IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.45216/2017 (BDA) BETWEEN:
SRI K.C.SUBRAMANYA S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH K.L. AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS R/AT No.122, BULL TEMPLE ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU – 560 024. ... PETITIONER [BY SRI H.C.SUNDARESH, ADV.] AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVLEOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD BANGALORE – 560 020.
2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY – II, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD BANGALORE – 560 020. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI K.KRISHNA, ADV.] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 26.10.2015 AND 08.09.2017 AS PER ANNEXURE – D AND L RESPECTIVELY FOR ALLOTMENT OF ALTERNATIVELY SITE BEARING No.1243, MEASURING 25 X 35, SITUATED AT BTM II STAGE AS PER THE RECOMMENDATION MADE BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND DEPUTY SECRETARY – II, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN LIEU OF ACQUISITION OF 1818 SQ. FT. OF LAND OF THE PETITIONER IN SY.NO.14/2, DEVATIGERAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK FOR THE PURPOSE OF TWO GRADE SEPARATOR AND IMPROVEMENT TO THE JUNCTION DEVELOPMENT CONNECTED TO MYSORE BENGALURU ROAD TO NAYANDANAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD.
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 endorsement dated 12.10.2017 issued by respondent No.2, inter alia, seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider the representations filed by the petitioner dated 26.10.2015 and 08.09.2017 as per Annexures – D and L respectively for allotment of alternative site bearing No.1243, measuring 25 x 35 Sq. Ft, situated at BTM II Stage in lieu of acquisition of 818 Sq. Ft. of land of the petitioner in Sy.No.14/2, Devatigeramanahalli village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk for the purpose of Two Grade Separator and improvement to the Junction Development connected to Mysore Bengaluru Road to Nayandanahalli Outer Ring Road.
2. The respondents – authority issued final Notification for acquisition of 0.75 guntas of land in Sy.No.14/2 of Devatigeramanahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk and a resolution was passed by the respondents in Subject No.234/13 for providing 100% of the developed land in favour of the land owners for having acquired their land for improvement of the Two Grade Separator to the Junction connected to Mysore, Bengaluru Road to Nayandanahalli Outer Ring Road. It appears that the petitioner filed an application for allotment of alternative site bearing No.1243, measuring 25 x 35 Sq. Ft. situated at BTM II Stage. The Assistant Executive Engineer after visiting the spot submitted a report of measurement of the site before respondent No.1. Further, the said Assistant Executive Engineer, Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) addressed a letter to the Assistant Executive Engineer, BWSSB for shifting the sewage line passing on the site to one edge of the site for making available for allotment of the site in favour of the petitioner. A letter was addressed by the Assistant Executive Engineer, BWSSB to the petitioner to deposit Rs.70,000/- being the cost of the shifting of sewage line. As per the direction of the Assistant Executive Engineer, BWSSB, the petitioner deposited the amount of Rs.70,000/- through the cheque and it is said to have been cleared. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the request made by him for allotting the said site has been rejected by the respondents vide endorsement impugned herein based on the resolution said to have been passed by the Bangalore Development Authority that alternative sites can be allotted only in further extension of Sir. M. Vishweshwaraiah layout/ further extension of Banashankari 6th Stage/ Anjanapura/Banashankari 3rd Stage (Hosakerehalli), but not in BTM II Stage.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition would contend that Rs.70,000/- was deposited pursuant to the directions of the Assistant Executive Engineer, BWSSB based on the letters addressed by the BDA to the said BWSSB and having deposited the amount, the respondents have come out with the plea that the said site could not be allotted in terms of the resolution which is nothing but a sheer case of discrimination qua Annexure – P, whereby the site No.338 in BTM II Stage has been allotted to a similarly situated person/land looser.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents has filed statement of objections refuting the claim of the petitioner placing reliance on Annexure – R1, the resolution passed by the BDA in Subject No.234/2013. The learned counsel would argue that no site could be allotted in BTM II stage contrary to the resolution of the BDA. Hence, the endorsement impugned cannot be held to be unjustifiable. It is further submitted that any relaxation made to the said resolution dated 23.12.2013 relating to the land looser at Annexure – P, cannot be made applicable to the petitioner herein.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. It is ex-facie apparent that the petitioner has paid the amount of Rs.70,000/- to the BWSSB in pursuant to the directions of the Assistant Executive Engineer of BWSSB based on the recommendations made by the Assistant Executive Engineer of BDA inasmuch as allotting the site No.1243 in BTM II Stage to the petitioner and the same is said to have been cleared by the competent authority towards the estimated expenses for the work of deviation of 300 mm dia RCC – NP3 pipeline passing through the said site No.1243. Nextly, it is not in dispute that a site has been allotted in BTM II Stage to a similarly placed land looser/claimant in relaxing the resolution at Annexure – R1. Denial of such relaxation to the similarly placed petitioner is nothing but discrimination in violation of Article 14 of the constitution of India. No reasons being forthcoming for relaxation of the Annexure – R1 to allot a site to a similarly placed person in terms of Annexure – P, on parity, petitioner is entitled to similar treatment. In such circumstances, it is not justifiable to accept the stand of the BDA to deny the allotment of site No.1243 in BTM II Stage to the petitioner. Hence, In the circumstances, Annexure – M impugned herein, cannot be approved and deserves to be set aside.
7. Accordingly, Annexure – M is quashed and the matter is remitted to respondent No.1 to reconsider the request of the petitioner in terms of the representations dated Annexures – D and L dated 26.10.2015 and 08.09.2017 respectively, in the light of the observations made hereinabove and to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law in an expedite manner, in any event, not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR