G.BHANUDAS vs Chairman, Bangalore Development Authority

THE complainant alleges that Site No. 386 measuring 40''X60'' in Nandini Layout which has been allotted to him is involved in a litigation and so he requests that the B.D.A. may be directed to allot a suitable alternate site to him. THE undisputed facts may be stated as follows: -

THE said Site was allotted to the complainant by the Allotment Order dated 25.2.1987 of the B.D.A. and he was called upon to pay the balance of the amount and get the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement executed. By his letter dated 3.6.1987, the complainant requested for extension of lime to pay the balance of the amount. By its letter dated 10.9.1987. the B.D.A. informed the complainant that the said site was the subject matter of the litigation and so possession of the same cannot be given to him. By his letter dated 22.7.1988, the complainant requested the B.D.A. to allot the same site i.e.. Site No. 386, Nandini Layout to him in case no sites are available or if it is not possible to allot alternate site in any area which he preferred. On 14.7.1987 the balance of the amount was paid by the complainant. On 14.9.1988 the complainant produced the required stamp paper. On 20.9.1988 the Lease-cum-Sale Deed was executed and on 12.10.1988 it was registered. On 12.10.1988 possession of the Site was handed over to the complainant. On 11.10.1988 Interim stay was granted by the High Court in Writ Petition 12862/1988 directing to stop giving effect to the allotment of sites formed in Sy. Nos. 13, 14 and 15 of Laggere village. THE Interim stay was vacated on 3.11.1989 (vide Annexure-F produced by the Respondent along with its written statement). THE complaint has been filed on 14.2.1990. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent has filed a Memo stating that Site No. 386 allotted to the complainant has not been included in the proposed allotment to be made to M/s Kengal Credit Co-operative Society, Bangalore by the B.D.A. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent also states that the proposal to allot Sites to M/s Kengal Credit Co- operative Society, Bangalore is also being withdrawn by the B.D.A. From Annexure-F produced by the Respondent, it is clear that the Stay Order granted by the Hon''ble High Court on 11.10.1988 has been vacated. It is also admitted by the complainant that he has not been made a party in any of the litigation pending before the High Court.

In view of the Memo and the clear statement made by the Learned Advocate for the Respondent that the Site allotted to the complainant is not allotted to anybody, the apprehension of the complainant appears to be unfounded. The complainant is free to obtain the license to construct and proceed with the construction of the House. In that view of the matter, the complainant is not entitled to any relief and he has not been able to show that there has been any deficiency in service by the B.D.A.

IN the result, the complaint is dismissed. But under the circumstances of the case. we direct the Parties to bear their own costs. Complaint dismissed.