IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.38405/2018 (BDA) BETWEEN:
SMT.P.GAYATHRI W/O MADHAVA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.10, PUTTAMMA COMPOUND, K.R.LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR, 6TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078. …PETITIONER (BY SRI H.C.SUNDARESH, ADV.) AND:
THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560 020. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI NARENDRA GOWDA, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 01.10.2004 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-E.
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 endorsement dated 01.10.2004issued by the respondents whereby the site allotted to the petitioner has been cancelled.
2. The petitioner was an allottee of the site measuring 40 X 60 feet bearing No.1663 situated at further extension of Sir M.Vishveshwaraiah layout. The petitioner was communicated that the entire sital value of Rs.4,53,600/- [Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand Six Hundred only] was not deposited within six months from the date of the communication of the allotment letter. Accordingly, the respondent has cancelled the site allotted by the impugned endorsement at Annexure-E to the writ petition. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conditions stipulated in allotment letter and the sub-rule [1] of Rule 13 of the Bangalore Development Authority [Allotment of site] Rules, 1984 ['Rules' for short] do not completely exclude the principles of natural justice even in the absence of specific and explicit mentioning of providing an opportunity of hearing to the allottee while taking the extreme step of canceling the allotted site. It is submitted that the principles of natural justice is inbuilt in the provisions of the Rules as well as the allotment letter. Any order of cancellation passed sans providing an opportunity of hearing is void ab initio and the same requires to be set aside. Learned counsel submitted that Rs.1,50,000/- [Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only] was paid immediately after the allotment of site and the balance amount of Rs.2,47,900/- [Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand and Nine Hundred only] was paid on 15.11.2004 with a request to accept the same for execution of the sale deed. Placing reliance on the circular issued by the Bangalore Development Authority dated 18.10.2007 and 18.11.2010, learned counsel further referred to the orders of this Court passed in identical circumstances in W.P.No.8371/2015 [DD 25.11.2015] as well as W.P.No.9773/2016 [DD 08.01.2019] to contend that the order of cancellation dated 01.10.2004 without issuing notice is unsustainable.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Bangalore Development Authority has filed statement of objections and made an endeavour to justify the endorsement impugned and submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court with an inordinate delay and latches. The Rules permit the acceptance of sital value only if the delay in payment of sital value is within the prescribed period, as per the Rule 13 six months from the date of the allotment is the time prescribed but the allottee was in default beyond the said period. Hence, his request was rejected. It is submitted that the circular referred to by the petitioner do not apply for the site measuring 40 X 60 feet and hence, the petitioner cannot take shelter under this circular.
5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. It is well settled legal principle that no unilateral decision can be taken by the statutory authority in canceling the allotment of site sans providing an opportunity of hearing. It is also significant to note that even in certain cases the balance sital consideration is directed to be deposited with interest @ 24% p.a., if the said site is re-allotted, as is evident from one such order of this Court passed in W.P.No.8371/2015 supra. It is not in dispute that Rs.1,50,000/- [Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only] was deposited within the prescribed period and the balance sital value was of Rs.2,47,900/- [Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand and Nine Hundred only] was deposited on 05.11.2004 with the delay of three months. The petitioner’s amount of Rs.4,53,600/- [Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand Six Hundred only] paid as aforesaid has been retained with the Bangalore Development Authority without whispering anything about the refund of the same either in the endorsement or in the statement of objections.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent – Bangalore Development Authority that the site in question has been admittedly allotted to some other person. The said site does not avail for re- allotment in favour of the petitioner. This Submission would be too feeble for denying the alternative site of same reasonable dimensions if not of the same dimension in the same layout or in any other for having retained the sital value from the year 2004. Regard being had to all the competing equities, some reasonable relief needs to be granted to the petitioner without rejecting the writ petition on the ground of delay and latches as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent. Equities demand that the petitioner has to be provided with any other alternative site as aforesaid with the prevailing allotment price as on the date of the impugned order with interest at 24% per annum from the date of the allotment till the date of deposit. Ordered accordingly.
8. Compliance of this order shall be made by the respondent – Bangalore Development Authority in an expedite manner in any event not later than twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition stands disposed of.
NC.
Sd/- JUDGE