IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.35234/2018 (BDA) BETWEEN:
SMT.MANJULA A., W/O SRI D.VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, No.325, 1ST FLOOR, 2ND MAIN, 6TH CROSS, CHENNAMMAKERE ACHUKAT, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU – 560085 ... PETITIONER [BY SRI H.T.VASANTHKUMAR, ADV.] AND:
1 . THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK EAST BENGALURU - 560020 REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER 2 . THE DEPUTY SECRETARY - IV (BDA) T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK EAST, BENGALURU - 560020 3 . THE ADDL. DISTRICT REGISTRAR BDA, (H.O.), DISTRICT REGISTRAR, UNIT – 1, BENGALURU – 560020 …RESPONDENTS [BY SMT.M.V.ADITHI, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED CANCELLATION LETTER VIDE ANNEXURE-L VIDE DOCUMENT No.2213/2011-12 DATED 29.09.2011 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AND 3.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has assailed the cancellation letter dated 29.9.2011 issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. The petitioner submits that a Site bearing No.1042 situated at 4th “B” Block, FE of BSA 6th Stage, measuring 12 x 8 meters was allotted to her vide allotment letter dated 07.02.2004. Absolute Sale Deed has been executed and the Khatha Certificate was also issued and she is paying the taxes regularly to the respondent - Authorities through online.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that she came to know about the cancellation of the said Site only when she went to the respondent - Authority to pay the revenue tax. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the cancellation letter dated 29.09.2011 was made without issuing notice to the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel Sri. H.T. Vasanth Kumar appearing for the petitioner submitted that the unilateral decision taken by the respondent – Authorities to cancel the Site allotted to the petitioner is arbitrary and hit by the principles of natural justice. Reliance is placed on the order of the cognate bench of this Court in W.P.No.17381/2015 (D.D. 08.12.2017).
5. Learned counsel for the respondent - Authorities made an endeavor to support the impugned order.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is evident that no notice was issued to the petitioner before canceling the Site allotted in terms of the allotment letter dated 07.02.2004. The points that arise for consideration in the present writ petition are;
1) Whether the BDA can cancel the sale deed of the petitioner unilaterally without notice?
2) Whether the jurisdictional Additional Distrial Registrar has the authority to cancel the registration of any document unilaterally after it was registered under the provisions of the Registration Act and Rules?
These points have been considered and decided by the cognate bench of this Court in identical circumstances, in the case of Sri. Manjunath Shetty vs. Bangalore Development Authority and another in W.P.No.17381/2015 (D.D. 08.12.2017) and has held that BDA has no authority to cancel the registration unilaterally without following the principles of natural justice and the jurisdictional Additional District Registrar has no jurisdiction to cancel the registration of the sale deed unilaterally without the consent of the petitioner in whose favour BDA had registered the document in view of the provisions of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is held that the Civil Court alone is competent to cancel the sale deeds on adjudication of the disputes. In terms of the said order of the cognate bench, this writ petition deserves to be allowed setting aside the cancellation order impugned herein. Hence, the following ORDER Writ petition is allowed.
The impugned cancellation order dated 29.09.2011 passed by the BDA at Annexure-L is hereby quashed.
However, it is open to the BDA to take appropriate action in terms of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR/Dvr: