IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT APPEAL NO.1343 OF 2015 (BDA) BETWEEN:
SHRI SANJEEVAPPA SAKAMMA MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST (REGD), BY ITS SECRETARY, SMT. S. LEELA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NO.914, 3RD A CROSS, 9TH MAIN, H.R.B.R. 1ST BLOCK, KALYANA NAGAR, NEAR LOKANDI HOSPITAL, KALYANA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 043.
...APPELLANT (BY SRI K.G. SHANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, M.S. BUILDINGS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY ITS COMMISSIONER, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMAR PARK (WEST), BENGALURU-560 020.
3. THE CHAIRMAN BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PALACE GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 003.
4. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY ITS SECRETARY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMAR PARK (WEST), BENGALURU-560 020.
5. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-I C.A. SITES DIVISION, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BENGALURU-560 020.
6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NORTH DIVISION, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BENGALURU-560 020.
7. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NO.1, SUB-DIVISION (NORTH), BDA WARD OFFICE, KALYANA NAGAR, H.R.B.R. 1ST BLOCK BENGALURU-560 043.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR T.L., AGA FOR R1;
SRI K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R7) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.14774 OF 2013 AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN PURSUANCE THEREOF AND TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION NO.14774 OF 2013 (BDA) FILED BY THE APPELLANT BY GRANTING THE RELIEFS AS PRAYED FOR THEREIN AND ETC.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The petitioner Society sought for an allotment of a civic amenity site. The same was granted at HBR 2nd Stage in the layout formed out of survey No.133 of K.G.Halli, in the year 2006. The amounts were paid towards the same. On inspection, it was found that the BDA had put up a compound wall, fenced the area and has formed a park. Thereafter, the petitioner sought for allotment of an alternate site. The alternate site was offered in the year 2010. The petitioner’s counsel submits that it was not offered for allotment but an opinion was sought for and therefore they furnished an opinion. Since no allotment was made, the instant writ petition was filed.
2. The learned Single Judge on considering the contentions directed the respondent - BDA to consider the allotment of a civic amenity site to the writ petitioner, however, keeping in view the seniority of the petitioner at the time of allotment. The same is sought to be challenged herein.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that an alternate site is required to be granted forthwith since the application was made as far back in the year 2006. The learned counsel for the respondent - BDA submits that as and when the allotments are made, the seniority of the petitioner would be maintained and a site would be allotted in accordance with law.
4. However, the material on record would indicate that certain amounts were paid to the BDA in the year 2006 towards allotment of the site. The allotment has been cancelled. The amount has remained with the BDA. Therefore, it is only just and proper that the respondent - BDA be directed to refund the said amount.
The respondent - BDA is directed to refund the amount deposited by the appellant within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment.
For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is disposed off with the aforesaid direction.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE rsk/-