IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO. 2630 OF 2015 (BDA) BETWEEN:
K.S. MANCHAPPA SON OF LATE SIDDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDENT OF U-2, 4TH CROSS, JABBAR BLOCK, VYALIKAVAL BENGALURU – 560 003. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI JYOTHI M.MARADI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK, BENGALURU – 560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R. ANITHA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT No. 1;
SRI A.M. VIJAY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.59788 OF 2014 DATED 16/07/2015.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 16.07.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.59788 of 2014 by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, the petitioner has filed this appeal.
2. In view of the application made by the appellant, a site was allotted by the Bengaluru Development Authority in the year 2000. The sital value was required to be paid within the time stipulated. The petitioner failed to make payment towards sital value within stipulated time. Thereafter, the site was cancelled in the year 2004. Subsequently, the site was allotted to another allottee. Ten years thereafter the instant writ petition was filed seeking to quash the impugned order dated 30.10.2004 cancelling the allotment.
3. The learned Single Judge was of the view that since sital value to be paid within time was not paid, the petitioner was not entitled for allotment of site. Furthermore, the said site has been allotted to another allottee. However, the Bengaluru Development Authority was directed to allot the site to the petitioner in future in accordance with law. The same is sought to be questioned herein.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the site is required to be allotted in favour of the appellant since he was originally allotted the same. The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
5. On hearing the learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The writ petition challenging the cancellation of allotment was filed ten years after the cancellation was made. Subsequently, the site has already been allotted in favour of third person. Therefore, nothing further could be done in the matter. There are substantial delay and subsequent events. In the circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Pending application stands rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE SA