is pertinent to mention here that relinquishment deed dated 07.10.2016 was executed in favour of the petitioner, is in view of the direction issued by the Bench of this Court in Junjamma’s case, in which the petitioner was entitled for allotment of alternative site free of cost. Therefore, the respondents could not have recovered the aforesaid amount from the petitioner. in view of the stipulation contained in the relinquishment deed which was executed in favour of the petitioner is in view of the direction issued in Junjamma’s case. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondents who are instrumentality of the State is suppose to act in a rational, fair and reasonable manner. While dealing with the citizens, it cannot be permitted to act in contravention of the provisions of the Constitution.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are hereby directed to refund the sum of Rs.16,27,560/- within a period of one month from today failing which, the aforesaid amount shall carry interest at the rate of 8% p.a. till the actual amount of payment is made to the petitioner.
With the aforesaid direction, petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE VMB