Mohan, CJ. - (1.) The writ appeal arises out of the Judgment dated 20-9-1990 of our learned brother Justice Balakrishna, allowing W.P. No. 3017 of 1987, reported in 1990(3) Kar. L.J. (Supp.) 245 (HC). The facts are as follows: The father of rcspondent-2 by name Sri K. Srinivasalu was allotted an industrial site bearing No. 17-B situated in Industrial Suburb, II Stage, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. The extent was 252 + 243/2 x 236 + 300/2. The allotment was made by the City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore, on 16-9-1962. Possession was taken on 23-2-1963 and subsequently the marginal land adjacent to the site allotted also came to be allotted to K. Srinivasalu in accordance with the resolution of the City Improvement Trust Board passed in subject No. 202, dated 7-7-1967. The rate was fixed at Rs. 8-50 per square yard. The total value was fixed at Rs. 1,06,240/-. It may be mentioned at this stage, the marginal land consisted of two bits measuring 256 + 116/2 x 550 and 160 x 60 + 0/2. The allotment was communicated to the said Srinivasalu on 18-7-1967. By a cheque dated 24-7-1967 a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was paid by the allottee. This was in favour of C.I.T.B. and that was specifically for the value of the marginal land. The payment was acknowledged by the C.I.T.B. by letter dated 31-10-1967/3-11-1967. The allottee requested for extension of time for payment of the balance amount since he could not pay the entire amount forthwith in view of the financial stringency at that time. Extension of time was sought on 11-5-1970 and time was granted for 90 days for payment of the balance under intimation dated 13-5-1971. However, on 26-12-1970, Srinivasalu passed away leaving behind a large family and also huge commitments. Rspondent-2 who is the eldest son of Srinivasalu applied to the C.I.T.B. on 22-9-1973 for transfer of the marginal land to his name agreeing to pay the balance of the sital value which was due to the C.I.T.B. The C.I.T.B. by its letter dated 22-9-1973 called upon respondcnt-2 to produce the death certificate of his father as well as joint affidavit and an indemnity bond of the other heirs for taking further action. The certificate was furnished on 10-10-1973. On 20-12-1973 the joint affidavit and the indemnity bond as required by the C.I.T.B. were also furnished. By letter dated 22-4-1974 the C.I.T.B. informed rcspondent-2 thai a balance amount of Rs. 81,151/- was due to the marginal land allotted in favour of Srinivasalu (father of respondcnt-2) and asked for payment of the same together with interest at 9% per annum. This payment was to be made on or before 30-4-1974. Rcspondcnt-2 thereupon requested for time for payment till 30-5-1974. On 16-5-1974 respondent-2 paid Rs. 90,000/- to the C.I.T.B. He was called upon to pay the balance of Rs. 38,744/- on or before 5-6-1974. For this as well, extension of time was prayed for by respondent-2. Time was granted till 8-7-1974. On that date, rcspondent-2 paid Rs. 35,000/- by cheque and for the balance of the small outstanding, he prayed lor time. Ultimately, the entire amount had been paid by respondent-2 and intimated the same to the C.I.T.B. by letter dated 16-8-1974 and there was a request for condonation of delay in payment. The C.I.T.B. condoned the delay and accepted the payment with interest though the payment was belated. Thus, it would be clear that as on 16-8-1974 all the arrears due to the C.I.T.B. had been cleared. Rcspondcnt-2 expected that he would be granted possession certificate and the khatha would be transferred in his favour. However, till 1976 no action was taken by the C.I.T.B. inspitc of the entire amount of Rs. 1,48,744/- being the full value of the marginal site with interest having been paid. It appears that rcspondcnt-2 went on praying for delivery of possession. Then ultimately being disgusted with the attitude of the C.I.T.B., on 8-3-1976 he asked the authority to refund the amount. This letter was referred by the C.I.T.B. for legal opinion. The opinion was to the effect that refund could not be granted since there was no provision for claim of refund. On 12- 7-1977 rcspondent-2 met the Chairman of tne Bangalore Development Authority (the successor of the C.I.T.B.) and staled his difficulties. The Chairman issued instructions to the officials to grant Possession Certificate to respondcnt-2. Notwithstanding the instructions, possession was not delivered. Respondent-2 issued a Lawyer's notice on 21-1-1981 demanding possession of the marginal land. But, nothing was done. He made repeated representations on various dates. Even then, possession was not delivered. On 29-1-1987 again another legal notice was issued to the B.D.A. demanding possession. This was replied to by the B.D.A. on 13-2-1987 stating that the marginal land earlier allotted to rcspondent-2 had already been allotted and possession certificate had been issued to the appellant herein. This was on 25-7-1983. Therefore the land was not available for delivery of possession in favour of respondcnt-2. On enquiry, rcspondcnt-2 came to know that his letter dated 8-3-1976 for refund of the amount had been taken advantage of and just two or three days prior to the resignation to the post of Chairman of the B.D.A., rcspondcnt-3 contrived to have a note put up by the then Secretary on 18-1-1980 and approved the note put up to him by the Secretary thereby accepting the request for surrender of marginal land from respondcnt-2. Thereupon, an endorsement was issued in favour of the appellant intimating the allotment in its favour. He also understood that the said endorsement dated 19-1-1980 was actually received by one Ramaprabhu, the Manager of the appellant in person from the office of the B.D.A. on the very same day. In short the allegation is there was a conspiracy or collusion to deprive respondent-2 of the marginal land by questionable means. The order dated 19-1-1980 had been passed for collateral consideration. On 20-1-1980 resppndcnt-3 - Chairman of the B.D.A. had resigned from the post of Chairmanship. Till respondent-2 was officially intimated of the allotment by letter dated 13-2-1987, the fact of allotment in favour of the appellant was never known. Thereupon a request was made for a copy of the allotment order made in favour of the appellant. But, no such copy was furnished. Inasmuch as the Chairman of the B.D.A. demanded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- by way of illegal gratification to drop the show cause notice issued by them to the appellant as well as respondent-2 threatening cancellation of allotment of site No. 17-B and that not having been complied with by respondcnt-2, the present allotment in favour of the appellant had come to be made. It is in these circumstances, respondcnt-2 filed W.P. No. 3017 of 1987 questioning the allotment in favour of the appellant.
(2.) On behalf of the appellant, a statemento f objections had been filed in which it was stated as to the circumstances under which the allotment came to be made in favour of the appellant. There was a civil suit in O.S. No. 2459 of 1982 and it is by reason of that the parties' right had come to be settled. Thereupon, when the appellant made a request for allotment, that came to be made in its favour. The exemption under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, had also been obtained on 24-4-1983 in furtherance of allotment. Two bore wells have also been sunk. The area has been enclosed by a compound wall and also an effluent treatment plant also is shortly to be taken up. In any event, on the singular ground of laches the writ petition deserved to be dismissed.
(3.) The Chairman of the B.D.A. who was arrayed as respondent-3 in the writ petition and who continues to be so in the writ appeal, denied the allegations of conspiracy, illegal gratification or favouring the appellant.;