IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.P.No.34402/2017 (BDA) BETWEEN :
SMT.SHYAMALA SHETTY D/O LATE K.N. SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NO.102, WEIGHT LIFTING COACH, N.I.S. SOUTH CENTRE, SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 056. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI B.V.SHANKARA NARAYANA RAO, ADV.) AND :
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY – 3, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAJARAM SOORYAM BAIL, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RE-QUANTIFY THE SITAL VALUE ON THE SAME TERMS HAS BEEN DONE IN THE CASE OF THE SIMILARLY SITUATE ALLOTTEE/S AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT IMMEDIATE REFUND OF SUCH AMOUNTS WHICH ARE IN EXCESS OF THE SITAL VALUE COLLECTED BY THE PETITIONER IN TERMS OF REPRESENTATION DATED 20.06.2017 [ANENXURE-G].
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 demand of site value of Rs.80,23,952/- made by the respondent for site bearing No.62, Chandra Layout, Sy.No.349 and 352, Kempapura Agrahara Layout vide allotment in terms of the Resolution in Subject No.330/2008 dated 14.02.2008 inter-alia seeking a direction to the respondents to re-quantify the sital value on the same terms which has been done in the case of similarly situated allottee/s and direct the respondents to grant immediate refund of such amounts which are in excess of the sital value, in terms of representation dated 20.6.2017 as per Annexure-G.
2. The petitioner is claiming to be a sports person, having satisfied the requirement of Rule 11(i) of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 applied for a site in the said category by submitting an application. The Bangalore Development Authority issued an allotment letter dated 13.10.2013 allotting Site No.62, Chandra Layout, Sy.Nos.349 and 352, Kempapura Agrahara Layout. The petitioner made a representation dated 21.12.2013 to the authority regarding erroneous determination of sital value by ignoring the prevailing allotment rate as on the date of passing of the Board Resolution dated 14.2.2008. The Bangalore Development Authority executed a lease cum sale deed dated 24.2.2014 in respect of the above site and the petitioner made payment of Rs.59,74,461/- to the authority. In similar case, the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1735/2015 has held that the sital value is required to be determined with reference to current value prevailing rate as on the date of passing of Resolution (year 2008) and not the date of issuance of allotment letter. The BDA has accepted the said decision and has implemented the same. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation dated 20.6.2017 praying to refund the amount which has been collected by the BDA in excess of the sital value as is collected in the case of similarly placed allottees.
3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority has allotted site to one Sri.Puttaswamy as per the Resolution No.330/2008 dated 14.2.2008 determining the sital value as prevailing on the date of passing of Resolution and not the date of issuance of allotment letter, accepting the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.1735/2015. Similarly in the case of Sri.Munireddy, the petitioner in W.P.No.22261/2016, the sital value has been fixed at the rate prevailing on the date of passing of the Resolution. It is the further grievance of the petitioner that the representation dated 20.6.2017 addressed to the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, bringing to the notice the injustice meted out to the petitioner in the matter of determination of sital value and the refund claimed has not been addressed despite repeated requests.
4. Learned counsel Sri.Rajaram Sooryam Bail for the respondents justifies the sital value quantified by the respondent-BDA.
5. It is ex-facie apparent as per Annexure-A to the writ petition that a Resolution was made in Subject No.330/2008 inasmuch as fixing the sital value of the sites coming under ‘B’ and ‘C’ category. The name of the petitioner herein is found at Sl.No.15 of the said ‘B’ category sites allotted, whereas Sri.Puttaswamy is found at Sl.No.5 of the same category and Sri.M.Munireddy’s name in Sl.No.9 of ‘C’ category. Applying the rule of parity, the petitioner has filed the representation before the respondent dated 30.6.2017. In the facts and circumstances, it was incumbent on the respondent-BDA to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law keeping in mind the cases referred to, by the petitioner, supra. The same not having been done, this Court is of the considered opinion that the interest of justice would be sub-served in directing the respondent- BDA to consider the refund claim made by the petitioner relating to the excess of sital value collected by the Bangalore Development Authority and take a decision in the matter after hearing the petitioner, in an expedite manner, in any event, not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is needless to observe that the decision taken by the BDA shall be communicated to the petitioner. Ordered accordingly.
Writ petition stands disposed of in terms of above.
Sd/- JUDGE Dvr: