Bangalore Development Authority vs Smt. Geetha Devi. R
2022 Latest Caselaw 12476 Kant

                             1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

                        PRESENT

            THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
                ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

                            AND

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

             W.A. NO.1016 OF 2022 (BDA)
                         IN
             W.P.NO.1906 OF 2022 (BDA)

BETWEEN:

1.    BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
      T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
      KUMARA PARK (WEST)
      BENGALURU-560 020
      REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

2.    THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-1
      BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
      T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
      KUMARA PARK (WEST)
      BENGALURU-560 020.

                                     ... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. KIRAN C.V. ADV.,)


AND:

1.   SMT. GEETHA DEVI R
     AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
     W/O LATE DR. LOKESH BABU T.G.
                                2



2.   MISS. PAVANA BABU
     AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
     D/O LATE DR. LOKESH BABU T.G.

3.   MR. VARUN BABU
     AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
     S/O LATE DR. LOKESH BABU T.G.

     ALL ARE RESIDING AT
     APARTMENT NO.102-3791
     AISHWARYA SINGNUM
     7TH MAIN ROAD
     HAL II STAGE,
     BENGALURU-560 008.
                                            ... RESPONDENTS
                              ---

      THIS   WRIT   APPEAL     IS   FILED   U/S   4    OF   THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
ABOVE WRIT APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANTS THEREBY
SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE   JUDGE      IN   WP   No.1906/2022    (BDA)     DATED
14.06.2022 AND THERE BY DISMISS THE WP.               CALL FOR
RECORDS IN WP No.1906/2022 (BDA) AND TO AWARD
COSTS AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS WHICH THIS
HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.


      THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
                             3




                        JUDGMENT

This intra Court appeal has been filed under

Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961

against order dated 14.06.2022 passed by the learned

Single Judge in W.P.No.1906/2022, by which writ

petition preferred by the respondents has been

allowed.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly

stated are that on 25.08.1988, mother-in-law of the

respondent No.1 and grand mother of respondent

Nos.2 and 3 was allotted site measuring 25 ft x 40 ft

bearing No.2357. She was put in possession of the

land on 09.11.1988 and khata was effected in her

name on 12.04.1989. A building licence was issued

on 09.09.1998. A marginal land measuring 30.25 sq.

mtrs. was situate on the northern side of the site.

made an application for allotment of the aforesaid

marginal land, in respect of which an endorsement

was issued to her and a sum of Rs.2,95,028/- was

demanded from her. The grand mother of the

respondent Nos.2 and 3 thereupon submitted a

representation on 07.07.2001 seeking reduction of the

amount. The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA)

thereupon reduced the amount to Rs.2,61,771/- and

issued a demand notice dated 20.03.2002.

Thereafter, by an endorsement dated 26.07.2006, the

BDA asked the grand mother of respondent Nos.2 and

3 to make payment of Rs.2,48,682/-.

4. The aforesaid endorsement is challenged in a

writ petition which was disposed of with a direction to

the appellant to consider the representation submitted

by grand mother of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 which

was considered on 29.03.2007 and she made payment

of sum of Rs.2,48,682/- vide Banker's Cheque along

with a representation dated 19.11.2007 which was

duly acknowledged by the BDA.

5. On the death of their grandmother, the

respondents approached BDA for execution of sale

deed which was executed on 05.07.2019. The

respondents thereupon again approached BDA

seeking transfer of marginal land which was allotted

to their grandmother. The respondents sought a writ

of mandamus to BDA for registration of the sale deed.

The learned Single Judge, by an order dated

14.06.2022, has allowed the writ petition. In the

aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been

filed.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the

appellants. Admittedly, the marginal land abutting

the site, was allotted to grand mother of the

respondent Nos.2 and 3. It is also not in dispute that

the grandmother of respondent Nos.2 and 3 deposited

a sum of Rs.2,48,682/- by way of a Banker's Cheque

on 19.11.2007. The receipt of Banker's Cheque by

BDA is not in dispute and therefore, it is under an

obligation to execute the sale deed. The learned

Single Judge therefore, has rightly allowed the writ

petition and has imposed the cost of Rs.1,00,000/- on

BDA for contumacious conduct of its order.

For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find

any ground to differ with the view taken by the

learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the petition is

dismissed.

In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the

pending interlocutory applications do not survive for

consideration and are accordingly, disposed of.

Sd/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RV