IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.35456/2017 (BDA) BETWEEN:
Sri Harish Kumar K s/o Krishna Aged about 51 years r/a No.3643, 1st Floor 13th G – Main, HAL II Stage Behind Dhoppanahalli Bangalore – 560 008. ... Petitioner (By Sri H C Sundaresh, Advocate) AND:
The Commissioner Bangalore Development Authority T Chowdaiah Road Kumara Park West Bangalore-560 020 …Respondent [By Smt.M R Vanaja, Advocate) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the cancellation order dated 8.3.2006 issued by respondent at Annexure-F and etc.
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 challenged the order of cancellation passed by the respondent interalia seeking a direction to the respondent to consider the representation filed by the petitioner dated 15.7.2008 and 16.10.2014 as per Annexures-H and K respectively to execute the sale deed in respect of site allotted as per allotment letter dated 7.2.2004 or in the alternative, if the site is not available, issue direction to the respondent to allot alternative site in favour of the petitioner.
2. It is contended that the petitioner has filed an application before the respondent for allotment of 30` x 40` site under General Category. After consideration of the same and taking into consideration the number of attempts made, the site bearing No.513 measuring 30` x 40` situated at 4th `T’ Block further extension of BSK 6th stage was allotted in favour of the petitioner. However, the said allotment has been cancelled vide order of cancellation dated 8.3.2006 impugned herein. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the representations submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the order of cancellation have not been responded. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the order of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WA No.1417/2008 (BDA), submitted that there is no such mandatory requirement of attempt to be considered by the BDA for allotment of site.
3. Smt.M R Vanaja, learned counsel for respondent – BDA would submit that the petitioner has misrepresented before the Authority inasmuch as three attempts said to have been made by the petitioner to get qualified for allotment of site under the General Category. Having noticed that the petitioner has made only one attempt and was not eligible for allotment of site in General Category, the allotment of site made has been cancelled on 8.3.2006. The petitioner has approached this Court after eleven years. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on delay and laches.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is apparent that the petitioner has approached this Court after about eleven years. However, keeping in mind the representations made by the petitioner subsequent to the order of cancellation, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondent – BDA to consider the representation dated 16.10.2014 at Annexure – K to the writ petition in the light of the decision of the Court referred to above.
5. The respondent – BDA shall take a decision in the matter in an expedite matter in any event not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above.
Sd/- JUDGE Bkm