Indiranagar Social Welfare Trust vs Bangalore Development Authority
2023 Latest Caselaw 372 Kant

                          1



   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                       BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

       WRIT PETITION NO.21580 OF 2011(BDA)

BETWEEN:

INDIRANAGAR SOCIAL WELFARE TRUST,
254, 'PRAMODINI',
DEFENCE COLONY, HAL II STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 038.
BY ITS TRUSTEE,
MS.MADHAVI MOHAN.
                                        ...PETITIONER
(BY SMT.PRAMILA NESARGI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
    SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR D, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
   KUMARA PARK WEST,
   T CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
   BANGALORE - 560 020.
   BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

2. INDIRANAGAR WELFARE ASSOCIATION,
   5/3, 16TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE,
   INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 038.
   REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
   MR. LINGAPPA.
                                      ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN M, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    SMT.JAYNA KOTHARI, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
   MISS. SRIRAKSHA V AND
   MISS. RACHANA PISE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                                2



    THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 6.6.11 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT VIDE ANN-T.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                          ORDER

Petitioner - the allottee of the site in question,

whose lease tenure has expired is complaining to the

Writ Court against the BDA's order dated 06.06.2011

whereby the allotment is rescinded on the ground that

its terms have not been adhered to.

2. After service of notice, the Respondent - BDA

having entered appearance through the Panel Counsel

have field the Statement of Objections resisting the Writ

Petition. The 2nd Respondent got impleaded in the light

of Division Bench decision in W.P.No.22263/2011 (BDA-

PIL) disposed off on 05.03.2013 wherein the

observations have been made to the effect that the

subject site being a civic amenity site, is to be retained

as a park.

3. Much deliberation in the matter is not needed

inasmuch as, the Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent

herein have made a statement to the Coordinate Bench

of this Court and it is recorded on 14.06.2022 as under:

"1. Smt.Pramila Nesargi, learned Senior counsel for petitioner and Smt.Jayna Kothari, learned Senior counsel for respondent No.2 submits that both of them have agreed for the land in question to be retained as a park.

2. On behalf of Sri.Unnikrishnan M., learned counsel for respondent No.1, it is submitted that proposal in this respect will have to be placed before the Board of BDA and BDA has to be passed necessary orders. He submits that if given two weeks' time, the same would be placed before the Board and the Board would pass necessary orders.

3. Re-list on 05.07.2022 to place the resolution of the Board of BDA before this Court."

4. Yet another reason for not taking up the

matter for a deeper consideration is that the lease tenure

itself has expired and no application is and can now be

made for renewal of the lease either the cancellation of

allotment itself being on fault ground. Learned BDA

Panel Counsel in all fairness submitted that the said site

has been retained as a public park. He is not in a

position to make a statement as to whether the same

would not in future be allotted to any third party. A civic

amenity site that has been maintained as a public park

cannot be allotted to anybody, since, it needs to be

maintained as it is, at least as a lung space in a densely

populated city like this.

5. The above apart in the PIL judgment supra at

Paragraph Nos. 2 & 3 it is observed as under:

"2. The CA site of HAL II Stage measuring 65' x 365', Indiranagar is reserved for a park as per the interim direction of this Court. The BDA was directed to maintain status- quo. The BDA has maintained the same as park.

3. In the connected writ petition WP No.21580/2011, facts reveal that the said site was given on lease to the petitioner. Since there was violation of terms of lease, BDA revoked the grant of lease and has taken possession. The petitioner therefore, has challenged the legality of cancellation of the lease. The petitioner in WP No.22263/11 has filed the petition by way of PIL seeking mandamus that the above site to be maintained as a park. Since it was reserved as a civic amenity site for the purpose of park, it is to be maintained as a park. The relief sought for in WP

No.22263/10 clearly gets complied with. Hence, Writ Petition No.22263/2010 is disposed of."

It hardly needs to be mentioned that the amount

paid by the Petitioner by way of premium, needs to be

considered for refund it in accordance with law. If a

representation is made in that regard, its consideration

shall take place in accordance with law and within an

outer limit of eight weeks.

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed

off.

Costs made easy.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Bsv