Smt Kowsalya vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 7383 Kant

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7383 Kant
Judgement Date : 24 May, 2022

Karnataka High Court

Smt Kowsalya vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 May, 2022

Bench: Alok Aradhe, J.M.Khazi

                                1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2022

                           PRESENT

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                             AND

            THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M. KHAZI

               W.A. NO.783 OF 2021 (BDA)
                           IN
             W.P.Nos.41045-46 OF 2016 (BDA)
BETWEEN:

SMT. KOWSALYA
W/O SRI. K.M. KUMARA SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT NO.647, SIR. M.V. LAYOUT
5TH BLOCK, ULLALA VILLAGE
BANGALORE-560 056.
                                             ... APPELLANT
(BY MR. M. SREENIVASA, ADV.,)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
       VIKASA SOUDHA
       BANGALORE-560 001
       REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

2.     THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
       T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
       KUMAR PARK WEST
       BANGALORE-560 020
       REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

3.     THE EXECUTIVE MEMBER
       BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
                               2



     T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
     KUMAR PARK WEST
     BANGALORE-560 020.

4.   SRI. H.R. VINAY KUMAR
     S/O SRI. H.R. RAMAKRISHNAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
     R/AT. NO.696, SIR M.V. LAYOUT
     5TH BLOCK, ULLALA VILLAGE
     BANGALORE-560056.

                                            ... RESPONDENTS

(BY MR. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADV., FOR R2 & R3
  MRS. VANI H, AGA FOR R1)
                           ---

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN
THE WRIT PETITION NO.41045-41046/2016 DATED 06.04.2021.

     THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

In this intra court appeal, the appellant has assailed

the validity of the order dated 06.04.2021 passed by learned

Single Judge by which writ petition preferred by the appellant

has been dismissed.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of the appeal briefly

stated are that the appellant purchased site bearing No.647

from the original allottee who was allotted the same by

Bangalore Development Authority. The Bangalore

Development Authority by a notification dated 18.07.2016

notified site bearing No.646 for auction as per corner site,

which measures 63.9 square meters. The appellant

challenged the aforesaid notification in a writ petition as well

as sought a writ of mandamus seeking a direction to

respondents 2 to 3 to consider the representation dated

19.07.2016 submitted by the appellant. The said writ

petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge by an order

dated 06.04.2021. In the aforesaid factual background, this

appeal has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

the appellant is entitled to allotment of the site without the

same being put to auction in view of Rule 5 of the Bangalore

Development Authority (Disposal of Corner Sites and

Commercial Sites) Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as

'the Rules' for short). In support of aforesaid submission,

learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the

decision rendered by learned Single Judge in BHASKARA

REDDY VS. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

AND ANOTHER', ILR 2009 KAR 2882. On the other hand,

learned counsel for the Bangalore Development Authority

submitted that the appellant is not entitled to allotment of

the site as the same has already been notified for auction.

4. We have considered the rival submissions made

on both sides. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to

take note of Rule 5 of the Rules, which is reproduced below

reads as under:

5. Allotment of a corner site to individuals or body of persons or institutions in special cases.

Notwithstanding anything in Rule 3, the Authority may allot any corner site, which has not been notified under Rule 3 or reserved under Rule 4 and which cannot on account of its size be treated as an independent site, to the owner of the adjacent site:

Provided that where the width of such site is.--

(a) One-third the width of the adjacent site or less, the sale shall be at such rate as the Authority may fix;

(b) More than one-third but equal to one-

half of the width of the adjacent site or less, the sale shall be for the

average auction rate, the said rate being determined on the basis of the rates at which sites have been sold at three previous auctions in the locality in which such site is situated;

(c) More than one-half of the width of the adjacent site the sale shall be by auction in accordance with Rule 6 as if such site were an independent site.

Thus, from perusal of Rule 5 of the Rules, it is evident

that the same applies to corner site, which has not been

notified for auction.

5. In the instant case, the site in question has

already been notified for auction by a notification dated

18.07.2016. Therefore, Rule 5 of the Rules has no application

to the obtaining factual matrix of the case. The decision

rendered by learned Single Judge in Bhaskara Reddy supra

has no application to the facts of the instant case. The

aforesaid decision does not deal with a corner site or a

commercial site. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not

find any ground to differ with the view taken by the learned