w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



The Karnataka Urban Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., Rep. by its Secretary, Nazimulla Shariff v/s State of Karnataka by its Secretary, Department of Urban & Housing Development & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1970GOI005276

Company & Directors' Information:- HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L74899DL1970GOI005276

Company & Directors' Information:- URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400MH2011PTC300616

Company & Directors' Information:- URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2011PTC166069

Company & Directors' Information:- KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202KA1970ULL001975

Company & Directors' Information:- N S T HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109WB2001PTC093885

Company & Directors' Information:- S S M HOUSING (KARNATAKA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201KA2006PTC038284

Company & Directors' Information:- S K HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PVT LTD [Amalgamated] CIN = U45201WB1990PTC048531

Company & Directors' Information:- S V R HOUSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200AP2009PTC064511

Company & Directors' Information:- R K URBAN DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400MH2011PTC223591

Company & Directors' Information:- AMP URBAN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2011PTC164960

Company & Directors' Information:- U R HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209PB2012PTC036764

Company & Directors' Information:- A. B. URBAN DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70100MH2015PTC267677

Company & Directors' Information:- R & S HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102TN2009PTC071067

    Writ Petition No. 921 of 2016 (BDA)

    Decided On, 06 January 2020

    At, High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

    For the Petitioner: Jayakumar S. Patil, Sr. Counsel, S.R. Hegde Hudlamane, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, Kavitha H.C. HCGP., R2, K. Krishna, R3, Pushpakantha, Advocates.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct R2 BDA to immediately hand over the open space portion shown in Annexure-H as per the total survey done on 28.11.2014 forthwith in favour of the petitioner Society and etc.,)1. Mr. Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.S.R Hegde Hudlamane, learned counsel for the petitioner.Smt Kavitha H.C., learned High Court Government Pleader for Respondent No.1.Sri K.Krishna, learned counsel for Respondent No.2.Smt.Pushpakantha, learned counsel for respondent No.3.2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of mandamus, directing the second respondent to handover the open space portion shown in Annexure. H as per the Total Station survey done on 28-11-2014 forthwith, in favour of the petitioner-Society. The petitioner Society has also prayed for a direction to the respondent No.2 to allot alternative BDA sites equivalent to the acquired portion shown in indicated BDA from layout and also BDA layout bulk up area and approved layout as per Annexure H, covering the road portion, so that the petitioner Society can allot the land in favour of senior members of the society.3. The facts giving rise to filing of this petition are not in dispute. The petitioner is a Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act with the object of acquiring lands and forming layouts for the purpose of distribution of sites to its members on seniority basis. On 08-10-1973, the owners of the land bearing Survey No.60/1 measuring 03 Acres 13 Guntas and Survey No.61/1 measuring 02 Acres 37 Guntas of Agraharadasarahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, entered into an agreement with the petitioner Society to sell the land in favour of the Society. It is the case of the petitioner Society that the possession of the aforesaid lands was delivered to it at the time of execution of the agreement and General Power of Attorney was also executed in favour of it to deal with the property as per the object of the Society. Thereafter, on the same day, i.e. on 08-10-1973, the owner of the land bearing Survey No.69/2 measuring 04 Acres 30 Guntas agreed to sell 03 Acres and 10 Guntas of land, adjoining the land of the petitioner- Society. The aforesaid owner of the land also delivered possession of the land in question to the petitioner-Society and executed the General Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner Society.4. The petitioner Society made an application before the Deputy Commissioner for conversion of 09 Acres and 20 Guntas of land and applied for conversion of the entire extent of the land. The Deputy Commissioner after taking the opinion of the Chairman of the City Improvement Trust Board (CITB) and other authorities including the Urban Land Ceiling Authority, Banglaore, granted permission for conversion to an extent of 08 Acres 30 Guntas only.5. Thereafter, the petitioner Society was directed by the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, to pay the conversion charges to a tune of Rs.44,100/- which was paid by the petitioner. The petitioner was also directed by the Chairman of the CITB to pay the layout charge to a tune of Rs.3,64,005/- at the rate of Rs.15.00 per square yard. The aforesaid amount was also paid by the petitioner Society.6. A resolution was passed by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) on 10-03-1978 by which a private layout was approved. The aforesaid land was admittedly acquired by the BDA and an award was passed on 18-09-1986. It is also not in dispute that out of the land bearing Survey Nos.60/1 and 61/1, the petitioner Society has been permitted to form a layout in respect of the land measuring 01 Acre 19 Guntas and 01 Acre 20 Guntas only. The Bangalore Development Authority took possession of the land on 30-09-1986 and on 06-04-1987 deposited the amount of compensation. On 06-07-1991, a Notification under Section 16 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued which was published on 26-09-1991.7. It is the case of the respondent BDA that since the land was not utilized for the purpose for which it was de-notified, the State Government withdrew the de-notification order on 16-08-2007. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court,viz.W.P.No.13501/2008, in which a direction was sought to the BDA to retain the layout as per the plan approved vide resolution dated 08-03-1978, by canceling the modified layout plan as per the resolution passed on 18-01-1997. The aforesaid writ petition was deposed of with a direction to the respondent BDA to consider the representation and to issue appropriate endorsement after hearing the affected parties in accordance with law, expeditiously. The petitioner’s representation was rejected by the BDA by an order dated 20-10-2014, without making a reference to the order passed by a bench of this Court in writ Petition No.13501/2008. There upon, the petitioner again submitted a representation on 25-10-2014. The aforesaid representation was decided by an order dated 20-11-2014 in so far as it pertains to change of layout, however, the petitioner Society was directed to submit a separate application for allotment of alternative sites.8. In response to the aforesaid communication, the petitioner submitted a representation on 28-11-2014 Annexure G. It is the case of the petitioner that in the aforesaid representation, the petitioner has also identified the vacant sites which are available, which may be allotted to the petitioner Society. However, the aforesaid representation of the petitioner failed to invoke any response. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.9. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the competent authority of the BDA to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner bearing in mind the alternative sites suggested by the petitioner Society, expeditiously, in accordance with law, by a speaking order.10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for BDA has opposed the aforesaid prayer.11. I have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is appropriate to reproduce the relevant extract of the communication sent to the petitioner Society by the BDA dated 20-11-2014 which reads as under:-“Your request to reexamine the Authority Meeting Resolution No.741, dated 08.03.1978 approving housing layout map in 8 acres 30 guntas is rejected. And you have also requested to release the vacant land and some of persons has already constructed buildings in the respective land and also release the equalent marked valued property to the sangha, and it is directed you to give separate letter with respect to the same.’’From a perusal of the aforesaid relevant extract, it is evident that BDA itself had directed the petitioner Society to give separate application for allotment of alternative sites. In pursuance of the directions issued by the Bangalore Development Authority, the petitioner has submitted the representation along with the list of alternative sites which have been suggested by the petitioner Society. The BDA, being a statutory body is supposed to act in a fair, rational and reasonable manner. No explanation has been offered on behalf of the respondent BDA, as to why a direction was issued to the petitioner Society to submit a separate applic

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ation for allotment of alternative sites. The aforesaid direction itself per se indicates that the BDA is willing to consider the prayer of the petitioner Society for allotment of alternative sites.12. Therefore in the fact situation of the case, I deem it proper to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the competent authority of the BDA to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner for allotment of alternative sites bearing in mind the alternative sites suggested by the petitioner contained in Annexure H in accordance with law, by a speaking order, within a period of three months from today.13. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the claim of the petitioner Society.With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
O R