IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.No.45474/2016 (BDA-) BETWEEN SMT.PUTTATHAYAMMA W/O SRI SHIVARUDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.91, 8TH BLOCK, KSRTC QUARTER, SHANTHINAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 027. ... PETITIONER (By Sri VASANTH KUMAR H.T., ADV.) AND THE COMMISSIONER, THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 020. ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE REQUESTS OF THE PETITONER DTD:19.7.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-Q; AND TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED CANCELLATION ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND ALSO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DTD:24.3.2011 VIDE ANENXURE-P AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus against the respondent to consider the request of petitioner made on 19.07.2016 vide Annexure-Q requesting the BDA to allot site bearing No.898 situated at 10th Block, Arkavathi Layout and execute a registered Sale Deed. Petitioner has also challenged order dated 03.09.2008 produced at Annexure-M by which allotment of site made in favour of petitioner was cancelled. Endorsement dated 24.03.2011 issued vide Annexure-P by the BDA informing the petitioner that as the petitioner did not belong to Economically Weaker Section (for short, ‘EWS’) and as her annual income was more than Rs.11,800/-, she was not entitled for allotment of site and hence, her request for sustaining the allotment could not be considered, is also challenged.
2. Facts as borne out from the petition averments disclose that petitioner was allotted the site in question on 24.06.2006. The said allotment was cancelled as back as on 03.09.2008 which is evident from Annexure-M. The reason for cancellation of site allotted was that petitioner did not belong to EWS under which category the site was allotted. This order dated 03.09.2008 has attained finality.
3. Petitioner seems to have made representation addressed to the BDA requesting for sustaining the allotment. An endorsement was given on 24.03.2011 reiterating the stand of the BDA that petitioner did not belong to EWS and therefore, allotment had been rightly cancelled and that there was no reason to recall the said order or reconsider her request. This endorsement has also attained finality, inasmuch as no action has been taken by the petitioner so far. Now after a lapse of nearly 8 years, petitioner has filed this writ petition in the year 2016 challenging cancellation of allotment.
4. On perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, I do not find any plausible or acceptable explanation for the long and inordinate delay in approaching this Court challenging the order of cancellation.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order of cancellation is passed without notice and that the amount paid towards full sital value has been retained by the BDA. If petitioner wants refund of the amount paid, it is open to her to make necessary representation to the BDA in this connection. Whereupon, the BDA, I am sure will consider it in accordance with law. However, this Court cannot interfere with the order of cancellation of the site at such distance of time, without there being any acceptable explanation for the long and inordinate delay.
Hence, this writ petition is dismissed for delay and latches on the part of petitioner.
Sd/- JUDGE PKS