E. Ramaswamy vs The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the endorsement dated 30.10.2004 impugned at Annexure-E to the petition. The petitioner is seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondent to consider the representation filed by the petitioner on 14.2.2008 Annexure-H to the petition. The case of the petitioner is that he belongs to Scheduled Caste and he was allotted a site bearing No. 224 measuring 20 x 30 situated at Jnana Bharathi Layout, Valagerahalli, Block-I. The total cost of the site was notified at Rs. 33,490/-. The petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on 10.8.2000 and thereafter, due to certain personal difficulties, he could not pay the balance amount immediately. After mobilizing the amount, he has deposited a sum of Rs. 28,500/- on 2.6.2004. However, the respondent had cancelled the allotment on 30.10.2004. It is in that circumstance the petitioner, claiming to be aggrieved by the same, has not only made the representation but has also relied on the Circular dated 18.10.2007 and 18.11.2010 claiming benefit thereunder with regard to the demand made and the interest that has been stipulated therein.

The respondents have filed their objections statement. The primary contention therein is that the payment which was required to be made was under Rule 13(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984. It is contended that even as per the provision therein, the amount has not been paid as per the installments and therefore, any payment made on 2.6.2004 cannot enure to the benefit of the petitioner and as such, the respondents have sought to justify their action in cancelling the allotment. It is contended that the petitioner has not approached this Court diligently and therefore, no relief could be granted to the petitioner.

In the light of the rival contentions, what is necessary to be noticed is that this Court had considered several other cases which had similar facts for consideration. In that regard, firstly, WP No. 5076/2006 was disposed of on 27.11.2006, whereunder the benefit was granted for consideration of the representation. More particularly in WP No. 14261/2011, the very provision in Rule 13(1) which is relied upon by the respondent herein, was also taken into consideration by this Court and thereafter, keeping in view the Circulars on which the petitioners therein had relied upon, had issued the direction to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner after collecting the interest in the manner as indicated therein, since such benefit had been granted under the Circular. The said decisions were also relied on in another WP No. 2669/2013 disposed of on 8.8.2013, wherein similar contentions have been taken into consideration and this Court was of the view that when persons who were similarly placed had been granted the benefit, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit. Therefore, keeping these aspects in view and also taking note of the fact that the facts arising herein are similar to earlier cases referred above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit when similarly situated persons have been granted. Therefore, keeping these aspects in view and also considering the fact that similar orders in WP No. 5076/2006 dated 27.11.2006 and WP No. 36787/2011 disposed of on 7.12.2011 is granted, the respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in similar manner by considering the representation dated 14.2.2008 at Annexure-H. To enable such consideration, the endorsement dated 30.10.2004 Annexure-E stands quashed.

In terms of the above, petition stands disposed of.