NAINAPPA SETTY PALYA BANE COLONY SOCIETY WILSON GARDEN BANGALORE Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has presented this petition for the following reliefs, namely : (i) a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction to quash Annexure-F, the letter No. Bangalore Development Authority / A.E.E.-2 (S)1139 / 94-95, dated 22-11-1994 issued by the second respondent ; (ii) a writ of mandamus directing the Sub-Registrar to register the documents of sale to be submitted by the petitioner in respect of 88 sites without insisting upon any release order passed by the authority (1st respondent) ; (iii) a writ of mandamus to the Revenue Officer (4th respondent-Bangalore Development Authority) to change the khata in favour of the members of the Society in respect of the sites sold by the Society to the members of the petitioner-Society under the registered sale deeds without insisting upon any release by the authorities and without reference to Annexure-F, the letter No. Bangalore Development Authority / A.E.E.-2 (S) / 1139 / 94-95, dated 22-11-1994 issued by the first respondent.

(2.) It appears that the impugned order dated November 22, 1994 was made by the first respondent on the complaint of respondents 5 to 26. That, during the pendancy of this petition the dispute between the petitioner-Society and respondents 5 to 26 is stated to have been settled, in view of the petitioner agreeing to allot them sites and the petitioner has also filed a memo to that effect. The memo is recorded. In the application (IA. III) filed by the petitioner it is also stated that sites have been allotted to all the impleading applicants.

(3.) The facts leading to this petition are as follows :That, Survey Nos. 19/1 and 19/2 of Nainappa Setty Palya were allotted in favour of the petitioner as a bulk allotment for the purpose of formation of a layout and to allot sites in favour of its 88 members. The said allotment was subject to certain conditions. One of those conditions is that the list of reallottees will have to be approved by the authority. The petitioner after securing possession of the aforesaid lands formed a layout comprising 88 sites and allotted about 44 sites in favour of different members. That, on the application filed by the Society the first respondent released 44 sites in favour of the Society, as per the communication dated November 14, 1994, produced at Annexure-C. It appears, when attempts were being made for allotment of the remaining sites, respondents 5 to 26 made representation to the first respondent that the petitioner has allotted sites in favour of the non-members detrimental to their interests. On the basis of the said complaint the first respondent issued an order dated November 22, 1994 produced at Annexure-F withdrawing the release order dated November 14, 1994 and directing the petitioner to surrender forthwith the list of 44 sites already released. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows :