Karnataka High Court
Smt Yashodha A vs Commissioner on 4 July, 2022
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
WP No. 19392 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 19392 OF 2021 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
SMT. YASHODHA A
W/O LATE T N JNANABHUSHAN
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
C/O SOMASHEKAR
R/AT NO 682, 112TH MAIN
D BLOCK 2ND STAGE
RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 010.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI R.P.SOMASHEKHARAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU- 560 016
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Digitally signed by KUMARA PARK WEST
POORNIMA
SHIVANNA BENGALURU - 560 006.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...RESPONDENTS
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI AJAYKUMAR M, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT DATED 07.09.2021 ISSUED BY R2 UNDER
ANNEXURE-K FROM DECLINING TO ALLOT SITE FOR THE REMAINING
LAND MEASURING 800 FT. OF THE FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
-2-
WP No. 19392 of 2021
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
a. Issue Writ in the nature of certiorari quashing
the endorsement dated 07.09.2021 in No.BDA/
ALAO/493/2020-21 issued by Respondent
No.2 under Annexure-K form declining to allot
site for the remaining land measuring 800 feet
of the favour of the petitioner;
b. To grant any other relief or relief's as this
Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant to the
petitioner on the facts and circumstances of
the case in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The petitioner claim that she was the owner of the
site measuring East to West 80 feet and North to
South 25 feet in Chikkanalli Village, Ramasandra
Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk.
3. The said land was acquired for formation of
Visweswaraiah Layout, Bengaluru. The petitioner
made an application for allotment of alternate site,
on account of her revenue site having been acquired
of the same measurement. However, Bengaluru
WP No. 19392 of 2021
Development Authority (BDA) allotted Site No.78 at
Anjnapura 12th Block, measuring East to West 9.00
meters and North to South 12 meters. The
contention of the petitioner is that the site allotted is
of lesser measurement than what was owned by the
petitioner earlier and as such, representations are
made on 31.12.2020 and 18.01.2021. Subsequent
representations were also made on 18.01.2021 and
31.03.2021, which have also not been considered.
Another representation having been made and the
same was considered and on 07.09.2021, an
endorsement was issued by the BDA stating that an
alternative site has been allotted and there is no
requirement to allot any further site and it is this
endorsement, which is under challenge before this
Court.
4. Shri R.P.Somashekharaiah, learned counsel for the
petitioner would submit that petitioner was entitled
for a site having equivalent measurement or size of
WP No. 19392 of 2021
the site acquired, the site which has been allotted
being lesser in dimensions, there is a shortfall of
nearly 800 sq.ft. and as such, the respondent was
required to consider the said representation and on
this background, he submits that the endorsement
at Annexure-K dated 07.09.2021 is required to be
quashed.
5. Per contra, Shri Ajay Kumar.M., learned counsel
appearing for the respondents submits that the
allotment of site to the petitioner is in pursuance of
the orders passed by this Court in Junjamma and
others Vs. Bengaluru Development Authority
reported in ILR 2005 KAR 608, more particularly,
direction Nos.(b), (c) and (d) thereof, and he
submits that the allotment of site being made to the
revenue site holders being in terms of the decision
of this Court in Junjamma's case, there is no
requirement of allotting a site having equal
WP No. 19392 of 2021
measurements or dimensions, but only one site
measuring 30 X 40 feet is required to be allotted.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing
for the respondents and perused the petition papers.
7. Paragraph Nos.(b), (c) and (d) of the directions
issued in Junjamma's case read as under:
b) These petitioners shall register themselves as
applicants for allotment under the Bangalore
Development Authority (Allotment of sites) Rules,
1984, within a period of two months from today
(extendable by another one month by BDA, if
sufficient cause is shown). Petitioners will have to
pay only the registration fee. They need not pay
initial deposit as their sites have been acquired and
they are not entitled to receive compensation in
regard to the sites under this arrangement.
c) The petitioners shall file applications for allotment
of sites to BDA within three months from today, in
the prescribed form stating that they are applicants
who were the petitioners in these Writ Petitions.
Petitioners shall file their documents with BDA along
with the application to verify the same.
d) BDA will treat them as applicants entitled to
priority in allotment and allot each of them a site
measuring 30' x 40' in Sir M.Visweswaraiah Layout
or in any other nearby layouts in Bangalore at the
prevailing allotment prices subject to petitioners
satisfying the twin requirements for allotment under
the BDA (allotment of sites) Rules, 1984, that they
must be the residents of Bangalore (ten years
WP No. 19392 of 2021
domicile) and should not be owning any residential
property in Bangalore.
8. A perusal of the same would indicate that any
person owning any site in the layout to be formed
would have to make an application for allotment of
site, which would have to be considered by BDA on
priority and a site measuring 30 X 40 feet required
to be allotted. The said judgment does not make
any difference or distinction as regards the extent of
the revenue site owned earlier by the land loser. In
view thereof, the dimension of the site having been
fixed by this Court and the same having attained
finality, I am of the considered opinion that the
allotment of a site now made to the petitioner is in
line with and in accordance with the directions
issued in Junjamma's case and as such, the
endorsement which is under challenge does not
require any interference. The petition, therefore
stands dismissed.
WP No. 19392 of 2021
9. I.A.No.1 of 2020 does not survive for consideration
and stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DH
