IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION No. 23030/2017 (BDA) BETWEEN:
Smt. Nanjamma @ Chikkathayamma, W/o. Late Madaiah, Aged about 65 years, R/at: No.23/1, 2nd Cross, Muddamma Garden, Bengaluru-560046.
(By Sri H.T. Vasanth Kumar, Advocate) AND ... Petitioner The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, No.20, T. Chowdaiah Road, Kumarapark West, Bangalore – 560 020 ... Respondent ( By Sri Basavaraja H.T., Advocate) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent Authority to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 07.04.2016 vide Annexure-S. Quash vide Annexure-P dated 16.10.1998 and vide Annexure-V dated 03.05.2017 issued by the respondent Authority This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the court made the following:-
ORDER The petitioner who happens to be the widow of one Mr. late Madaiah, is calling in question the endorsements dated 16.10.1998 and 03.05.2017 issued by the respondent- BDA at Annexures-P & V respectively which come in the way of consideration of petitioner’s claim for grant of the site in her favour on the ground that the applicant husband is dead.
2. The latest endorsement dated 03.05.017 which is self explanatory, issued by the respondent – BDA at Annexure-V reads as under:
“»A§gÀºÀ «µÀAiÀÄ: ºÉZï. ©. Dgï 2£Éà ºÀAvÀ §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ 20*30 Cr C¼ÀvÉAiÀÄ ¤ªÉñÀ£À ¸ÀASÉå: PÉ.f-108 C£ÀÄß ¹ÜjÃPÀj¸ÀĪÀAvÉ PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ. G¯ÉèÃR: 1. vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ: 07/04/2016.
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ²æêÀÄw £ÀAdªÀÄä GgÀÄ¥sï aPÀÌvÁAiÀĪÀÄä DzÀ ¤ªÀÄUÉ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ, vÁªÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 07/04/2016 gÀAzÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹, ºÉZï. ©. Dgï 2£Éà ºÀAvÀ §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ 20*30 Cr C¼ÀvÉAiÀÄ ¤ªÉñÀ£À ¸ÀASÉå: PÉ.f-108 £ÀÄß £À£Àß ¥ÀwAiÀĪÀgÁzÀ ²æà ªÀiÁzÀAiÀÄågÀªÀjUÉ ºÀAaPÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ºÀªÀÄaPÉ ¥ÀvÀæªÀÅ vÀªÀÄUÉ vÀ®Ä¥ÀzÉà EzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ¤ªÉñÀ£À ªÀiË®åªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä ¸ÁzsÀåªÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ w½¸ÀÄvÁÛ, FUÀ £À£Àß ¥ÀwAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¤zsÀ£ÀgÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ, ¸ÀzÀj ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÀ£Àß ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ªÀiÁr, ¹ÜjÃPÀj¹PÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀĵÉÖ. CzÀgÀAvÉ ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ C¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ “Rule 8-A of BDA (Allotment of sites) Rules 1984 is inserted in the Rules by notification NO. UDD 411 MNJ 2000 (P) dated 23- 10-2000 with effect from 24-10-2000. Thus, the said provision is prospective in nature and therefore, it cannot be applied with retrospective effect. As it is well established principle of law as laid down in the decision reported in (2016) 2 SCC 129) the applicability of law is always prospective in nature unless it is expressly or by intendment provided to the contrary. For the aforesaid reasons Smt. Nanjamma w/o deceased Madaiah is not entitled to allotment of site as claimed by her” JAzÀÄ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
DzÀPÁgÀt, ºÀAaPÉzÁgÀgÀÄ ºÀAaPÉAiÀiÁUÀĪÀ ªÀÄÄAavÀªÁV ¤zsÀ£ÀgÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ, ºÀAaPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß EªÀgÀ ¥ÀwßAiÀiÁzÀ £ÀªÀÄä ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä PÁ£ÀƤ£À°è CªÀPÁ±À«gÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ w½¹gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ, ¤ªÀÄä PÉÆÃjPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß wgÀ¸ÀÌj¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹ G¥ÀAiÀiPÛÀgÀÄ zÀeÉð-4 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.”
3. The respondent having entered appearance through its counsel opposes the writ petition on the ground stated in the aforesaid impugned endorsement itself. In short, it is submitted that the applicant – husband having died before he was allotted a site, the claim of the petitioner for the grant of site on the basis of the said application is impermissible inasmuch as Rule 8A of the 1984 Rules being prospective is not invocable.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to the legal opinion tendered by the law department of the respondent-BDA vide paragraph Nos.
101 and 102 dated 03.08.016 at Annexure-T to the writ petition which read as under:
101 – “Rule 8-A of BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules 1984 provides that when a person who has registered himself under Rule 8 dies before withdrawal of registration, his or her spouse and if there is no surviving spouse, his or her dependent children shall be deemed to be persons registered fro the purpose of these rules and shall be entitled to apply and for being considered for allotment of site in accordance with the provisions of the rules.
