Writ Petition No. 34173 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4032 WP No. 34173 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 34173 OF 2024 (BDA) BETWEEN: SMT. GEETHA W/O. LATE SRI. T. NATARAJ, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO. 850, 7TH MAIN, NEAR SVK KALYANA MANTAPA, GNANA JYOTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU SOUTH, ULLALU UPANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 056. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVINDRA M.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka 2. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPARTMENT SECRETARY.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA LAGALI, AGA FOR R-1; SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4032 WP No. 34173 of 2024 ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AS PER SL.NO.BEM A PRA: UKA-4: 7926: 2023-24 DATED 16.03.2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-A IS NOT JUST AND PROPER AND; DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 TO GRANT AN ALTERNATIVE SITE TO THE PETITIONER IN ANY OTHER LAYOUTS, INSTEAD OF SITE NO.1232 OF HENNUR BALLARI ROAD LAYOUT, III PHASE, I STAGE, MEASURING 20X30 AS PER ALLOTMENT LETTER SL.NO.BDA/D54/1232/HBRI/III BLOCK/97- 98 DATED 06.11.1997 AND REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 01.03.2001 AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the endorsement dated 16.03.2024 issued by the respondent No.2 as per Annexure-A, in and by which, the requisition of the petitioner for allotment of alternate site has been rejected by the respondent -BDA. 2. Case of the petitioner is that her husband one Sri.T.Nataraj had been allotted a residential site bearing No.1232 measuring 20 X30 sq. ft. in the year 1996 at HBR Layout in the economic backward classes category vide allotment letter dated 13.12.1996 as per Annexure -B. Thereafter, a lease-cum-sale agreement came to be executed - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4032 WP No. 34173 of 2024 on 05.11.1998 in favour of the husband of the petitioner. That a possession certificate was also issued on 28.11.1998 and katha in respect of said property was registered in the name of the husband of the petitioner. That a deed of sale was also executed by the respondent -BDA in favour of the husband of the petitioner on 11.02.2001. Thus, husband of the petitioner had acquired right, title interest and possession in respect of the aforesaid property. However, there is a slum existing in and around the area of the said layout and site that was allotted to the petitioner formed part of the same which is occupied by the slum dwellers, due to which the petitioner could not put up construction over the said site. Petitioner's husband therefore had requested the respondent -BDA on 15.04.2019 seeking allotment of alternate site. The request letters submitted by the husband of the petitioner dated 15.04.2019, 18.04.2022, 15.02.2023 as well as 18.07.2023 are produced at Annexure-G. 3. In response to the said request letters, an endorsement dated 22.01.2020 was issued by the respondent No.2 called as 'C£Ë¥ÀZÁjPÀ n¥ÀàtÂ', wherein the site allotted in favour of the husband of the petitioner having been occupied by the slum dwellers is noted. That in the meanwhile, husband - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4032 WP No. 34173 of 2024 of the petitioner passed away on 11.03.2023. Consequent upon which the petitioner made representation on 08.07.2023 however there was no response in that regard. Thereafter, respondent -authorities have issued endorsement at Annexure- A rejecting the request of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the averments and the grounds urged in the petition and also referring to the documents submits that the husband of the petitioner and after his demise petitioner has been relentlessly following up with the respondent -BDA seeking alternate site inasmuch as, the site which was originally allotted to them could not be utilized and enjoyed by them in view of the same having been encroached upon by the slum dwellers nearby. He refers to the documents produced at Annexures-L to P which are the lease-cum-sale agreements and the deeds of sale purportedly executed by the respondent-BDA in favour of the persons referred to therein, who are according to the petitioner were similarly situated as that of the petitioner herein and thus insists that the respondent -authorities be directed to allot the alternate site to the petitioner as well. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4032 WP No. 34173 of 2024 5. In response, Sri. K.Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent -BDA submits that the husband of the petitioner admittedly was allotted the site in the year 1996 and possession was also handed over, deed of sale was executed in the year 2001 and the present petition is filed after lapse of 22 years. He submits that even according to the petitioner the alleged encroachment has taken place after the husband of the petitioner having been in possession of the site. As such, he submits that the allotment and delivery of possession by respondent -BDA was completed and no fault or irregularity can be attached on the respondent -BDA in this regard. 6. He refers to the Rule 11A of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of sites) Rules, 1984 and submits that respondent -BDA would be responsible for allotment of site only if there was any default on its part in delivering the possession of the site which is not the case at hand. He submits that once the allotment is completed it is the responsibility of the allottee to protect and preserve the property. Case of the petitioner cannot be considered, that too, after lapse of two decades. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4032 WP No. 34173 of 2024 7. Heard. Perused the records. 8. Admitted facts being the petitioner's husband was allotted the site in question in the year 1996. That possession of the said site was handed over, deed of sale was executed on 11.02.2001, katha was registered in his name. Which means entire process of allotment, conveyance of title, delivery of possession, registration of katha was completed by the respondent -BDA. Nothing on the records to show as to the date when that the petitioner or her husband realized about their property having been encroached/occupied by the alleged slum dwellers. Though there is a reference in the representation stated to have been given by the husband of the petitioner, the said representation only dates on and from the year April, 2019 which is also after expiry of more than 19 years from the date of actual allotment of site. Petitioner therefore cannot be heard to say that she/her husband was vigilant in following up of the matter. 9. Reliance placed on by the counsel for the petitioner on the lease-cum-sale agreements and deeds of sale produced at Annexures-L to P to justify her claim that she be given equal - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4032 WP No. 34173 of 2024 treatment as that of the persons who are stated to be beneficiary of the said documents also cannot be countenanced. The said documents at Annexures-L to P do not even remotely suggest that said documents came to be executed in view of the sites which are allotted to them having been occupied/encroached upon by the slum dwellers. Even assuming to be so, the said documents are of the year 2011, 2013 and 2015 respectively. It is settled position of law that relief on the ground of parity cannot be sought for after lapse of decades. It has to be urged proximate to the date of which discrimination was shown by the authorities which is not the case of the petitioner herein. 10. Rule 11A(i) of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of sites) Rules, 1984 reads as under; "[11-A. Allotment of alternative site-. Where the Authority is unable to hand over possession of a site allotted under these rules to any allottee, due to stay orders of the Courts or for any other reason, the Authority may allot an alternative site to such allottee, subject to the following conditions.- (i) An alternative site may be allotted only where the mistake was on the part of the Authority while making the allotment of sites or where possession of the sites allotted originally could not be given to the allottees due to stay orders of the Courts or due to other disputes". - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4032 WP No. 34173 of 2024 11. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent -BDA, no benefit under the above Rule can be claimed by the petitioner either. Facts of the case narrated above, read in the light of the aforesaid provision of Rules would not give any credence to the claim of the petitioner. Petition lack merits, same is accordingly, dismissed. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18