BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SMT V NAGAMMAL

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO W.A. Nos.4633-4634/2011 (BDA) BETWEEN : 1 2 BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 020 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-4 BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE-560 020. ...APPELLANTS ( By Sri. B V SHANKARANARAYANA RAO, ADV. ) AND : SMT V NAGAMMAL W/O. LATE M. KRISHNAN AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, NO. 957, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK,RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 010. ( By Sri. V D RAVIRAJ, ADV.) ...RESPONDENT - 2 - These writ appeals are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside the order dated 21.10.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 12897/2010 (BDA) and dismiss the said writ petition as not maintainable in law. These writ appeals coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, K.L.MANJUNATH J., delivered the following : JUDGMENT There is delay of 180 days in filing the above appeal. Being satisfied with the cause shown in the application, the delay of 180 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, Misc.W. No. 6182/2011 is allowed. These appeals are preferred by the appellants challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 12897/2010 on 21st October 2010.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

The appellants are the successors of erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board, which had allotted an industrial site in favour of one Masti Ranganna on 30th November 1961, who in turn had settled the site in favour of Smt. Uma R. Shankar and Smt. Savitri Chandra who in turn have sold the site to one M. Krishnan under a registered sale deed dated 10.06.1972. In turn M. Krishnan who was the owner of the - 3 - property died on 14.10.1980. The respondent is his wife. On the ground that the original allottee did not put up construction within the stipulated time, the site allotted to Ranganna on 30th November 1961 is ordered to be cancelled by the appellants by its order dated 11.03.2010 nearly after 49 years. This order was questioned by the respondent.

The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and quashed the cancellation not only on the ground of delay and latches and also on the ground that the appellants had no powers to cancel. This order is called in question in this appeal.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we do not see any reasons to take a different view than the one taken by the learned Single Judge because the site was allotted by the City Improvement Trust Board on 30th November 1961. The BDA has been come into existence only in the year 1976, fifteen years after the allotment by the CITB. The CITB has not taken any action for cancellation. Fifty years after the allotment when several hands are changed, the site in question cannot be cancelled. As the law has to be set into motion within a reasonable time. - 4 -