Here in this case deceased Madaiah applied for a 20x30 feet dimension site under EWS category and said application was not withdrawn by him during his life time. Where the said application was still pending he died in the year 1992. His wife Smt. Nanjamma applied for allotment of site in her favour. AS per Rule 8-A her plea for allotment of site may be considered.”
F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è CfðzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æà ªÀiÁzÀAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀÄ ¤ªÉñÀÀ£À ºÀAaPÉUÁV ¢£ÁAPÀ: 10/03/1988 £Éà ¸Á°£À C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉUÉzÀÄgÁV 20*30 (E.qÀ§Æèå.J¸ï) Cr C¼ÀvÉAiÀÄ ¤ªÉñÀ£À ºÀAaPÉUÁV CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
102.CzÀgÀAvÉ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ oÀgÁªÀÅ ¸ÀASÉå: 284/96, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 13/12/1996 gÀ ¤tðAiÀÄzÀAvÉ JªÀjUÉ ºÉZï.©.Dgï 2£Éà ºÀAvÀ §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ ¤ªÉñÀ£À ¸ÀASÉå:PÉ.f-108£ÀÄß ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁr ºÀAaPÉ ¥ÀvæÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¹. eÁj ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ªÀÄÄ£Áß ªÀgÀªÀiÁ£À ¸ÀvÀå ±ÉÆÃzÀ£É ªÀiÁr ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgï gÀªÀjAzÀ zsÀÈrüÃPÀj¹zÀ ¥æÀªÀiÁt ¥ÀvæÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀAvÀ w½¸ÀÄvÁÛ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 13/08/1997 (¥ÀÄl-12) gÀAzÀÄ CAZÉ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ eÁj ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. DzÀgÉ ¸ÀzÀj ®PÉÆÃmÉ eÁjAiÀiÁUÀzÉ, ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì §AzÀ PÁgÀt PÀAzÁAiÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ eÁj ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ ºÀAaPÉzÁgÀgÀÄ ¤zsÀ£ÀgÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢zÀÄÝ. CAzÀgÉ CfðzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æà ªÀiÁzÀAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀÄ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀPÁÌV 1988 gÀ°è Cfð¸À°è¹ 1992 gÀ°è ¤zsÀ£ÀgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¤ªÉñÀ£À ºÀAaPÉAiÀÄ §UÉÎ 1996 gÀ°è ¤tðAiÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆArzÀÄÝ, 04 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ wêÀiÁð¤¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÛÀzÉ. CAzÀgÉ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀPÁÌV Cfð¸À°è¸ÀĪÁUÀ fêÀAvÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É w½¹gÀĪÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ C¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄzÀAvÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ 1984 ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 8-J gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¤ªÉñÀ£À ºÀAaPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CfðzÁgÀgÁzÀ ¢ªÀAUÀvÀ ªÀiÁzÀAiÀÄå £ÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj¤AzÀ EªÀgÀ ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄzÁgÀ/¥ÀwßAiÀiÁzÀ ²æêÀÄw £ÀAdªÀÄä GgÀÆ¥sï aPÀÌvÁAiÀĪÀÄä gÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ªÀiÁr ºÀAaPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¹ÜjÃPÀj¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ DzÉñÀ PÉÆÃjzÉ.
«µÀAiÀÄ ¤ªÁðºÀPÀgÀÄ”
5. Apparently, the legal opinion is favourable to the petitioner whereas, in the impugned endorsement dated 03.05.2017 at Annexure-V which is already reproduced above mentions wrongly that the said legal opinion is disfavourable to the petitioner. This is first error apparent on the face of the record. Thus the said endorsement also mentions a decision of the Apex Court i.e, (2016) 2 SCC 129. There is no such reported judgment. Even in the AIR of the said year at the same page, there is no judgment that touches the subject matter stated in the impugned endorsement. This is the second error apparent on the face of the record.
6. Petitioner admittedly is the widow of late Madaiah who had applied for allotment of a site ad measuring 20 x 30 Sq. ft in HBR Layout, II Stage, Bengaluru. A notice was sent by the BDA on 13.08.1997 asking the said applicant to furnish an Income Verification Certificate authenticated by the Tahsildar. However, the said notice returned unserved inasmuch as the applicant by that time had closed his eyes once for all.
7. The above apart, the text of Rule 8A cannot be construed pedantically to deny benefit to the Class – I Heir under the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, i.e., the petitioner widow of the applicant who died later. The reason given in the endorsement thus is legally unsustainable. Matter needs reconsideration in the right perspective.
8. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned endorsement dated 03.05.2017 issued by the respondent – BDA at Annexure-V with a direction to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law, afresh and further, to inform the petitioner, the result thereof, forthwith.
It is open to the respondent-BDA to solicit any information or document as is necessary for due consideration of the matter; however, no delay shall be brooked in that guise.
Costs made easy.
Sd/- JUDGE DS/-