IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.No.52821/2015 (BDA-) BETWEEN SMT. KALAVATHI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O MR.M.GOVINDASWAMY, R/AT NO.1161, 4TH A MAIN, 14TH CROSS, M.C.LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 040. ... PETITIONER (By Sri NATARAJ R., ADV.) AND BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BY ITS COMMISSIONER, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020. ... RESPONDENT (By Sri I.G.GACHCHINAMATH, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO ALLOT AN ALTERNATE SITE TO THE PETITONER IN ARKAVATHI LAYOUT AND AS PER THE LETTER OF ALLOTMENT DTD:24.06.2006 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Petitioner was allotted a site measuring 30’ x 40’ in Arkavathi Layout in Sy. No.19/6 of Jakkur village. By notification dated 18.06.2014, the said land among other lands in Jakkur village have been excluded from acquisition pursuant to the decision taken to implement the directions of the Apex Court in the case of BONDU RAMASWAMY & OTHERS VS BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & OTHERS – (2010) 7 SCC 129. By virtue of this development, petitioner having realized that the allotment made in her favour of the site formed in Sy. No.19/6 had virtually stood cancelled, made a request to the Bengaluru Development Authority (for short, ‘BDA’) to allot an alternative site.
2. This application was made on 01.06.2015 as is evident from Annexure-F. Based on the said application, the Assistant Executive Engineer, North Division, BDA, has submitted a report to the Deputy Secretary-III, BDA, which according to the petitioner is favourable to him.
However, as the BDA has not taken any action, petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the BDA to allot alternative site in Arkavathi Layout in lieu of the allotment of site made vide letter of allotment dated 24.06.2006.
3. Statement of objections have been filed by the BDA mainly contending that there are number of allottees who were unable to get sites and that the process of identifying persons who were entitled for allotment of sites as per the Rules would be undertaken in accordance with law and as per the seniority of the petitioner, petitioner’s case would be examined in accordance with the existing Rules. Reiterating the defence taken in the statement of objections, Mr. Gachchinmath submits that petitioner cannot claim priority in the matter of allotment of alternative site.
4. Having heard the learned Counsel for both parties, I find that there is no dispute regarding allotment of site in favour of the petitioner during the year 2006.
Unfortunately, the allotment has stood cancelled because of the exclusion of Sy. No.19/6 from acquisition. For no fault on the part of the petitioner, she has lost her entitlement for the site allotted. Therefore, she has rightly made a representation seeking allotment of alternative site. It is the duty of the BDA to consider the said application and take necessary action in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE