A.V. KRISHNAMURTHY vs COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

IN this complaint, the complainant has sought direction to the opposite party-BDA to allot a site measuring 2480 Sq. ft. or a compensation in a sum of Rs. 9,4400/- with interest thereon. 1. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased revenue sites bearing Nos. 9 and 15(A) in Sy. Nos. 24 and 25 of Kethamaranahalli village in the month of May 1965 from one Sri. Narayanaswamy Mudaliyar. The said survey numbers came to be acquired by the B.D.A. and subsequent to its acquisition, the BDA agreed to allot a site in favour of the complainant and also received a sum of Rs. 3,532/- towards certain developmental charges.

IT is the further case of the complainant that the DDA on 14.2.1983 informed the complainant that the said site has been allotted to some one else and expressed its inability to allot any site in favour of the complainant. So the complainant filed this complaint claiming reliefs as narrated above. The opposite party-BDA filed its version and contested the claim of the complainant. It also averred that the said lands in Sy. Nos. 24 and 25 of Kethamaranahalli village came to be acquired in the year 1958 itself and so the purchase of any site by the complainant in the said lands in the year 1965 was erroneous.

The opposite party further averred that the complaint was not only not maintainable but it was beyond the period of limitation. In view of these facts, sought the complaint to be dismissed.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. As per the averments in the complaint, it is clear that the complainant purchased revenue sites in Sy. Nos. 24 and 25 of Kethamaranahalli village in the year 1965. The opposite party-BDA averred that the said lands in Sy. Nos. 24 and 25 came to be acquired in the year 1958 itself under Notification No. LLH. 10. CTB/57 dated 11.4.1958. Therefore, it is clear that purchase of the sites by the complainant in the year 1965 itself is erroneous. So in our opinion, the claim of the complainant for a direction to the O.P. to allot an equivalent area of the sites purchased by him is untenable.

AS per the averments in the complaint, it is clear that the complainant was informed in the year 1983 by the opposite party that the alleged site was already allotted to some one else and there was no site to be allotted to the complainant. This complaint came to be filed on 13.11.91. Therefore, it is clear that this complaint is belated one and barred by time. Having regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and so the complaint is liable to be dismissed. ORDER In the result, therefore, this complaint fails and it is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear and pay their own costs in this proceeding. Complaint dismissed.