SMT. AMMAYAMMA v. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

SRI. MURUGESH (BY CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT) V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED DEMAND OF SITE VALUE OF RS.54,73,600/- VIDE ENDORSEMENT DATED 22.04.2019 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:26498 WP No. 21228 of 2019 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged the correctness of an endorsement dated 22.04.2019 issued by the respondent demanding a sum of Rs.54,73,600/- as the balance sital value.

2. (i) The petitioner contends that she was the owner of a property bearing Sy.No.1 measuring 10 guntas and Sy.No.18 measuring 30 guntas situate in Konadasapura, Bengaluru East Taluk. The aforesaid land was proposed for acquisition in terms of a preliminary notification dated

12.12.1991 followed by a final notification dated 24.01.1996 for formation of a wholesale steel market. An award was approved on 02.11.1996 and the possession of the lands was handed over to the Engineering Department of the respondent on

09.11.1997. The compensation amount was deposited by the respondent before the City Civil Court on 03.06.1997 and a sum of Rs.4,73,836/- was paid by the respondent to the petitioner. The petitioner has accepted the award and voluntarily surrendered the land belonging to her for public purposes. - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:26498 WP No. 21228 of 2019 HC-KAR (ii) The petitioner contends that as per the Bangalore Development Authority (Incentive Scheme for Voluntary Surrender of Land) Rules, 1989 (henceforth referred to as 'Rules, 1989'), the respondent had passed a resolution dated

24.10.2011 to allot sites to the owners who had voluntarily surrendered their land. According to the said resolution, an owner is entitled for a site measuring 40' x 60' per acre subject to a maximum of 10 sites. Since the land belonging to the petitioner was 1 acre, she was entitled to allotment of a site measuring 30' x 40'. Pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, the respondent issued an allotment letter dated 07.09.2018 allotting Site No.448 in 11th Block, Nagarabhavi II Stage, at a sum of Rs.6,04,960/-. The petitioner had paid the said amount. Following which, a sale deed was executed by the respondent conveying Site No.448. The petitioner contends that long after the execution of the sale deed, the respondent had issued an endorsement dated 22.04.2019 demanding a sum of Rs.54,73,600/- as the balance sital value. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the said order.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the Rules, 1989, the petitioner had paid the rate of - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:26498 WP No. 21228 of 2019 HC-KAR allotment fixed, consequent to which a sale deed was executed by the respondent. Therefore, he contends that the respondent cannot now turn around and claim that the full sital value was not paid and that the petitioner is bound to pay a sum of Rs.54,73,600/-. The learned counsel invited the attention of the Court to the Rules, 1989 and submitted that allotment to a landloser, who voluntarily surrenders land, is by outright sale and hence, the respondent cannot now raise any claim. He therefore, submits that the impugned endorsement be set at nought.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the concerned Supervisor and Second Division Assistant, in the office of the Deputy Secretary-3 had processed the file of the petitioner for allotment of an incentive site without ascertaining the allotment price and were thereafter instrumental in getting a sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner. He submits that in respect of sites allotted in Nagarabhavi, II Stage, the allotment price is fixed at a sum of Rs.54,500/- per square meter, while what is collected from the petitioner is only a sum of Rs.6,04,960/-. He therefore, contends that the impugned demand is made calling upon the - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:26498 WP No. 21228 of 2019 HC-KAR petitioner to pay the balance price. He contends that when the respondent is entitled to the value of the site, the petitioner cannot escape from her liability to pay the price. He therefore, prays that the petition be dismissed and the petitioner be directed to pay the said sum of Rs.54,73,600/-.

5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.

6. The the petitioner had voluntarily surrendered her land for the purpose of wholesale steel market, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was entitled to allotment of an incentive site under the Rules, 1989. As per this scheme, any person who had lost land which was more than half an acre and less than 1 acre is entitled to be granted a site measuring 30' x 40'. Under Rule 4 of the Rules 1989, the allottee is bound to pay the value of the site fixed by the authority and also is liable to pay any other charges which the authority may levy in this behalf from time to time. The allotment is to be made on out-right sale basis and it is the allottee, who is bound to meet the expenses of registration. A - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:26498 WP No. 21228 of 2019 HC-KAR perusal of the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner would go to show that the same was executed by the Deputy Secretary-3 of the respondent and the sale consideration mentioned therein is a sum of Rs.6,04,960/-. Even in the letter of allotment dated 07.09.2018, the allotment price is fixed at a sum of Rs.6,04,960/-. Therefore, it cannot now lie in the mouth of the respondent that the petitioner was bound to pay more than a sum of Rs.6,04,960/- towards allotment of the site. Having regard to the fact that the respondent has already executed a sale deed and conveyed the property in question to the petitioner, the right if any of the respondent to demand higher consideration stood extinguished. The transaction between the petitioner and the respondent is concluded and the respondent cannot lay any claim for any balance sital value. If the officials of the respondent are responsible in causing loss to the respondent, the respondent is bound to proceed against the concerned officials and recover the same from the said officials. This however does not justify the respondent in making a demand against the petitioner.

7. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement dated 22.04.2019 passed by the - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:26498 WP No. 21228 of 2019 HC-KAR respondent is quashed. The respondent shall initiate appropriate disciplinary action against the concerned officials and recover the loss allegedly caused to it. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49