Karnataka High Court
Bangalore Development Authority vs Smt Vimala on 5 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:19312-DB
WA No. 1035 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1035 OF 2022 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU-560 020.
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI B.S. SACHIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. VIMALA,
W/O SRI H R NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
Digitally NO.154, 11TH MAIN ROAD,
signed by
NANDINI R MANJUNATH NAGAR,
Location: High BENGALURU-560 010.
Court of ...RESPONDENT
Karnataka
(BY SRI GANAPATHI S SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 19/07/2022,
IN WP NO. 7086/2021, BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL AND
DISMISS THE SAID WRIT PETITION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, V KAMESWAR RAO J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:19312-DB
WA No. 1035 of 2022
JUDGMENT
I.A.No.1/2022 filed for condonation of delay of 43 days in
filling the appeal is allowed as condoned being satisfied by the
reasons stated in the affidavit.
This appeal has been filed by the Bengaluru Development
Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'BDA' for short)
challenging the order of the Single Judge dated 19.07.2022 in
W.P.No.7086/2021, whereby, learned Judge has allowed the
petition by stating as under:
"i) The writ petition is allowed. A mandamus is issued
directing the respondent to allot alternate site to
the petitioner within a period of six weeks from
today.
ii) The respondent is also directed to make payment of
a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation which would
probably cover the property tax which has been
paid by the petitioner on the aforesaid property
from the year 2004 till date.
iii) The State government would also have to consider
the applicability of the real estate regulation and
development Act, 2016 to the authorities like the
BDA since the BDA is also a developer of the
property and involve in developing and sale of the
property (plots and buildings) to the third party like
individual citizens.
NC: 2024:KHC:19312-DB
iv) Learned AGA is directed to bring the above order to
the notice of the Chief Secretary, Government of
Karnataka.
v) Respondents to act on a print out of the uploaded
copy of this order on the website of this court, if so
furnished by the petitioner, without waiting for
certified copy thereof. If respondents have any
doubt about the order, respondents may verify the
contents of the order from the website of this court
and or from the learned panel advocate appearing
in the matter. The QR code on this order could also
be scanned to view the website of the High Court to
verify the order."
2. The facts as noted from the record are that the
respondent herein who was the writ petitioner before the
learned Single Judge was the owner of the land bearing
No.1584 situated at VII Block of further extension of
Sir.M.Vishweshwaraiah Nagara Layout, Bengaluru having been
allotted the said property by the appellant herein on
06.02.2004. It is also noted that the khata has been registered
in the name of the respondent. It was the case of the
respondent that when he had gone to the property on
21.11.2004, he was informed that the erstwhile owner of the
said land had not surrendered the property and the same is
under litigation. The respondent made a representation dated
NC: 2024:KHC:19312-DB
15.05.2010 to the appellant herein. It is noted that the
appellant had replied by endorsement dated 14.06.2010 that
the issue is under consideration. However, no action was taken
by the appellant, resulting in respondent issuing a legal notice
dated 23.06.2019 followed by another notice dated
03.06.2020, which was not replied too. The learned Single
Judge was of the view that the respondent having been allotted
the site in the year 2004, till date he has not been able to use
the property despite passage of 18 years. The learned Single
Judge was of the view that there cannot any excuse for such a
delay and the appellant would also be liable to compensate the
respondent for the said delay.
3. The only submission made by the learned Counsel
for the appellant-BDA is that cost of Rs.2,00,000/- which had
been granted in favour of the respondent herein is on the
higher side.
4. It would be suffice to say that while assessing the
compensation, the learned Single Judge had observed that
same was covering the property tax which was paid by the
NC: 2024:KHC:19312-DB
respondent on the aforesaid property from the year 2004 till
the date of filing of the petition.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submit that the
respondent is in fact paying the property tax effected from the
year 2004.
6. If that be so, the discretion exercised by the
learned Single Judge in granting Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of the
respondent need not be interfered with by us in the appellate
jurisdiction.
7. There is no merit in the writ appeal. The same is
dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.2/2022 filed for
stay does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
NR/-
