IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.P.No.5150/2019 (BDA) BETWEEN :
SRI MANJUNATH R., S/O RAMAIAH , AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, No.93, HARALIPURA SUNNAKALPETE MAIN ROAD BENGALURU – 560002 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI H.T.VASANTH KUMAR, ADV.) AND :
THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK EAST, BENGALURU - 560020 REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER …RESPONDENT (BY SRI C.RAMAKRISHNA, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED CANCELLATION ORDER DATED 29.10.2003 VIDE ANNEXURE-H ISSUED BY RESPONDENT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This petition has been taken up for final disposal at this stage with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.10.2003 passed by the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority inter alia seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 2.11.2009 vide Anneuxre-N.
3. The petitioner is claiming to be the allottee of the site bearing No.1651 measuring 6 x 9 meters under the economically weaker section category in Banashankari VI Stage vide allotment letter dated 13.3.2002. The same came to be cancelled by order dated 29.10.2003 on the ground that the sital value has not been paid within the prescribed time. It is the grievance of the petitioner that no hearing was provided before passing the impugned cancellation of the allotment.
4. Learned counsel for the BDA submits that it is mandatory to deposit the sital value in terms of Rule 13(1) of Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of sites) Rules, 1984. Under such circumstances, the order of cancellation of allotment is justifiable.
5. It is well settled legal principle that no unilateral decision can be taken by the statutory authority in canceling the allotment of site sans providing an opportunity of hearing. It is also significant to note that even in certain cases the balance sital consideration is directed to be deposited with interest @ 24% p.a., if the said site is re-allotted to similarly placed persons.
6. Hence, the impugned order dated 29.10.2003 at Annexure-H issued by the respondent is quashed with a direction to the BDA to consider the prayer of the petitioner for allotment of site in his favour in the light of the Circular dated 18.11.2010 at Annexure-P issued by the BDA keeping in mind the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.19093/2012 (D.D.6.6.2013).
7. It is made clear that if the site earlier allotted in favour of petitioner is not available for allotment, an alternative site should be allotted subject to the petitioner paying the entire sital value with interest @ 24% p.a., from the date of allotment till the date of deposit. Compliance of this order shall be made by the respondent- BDA within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Dvr: