IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.1826 OF 2016 (BDA) BETWEEN:
SRI V RAMESH SON OF VENKATARAMANACHARI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT No.E-15/1 THAYAPPA LOLAPPA GARDEN BASAVARAJU BADAVANUE JARAGANAHALLI BENGALURU -560 078.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI:SUNDARESH H.C., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU-560 020. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI:G LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.12792/2015, DATED 13/04/2016.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13.04.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.12792 of 2015, by which the petition was dismissed, the writ petitioner is in appeal.
2. The petitioner filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging cancellation of site allotment under order dated ….12.2002 vide Annexure-E and for a direction to the respondent – the Bangalore Development Authority (the ‘BDA’) to consider the representations dated 30.12.2010, 08.06.2013 and 04.02.2015 and to accept the balance sital value and to execute the sale deed in respect of the site allotted, by considering the circulars dated 18.10.2007 and 18.11.2010. It is claimed that the writ petitioner was allotted a site measuring 20 x 30 feet by the respondent - BDA under allotment letter dated 13.03.2002 wherein he was asked to pay a sum of Rs.75,400/- within 60 days. The petitioner had made initial payment of the sital value of Rs.10,800/- and was liable to pay Rs.75,400/- within 60 days from the date of allotment. The petitioner asserts that he had paid totally a sum of Rs.20,000/- and he had to pay balance amount of Rs.55,100/-, which he could not pay for various reasons including health issues. The petitioner states that he had made representation on 24.07.2002 seeking extension of time for payment of balance amount. The respondent – BDA issued show- cause notice dated 30.08.2002 to show-cause as to why the site allotted in favour of the petitioner should not be cancelled, as he has failed to pay the balance amount within 60 days from the date of allotment. Thereafter, by order dated …12.2002, the respondent – BDA cancelled the allotment of site made in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner states that he made representation on 04.02.2015 to the respondent - BDA to accept the balance sital amount and to execute the sale deed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed writ petition challenging the cancellation and seeking for a direction to accept the balance sital amount and to execute the sale deed. The respondent – BDA filed statement of objections stating that the respondent – BDA rightly cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioner for non-payment of the sital value. The petitioner having kept quiet for more than fourteen years, has filed the writ petition belatedly, which is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. The petitioner to avail the benefit of circulars dated 18.10.2007 and 18.11.2010 ought to have deposited the entire sital value along with 21% interest on or before 31.12.2010, but the petitioner has not paid the balance sital value. Hence, he is not entitled for any relief at this length of time.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the appeal papers.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the petitioner was allotted site measuring 20 x 30 feet by allotment letter dated 13.3.2002 and had paid Rs.20,000/. Balance of sital value of Rs.75,400/- was to be paid within 60 days from the date of allotment, which he could not pay for the reasons beyond his control. Due to his ill-health and financial difficulty, could not deposit the balance sital value. It is submitted that the respondent – BDA had issued circular to collect delayed payment along with interest at the rate of 21% and to execute sale deed. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is entitled for the benefit of those circulars hence, prays for a direction to the respondent – BDA to accept balance sital value and to execute the sale deed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the BDA has already cancelled the site allotted in favour of the petitioner in December 2002 itself after issuing show-cause notice in August 2002. The petitioner has approached this Court nearly 14 years after the cancellation and more than 4 years after the circulars were issued by the BDA that too, without making any payment pursuant to those circulars.
6. The petitioner was allotted a site measuring 20 x 30 feet under allotment letter dated 13.03.2002. The total sital value was Rs.85,900/-, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.10,800/- initial payment and the allotment letter indicated that the petitioner is liable to pay balance amount of Rs.75,400/- within 60 days from the date of allotment of site. The Petitioner paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 15.7.2002 as per Annexure-C – challan. But the petitioner admittedly has failed to pay the balance sital value within the stipulated 60 days from the date of allotment. The respondent – BDA issued show-cause notice to show cause as to why the site should not be cancelled and by order dated …12.2002 cancelled the allotment of site made in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge the order of cancellation for nearly 14 years. Only in the year 2016 he has filed the instant writ petition praying to quash the cancellation made by the 2nd respondent – BDA. No doubt the respondent – BDA had issued two circulars dated 18.10.2007 and 18.11.2010, extending certain benefits to the allottees, who have been allotted site subsequent to 01.01.2000 and where the allottees have failed to pay the balance sital value. The respondent – BDA had resolved to accept the balance sital value with interest at 21% and to re-allot the site and to execute the sale deed, if the balance amount along with interest is paid within 31.12.2010. In the case on hand, the petitioner has not paid the balance sital value along with interest before 31.12.2010 and has also not made any representation during that period. Even at the time of filing the writ petition also, the petitioner has not deposited any amount before the respondent-BDA to show his bonafides. There is inordinate delay of 14 years in challenging the cancellation order and the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches and also on merit. There is no perversity or erroneousness in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE NG* CT:bms