IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL NO.44 OF 2016 (BDA) BETWEEN:
T. A. HARISH BABU SON OF T. ARASAIAH AGE: 45 YEARS RESIDENT OF 297, 5TH CROSS ARKERE MICO LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU - 560076 … APPELLANT (BY SMT. JYOTHI M. MARADI, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK BENGALURU - 560001 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION No.17248 OF 2015 DATED 24.11.2015.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 24.11.2015, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.17248 of 2015, dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and latches, the writ petitioner has filed this appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even though there was a delay of 9 years in filing the writ petition, relief has been granted to similarly placed petitioners. That the site having been allotted in the year 2006, was wrongly cancelled by the Bengaluru Development Authority (‘BDA’ for short), thereafter. Hence, she pleads that atleast an alternative site be allotted to her.
3. The learned counsel for the BDA submits that notwithstanding the contention on merits, an effort would be made to ensure that an alternate site be allotted in accordance with law.
4. In view of the submissions made, we are of the view that it is a fit case, where an equity needs to be extended in favour of the appellant. A validly allotted site was cancelled on the ground that there are older applicants. The cancellation of the site had nothing to do with the appellant. It was only at the behest of the respondent – BDA that the site was cancelled. Therefore, the delay in challenging the cancellation cannot be held against the appellant. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances involved in this case, we deem it just and necessary that an appropriate relief be granted to the appellant. Hence, we pass the following:
Order 1) The Writ Appeal is allowed.
2) The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 24.11.2015 passed in writ petition No.17248 of 2015 is set aside.
3) The Writ Petition is partly allowed.
4) The respondent – BDA is directed to identify an alternate site in any available layout and thereafter allot the same to the appellant, in accordance with law.
The amount that has already been paid by the appellant towards the previous site, shall be adjusted towards the cost of the new site that is likely to be allotted.
Writ Appeal is disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RD