KANTHARAJAIAH Vs. CITY IMPROVEMENT TRUST BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was an applicant for allotment of a site in Rajamahal Vilas Extention, Bangalore. The City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Trust Board), did not allot him any site theiein. Respondents 2 to 16 who had also applied for sites therein, were allotted sites therein. In this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a declaration that such allotment ot sites to respondents 2 to 16, is illegal and void He has also prayed for declaring Rules 4 and 15 of the City of Bangalore Improvement (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1964 (framed under the provisions of the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945), as ultra vires. He has further prayed for a mandamus directing the Trust Board to reconsider and distribute the sites in accordance with low and justice.

(2.) At the outset certain undisputed facts may be stated. The Trust Board formed an extension called " Raiamahal Vilas Extension" as an improvement scheme under the provisions of the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). By its notification dated 11-11-1970 (Ext.A) it announced that 66 sites in that extension were available for allotment and called for applications for those sites from the general public. As many as 1202 applications were received from edible applicants 61 sites were allotted to P5 persons among those applicants. Some ot those sites were allotted to persons in purported exchange of sites which had been allotted to them earlier in the same extension or other extensions or lav-outs. The petitioner had applied on four earlier occasions for allotment ot a site to him. But he was not allotted a site. Many of these 65 allotters succeeded in their very first attempt in securing allotment of sites.

(3.) We shall now briefly set out the material averments in the petitioner's affidavit and the traversal thereof in the counter-affidavit sworn to by the Chairman of the Trust Board (hereinafter referred to as the Chairman). The petitioner has ellaged that the proceedings of the Trust Board renting to allotment of sites noticed in Ext A, were manifestly arbitrary and opposed to the mandatory pensions of the Rules. This averment has been denied by the Chairman The petitioner has alleged that Site No.141 which was his first choice, was allotted to respondent-2 who was not a resident of Bangalore and was not qualified for allotment of any site and that he brought to bear on the Trust Board powerful political influence The Chairman has denied that the allotment of a site to respondent-2 was due to any political influence and has also averred that respondent 2 had stated in his application that he was ordinarily resident of Bangalore.