IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.P.No.957/2019 (BDA) BETWEEN :
SRI PRABHU J., S/O JAVARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, No.867, 1ST C CROSS, 9TH BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, NAGARBHAVI, BENGALURU – 560072 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI H.T.VASANTH KUMAR, ADV.) AND :
1 . THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU - 560020 2 . THE DEPUTY SECRETARY III BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU – 560020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.KRISHNA, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE-P DATED 10.08.2017 PASSED BY THE R-2.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner has assailed the cancellation of site allotted in the name of the petitioner’s mother dated 17/18.4.2000 passed by the respondent No.2 inter alia seeking a direction to the respondent to consider the representation dated 25.7.2017 vide annexure-G to the writ petition.
2. It is submitted that the petitioner’s mother was allotted Site No.23, measuring 20 x 30 feet situated at Nagarbhavi II Stage, Bengaluru. She died prior to issuance of allotment letter and the allotment was subsequently issued in the name of a dead person which is not communicated to the petitioner’s family, pursuant to which, the petitioner’s family had approached the respondents by giving the representation to transfer the allotted site in the name of the petitioner. It is contended that enquiry has been conducted and mahazar was prepared. After accepting all the documents and during the pendency of the enquiry, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has cancelled the allotment made in the name of the petitioner’s mother in the ledger book and has executed a sale deed in favour of one Smt.Padma. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds urged as aforesaid.
4. Learned counsel for the BDA would submit that the petitioner is not eligible for allotment of site in terms of Rule 8-A and 10(3) of the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984. Moreover, the said site has been allotted to Smt.Padma on 10.8.2017. The petitioner without impleading the said allottee has filed this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition requires to be dismissed.
5. Having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is not in dispute that the cancellation of the site allotted to the mother of the petitioner has been made unilaterally sans issuing any notice to the original allottee or legal representatives of the allottee in the ledger book.
It is ex-facie apparent that no speaking order has been passed for canceling the site allotted. Any cancellation made in the ledger book and re-allotting the said site to another person is hit by the principles of natural justice.
6. However, the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 25.7.2017 at Annexure-G to the writ petition has remained unconsidered. It is the grievance of the petitioner that subsequent to the representation submitted and enquiry conducted, the site in question is said to have been allotted to Smt.Padma. In such circumstances, it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to array the allottee Smt.Padma to the proceedings.
7. Be that as it may, it would be suffice to direct the respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 25.07.2017 submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure-G and take a decision in accordance with law in an expedite manner, not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order after hearing all the parties concerned.
Writ petition stands disposed of in terms of above.
Sd/- JUDGE Dvr: