IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION No.53727 OF 2016 (BDA) Between Smt. S.Lakshmi, Aged about 73 years, Wife of late P.Shankara Narayana, House No.561, 3rd Main, 2nd Block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru – 560 010. ... Petitioner (By Sri. B.V. Shankaranarayana Rao., Advocate) AND 1. The Bangalore Development Authority, T.Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru – 560 020, Represented by Its Commissioner.
2. The Deputy Secretary-3, Bangalore Development Authority, T.Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru – 560 020. ... Respondents (By Sri. D.M.Nanjunda Reddy, Senior Advocate for Sri. M.N.Ramanjaneya Gowda, Advocate) This writ petitions is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the sital value determined at a sum of Rs.11,62,512/- bearing No.065636, dated 30.4.216 vide Annexure-G while declaring the said determination as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and etc., This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the court made the following:
ORDER The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. B.V.Shankaranaryana Rao submits and the learned Senior Advocate Sri.Nanjunda Reddy, appearing for the respondent-BDA does not much dispute that the fact matrix of this case is substantially similar to the one in Cognate W.P.Nos.34067-68/2016 (BDA) disposed off by this Court vide judgment dated 08.02.2019 and therefore, petitioner being similarly circumstanced, needs to be granted the similar relief.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner need not be relegated to the likely abusive discretion of BDA since the principle emerging from the cognate judgment is self operative and therefore after determining the price of the site here itself, the residue of the amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the interim direction could be ordered to be released. Per contra Mr.Nanjunda Reddy argues that this court need not undertake the operational exercise of ascertaining the factuals and working out the arithmetical calculations which task can be better be left to the BDA Officials who would fairly do it in a time bound manner.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-BDA. I have perused the cognate judgment referred to above after seeing the petition papers. The paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the aforesaid cognate judgment read as under:
“4. The scheme under which the incentive sites are allotted is a welfare measure intended to benefit the land losers in the acquisition process; the scheme for incentive sites in so many words does not prescribe as to what should be the relevant date for determining the market value of the sites allotted thereunder; the intent of the scheme is to assuage the hardship of land losers under compulsion of law. Therefore, any doubt as to which should be the reckoning date, for determining the sital price, the same should enure to the benefit of land losers, in the absence of contra indication in any law or instrument having the force of law.
5. The contention advanced on behalf of the respondent-BDA that appropriate date would be that when the land loser has made the application in prescribed form needs to be disfavoured in the absence of any instrument of law prescribing such a form. Nothing is brought to the notice of Court about such prescription. Therefore the dates on which these petitioners had got issued the legal notice should be treated as the date for determining the sital price. The petitioners in both these writ petitions had got issued the legal notice dated 19.12.2003. Therefore the date on which the BDA received these notices should be taken as the reckoning date for the said purpose. This aspect having not been adverted to in the impugned demand notices, the same are liable to be set at naught.
6. In view of the above, these Writ Petitions succeed in part; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the demand of Rs.29,39,672/- stipulated in the allotment letter dated 11.05.2016 at Annexure – D is quashed retaining the allotment and all other terms intact. A Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondent-BDA to redo the calculation of the allotment price keeping in view the date of service of legal notice dated 19.12.2003, as the relevant date for determining the sital price, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Compliance within three months.”
4. The fact matrix of this writ petition is substantially similar to the one in the aforesaid cognate writ petitions and therefore, the principal relief needs to be granted to the petitioner in terms of the judgment therein. However, the arithmetical calculation as rightly pointed by Mr.Nanjunda Reddy can be accomplished by the jurisdictional BDA officials, of course in a time bound manner, so that the excess amount paid by the petitioner can be refunded to him.
5. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in terms of the aforesaid judgment dated 08.02.2019; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondent- BDA to execute a regular sale deed comprising the petition site in favour of the petitioner for the price to be determined as on 10.12.2002 i.e., the date of petitioner’s application, disregarding the excess demand made in the allotment letter dated 30.04.2016 at Annexure – G, within a period of six weeks.
6. After adjusting petitioner’s amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in deposit vide interim order dated 28.04.2017 to the price of the site to be determined, the respondent-BDA shall refund to the petitioner the residue of the amount, within a period of four weeks and the delay brooked thereafter, shall carry an interest of 12 % payable by the BDA to the petitioner and the same shall be recovered from it’s erring official responsible for such delay.
Costs made easy.
Sd/- JUDGE DS/-