B SRIDHARA MURTHY Vs. BENGALURA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the matter has had a checkered history and, in fact, the present writ petition is the fourth round of litigation between the parties, in order to appreciate the material question raised, it would be necessary to take notice of the foundational facts. Bangalore Development Authority, on 2.5.1985, allotted to the petitioner, Industrial Site No. 5/A, measuring 60' x 530', situated in Koramangala 1st 'A' Block, Bangalore (for short 'site in question'). On 3.5.1985, petitioner deposited the site cost of Rs. 1, 23, 547/-. Lease cum sale agreement of the site was executed on 13.5.1985 and the possession of the site in question was delivered to the petitioner. On 22.5.1993, BDA issued a show cause notice and cancelled the allotment of the site in question, by issue of an endorsement dated 30.7.1993, on the ground that, the petitioner violated condition Nos. 6 and 7 of the allotment letter. Said cancellation order was questioned in W.P. No. 29452/1993. Noticing that, BDA has not considered the objections and the reasons for noncompliance and also that the documents produced by the allottee to show compliance of Condition No. 7 and for noncompliance of Condition No. 6 and that the petitioner was not granted opportunity of hearing before the cancellation of allotment, it was held that the cancellation of allotment of the site in question as being opposed to the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned endorsement was quashed and the petitioner was permitted to file further objections and produce the documents to show that the matter is pending consideration before the Bangalore City Corporation and also show compliance with Condition No. 6. BDA was prohibited from taking further action, if it is satisfied, that the allottee was prevented from putting up structure on account of Bangalore City Corporation refusing to transfer katha. Liberty was reserved to the BDA to take further action, if there is violation in future. The said order was not questioned by either of the parties and attained finality.

(2.) Bda though did not take any further action in the matter, on 18.6.1996, notified the said site, for sale by way of auction in public. The public auction Notification Issued was questioned in W.P. No. 19018/1996. It was stated before the Court, by the BDA though its learned counsel, that the impugned Notification has been withdrawn. In view of the submission made, it was held that nothing survives for consideration in the writ petition.

(3.) Bda, suo motu, allotted an alternate site bearing No. 141/A, situated at Industrial Suburb II Stage, Peenya, the intimation regarding which was sent to the petitioner on 17.11.1999. The said action was questioned in W.P. No. 43363/1999. Noticing that the petitioner had approached the BDA to execute a sale deed of the site in question, pursuant to the allotment made on 2.5.1985 and that the representation being under the consideration of BDA, without expressing any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the communication issued by the BDA on 17.11.1999 relating to the suo motu alternate allotment of a site, the writ petition at that stage having felt to be unnecessary, was disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court, even for any reason the BDA passes any adverse order against him.