Karnataka High Court
Bengaluru Development Authority vs Sri.Gururaj M Holla on 10 November, 2021
Author: Chief Justice Magadum
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1109 OF 2021(BDA)
BETWEEN:
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BENGALURU -560020
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.MURUGESH V CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI.GURURAJ M HOLLA
S/O NARASIMHA HOLLA M,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO.21, SHARADE, 9TH LINK MAIN ROAD,
TATA NAGAR, KODIGEHALLI,
BENGALURU-560092
2. SMT RAMYA G
W/O GURURAJ M HOLLA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT NO.21, SHARADE, 9TH LINK MAIN ROAD,
2
TATA NAGAR, KODIGEHALLI,
BENGALURU-560092
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.AJAY.J.NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT PRAYING TO 1.SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
11.12.2020 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
W.P. NO. 51122/2019 (BA) AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AND 2.GRANT ANY SUCH OTHER
RELIEFS AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS
AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned appeal is filed by the appellant-Bengaluru
Development Authority questioning the order dated
11.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.51122/2019.
2. The respondents who were petitioners before the
learned Single Judge filed a writ petition seeking a writ of
mandamus to issue an allotment letter in terms of
recommendations dated 5.3.2018 and consequently execute a
sale deed in favour of respondents herein in terms of minutes
of the meeting dated 5.3.2018 pertaining to schedule 'B'
property.
3. The respondents contended that site bearing
No.329, which is referred as schedule 'A' to the writ petition
was allotted by appellant-authority herein in favour of one
Jayamma vide allotment letter 7.2.2004. Pursuant to
allotment, the appellant-authority executed a sale deed and
also possession certificate both dated 6.4.2005 in favour of
original allottee Mrs. Jayamma. The said original allottee sold
the schedule 'A' property in favour of respondents herein vide
sale deed dated 28.8.2012. The respondents approached the
appellant-authority for obtaining sanction plan and licence to
construct a house on schedule 'A' property and it was at that
juncture, the respondents were appraised by the authorities
that schedule 'A' property is subject-matter of litigation and
the same is pending adjudication in W.A.No.444/2013. It is in
this background, that respondents addressed a letter calling
upon the appellant-authority to allot an alternate site. The
appellant-authority vide resolution dated 5.3.2018 resolved to
allot schedule 'B' property as an alternate site in lieu of
schedule 'A' property, which is the subject-matter of litigation.
4. On these set of grounds, the respondents sought
for mandamus against the appellant-authority to take
necessary steps to allot schedule 'B' property bearing Survey
No.29 of Banashankari 6th Stage (Vrushabhavathinagar), 4th T
Block, Bengaluru. The learned Single Judge having examined
Rule 11-A of the BDA(Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 (for
short "Rules, 1984") was of the view that Rule 11-A of Rules,
1984 would necessarily include a bonafide purchaser for
valuable consideration from the original allottee and therefore,
is entitled to allotment of alternate site from the Bengaluru
Development Authority. On these set of reasoning, the
learned Single Judge has issued a mandamus, which is
questioned by the appellant-authority before this Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing for appellant-authority
before adverting to the order under challenge would place on
record the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this
Court in W.A.444/2013 which in fact compelled the
respondents in approaching the appellant-authority seeking
alternate site and consequently before the learned Single
Judge seeking a writ of mandamus on account of inaction on
the part of the appellant-authority.
6. We have examined the judgment rendered by the
Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in W.A.No.444/2013. It is not
in dispute that respondents were compelled to seek alternate
site since there was dispute in regard to acquisition by
appellant-authority. On perusal of the judgment rendered by
the Co-ordinate Bench in W.A.444/2013, we would find that
the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court has recorded a finding
that the acquisition proceedings are complete and therefore,
was not inclined to issue a direction for grant of No Objection
Certificate in favour of land owner.
7. The judgment cited supra is decided on 6.9.2021,
which is subsequent to the order under challenge. Therefore,
the judgment rendered in W.A.No.444/2013 being a
subsequent event has direct bearing and therefore, the order
of the learned Single Judge needs interference at the hands of
this Court. The respondents were compelled to seek alternate
site on account of pendency of litigation at the instance of the
land owner. Since the learned Single Judge in
W.P.46644/2011 and the Division Bench in W.A.No.444/2013
have declined to grant relief to the original owner, the present
respondents who acquired valid right and title pursuant to sale
deed executed by the original allottee cannot seek allotment of
alternate site. The site which is a part of layout which was
formed after acquiring the land in question by adopting due
process of law under the provisions of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, is allotted by appellant-authority and the
acquisition is not set aside by the competent Court as the
same can be gathered by the observations made by the Co-
Ordinate Bench in W.A.444/2013. The question of allotting an
alternate site would arise only in the event the land owner
succeeds before competent Court and the acquisition is set
aside. In view of subsequent development, the order passed
by the learned Single Judge needs to be reversed on this sole
count.
8. For the reasons stated supra, we pass the
following:
ORDER
(i)The writ appeal is allowed. The order
dated 11.12.2020 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.No.51122/2019 stands
set aside.
(ii)The respondents are at liberty to seek
appropriate permission from appellant-
authority in respect of schedule 'A' property
i.e. site No.329 of Banashankari
(Vrushabhavathinagar) 6th Stage, 4th B Block,
Bengaluru, in view of dismissal of
WA.No.444/2013.
The pending interlocutory applications, if
any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
*alb/-
