IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.43874/2016 (BDA) BETWEEN K. Abdul Shukoor S/o P.M. Kader Ibrahim Aged about 68 years R/at No.09, 3rd Cross 1st Main, Maruthi Extension Sriramapura Bangalore – 560021. ... Petitioner (Benefit of senior citizen not claimed) (By Sri. H. C. Sundaresh, Advocate) AND The Commissioner Bangalore Development Authority T. Chowdaiah Road Bangalore – 560020. ... Respondent (By Sri. g. Lakshmeesh Rao, Advocate) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India praying to set aside the endorsement dated 14.11.2014 issued by the respondent vide Annex-J and etc.
This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Petitioner and Ex-serviceman is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court seeking the quashment of the endorsement dated 14.11.2014 issued by the respondent BDA at Annexure-J whereby his representation dated 04.08.2014 at Annexure-H requesting for the grant of an alternate site in lieu of the rescinded grant of August 1976.
2. After service of notice the respondent BDA having entered appearance through its Senior panel Counsel has filed a brief Statement of Objections resisting the petition prayer both on merits, and on delay and latches.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner being an Ex-serviceman was allotted a house site admeasuring 30 X 40 Sq ft., vide Allotment Letter dated 23.08.1976 (Annexure-A) for a price of Rs.4,800/- of which, he had paid Rs.300/- and that the balance of Rs.4,500/- was to be paid within 90 days, because of financial difficulty he could not pay, but vide representation dated 04.07.1977 (Annexure-D), he had sought for the concession in the price; this request ought to have been granted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contents that since his request for concession was not turned down, petitioner was awaiting the decision thereon; instead of granting the concession, the BDA resorted to the extreme action of canceling the allotment itself vide endorsement dated 27.07.1977; therefore petitioner had made a representation dated 30.08.1980 (Annexure-F) seeking an alternate allotment of a 60 X 40 Sq. ft. site and a remainder was sent on 06.05.1983 (Annexure-G) stating that he was ready to pay the entire amount and that non-consideration of his request; the petitioner had reiterated his request vide another representation dated 04.08.2014 (Annexure-H) which came to be rejected by the endorsement dated 14.11.2014 (Annexure-J) unjustifiably and therefore, the indulgence of this Writ Court is eminently warranted.
5. Prof. Lakshmeesh Rao, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondent – BDA per contra submits that petitioner admittedly was allotted the site way back on 23.08.1976, he having paid initial deposit of Rs.300/- ought to have paid the remaining amount of the site price i.e., Rs.4,500/- within 90 days as was specified in the allotment letter the same having not been done, the allotment came to be rescinded on 27.07.1977 in terms of Rule 17(4) of City of Bangalore Improvement (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1972 and therefore, the same cannot be faltered; the representations made by the petitioner decades after the cancellation came to be rejected by the endorsement on the ground that there was non-compliance of the terms and conditions of allotment and that the representations made by the petitioner on their merits being unworthy of consideration were negatived on the ground of delay and latches as well; therefore, the impugned action is sustainable both on facts and law.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondent – BDA. I have perused the Writ Petition Papers and and I have also glanced the Rule position as it obtained then.
7. No relief can be granted to the petitioner for the following discussion:-
(a) petitioner, an Ex-Serviceman, having been granted a site of reasonable dimension (30x40 Sq.Ft) on a concessional price subject to terms and conditions ought to have paid the balance of price and that there is no justification whatsoever for not paying the same except the pleaded paucity of funds sans any evidence to establish the same;
(b) the concession sought for having not been acceded to, the petitioner admittedly was served with the endorsement canceling the allotment in July, 1977 as mentioned in his representation at Annexure-H, ought to have approached the Court at once, but he went on making representations one after another, the latest being dated 04.08.2014 which has been rightly rejected by the impugned endorsement dated 14.11.2014.
(c) the petitioner ought to have approached the Writ Court within a reasonable period of time after receiving the impugned endorsement dated 04.08.2014 whereas, he has filed the writ petition only on 11.08.2016 i.e., two years thereafter with no explanation for the delay brooked;
(d) the invocation of Rule 17(4) of 1972 Rules in support of the claim for concessional price and the relaxation of installment period is misconceived in the absence of the existence of conditions precedents for the invocation of the said Rule; and (e) no special case is made out for grant of any relief on the basis of pleadings of the parties and the submissions made at the Bar.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition fails. Costs made easy.
Sd/- JUDGE SN