Nagaraja vs The Chief Secretary, State of Karnataka

Anand Byrareddy, J.—The petitions were heard at length. The spot inspection was also carried out by a Court Commissioner and the arguments were in full flow. However, it is found that the petitions could be disposed of, without prejudice to the case of the petitioners.

It is evident that the petitioners had approached this Court earlier in W.P. No. 39073-75/2012 which was disposed of by a summary order dated 27.09.2012, which reads as follows:

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.

The petitioners are said to be allottees of sites measuring 30 x 40 in VIII Phase J.P. Nagar and they were allotted sites on their 9th attempt in the year 1999, respectively. Sale deeds have also been executed in the year 2003 and site numbers have been assigned. The katha has been issued in favour of the petitioners and they have also paid taxes. However, without notice to the petitioners, it is found that the land in which the sites allotted to the petitioners were formed has been denotified and a compound wall has been erected including the sites and the land in the vicinity. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners would candidly admit the petitioners had not made any representations to the BDA to complain of the situation. It would be expected of the petitioners to first approach the BDA and to ascertain its stand before seeking reliefs before this Court. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of without prejudice to the case of the petitioners to approach the BDA in the first instance.

However, in spite of the same, the present petitions have been filed and even during the pendency of these petitions, it transpires that the third petitioner has been allotted an alternative site by the BDA in view of the litigation and which is the subject matter of the present petitions, whereby Respondent No. 5 claims to be the owner of the land and that it has been withdrawn from acquisition proceedings and the land comprised of Sy. No. 87/5 is entirely in his possession.

This is stoutly refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and there is vehement argument canvassed for and against the respective positions.

However, in view of this controversy and the dispute raised by Respondent No. 5, the BDA which has allotted sites to these petitioners as recognized and the petitioners having paid valuable consideration and sale deeds also having been executed in their favour, the BDA in furtherance of its responsibility has allotted an alternative site to Petitioner No. 3 even during the pendency of these petitions and therefore, the petition insofar as Petitioner No. 3 is concerned has been withdrawn. The BDA is also not averse to allotting alternative sites to Petitioners 1 and 2. This is categorically stated in the statement of objections as follows:

In view of the above, it is upto the petitioners to whether to approach the Government as well as this respondent BDA in the proper manner by furnishing documentary proof in support of their claim, in which case, this respondent BDA is ready and willing to put forth its views and recommendations to enable the Government to take a decision to protect the interest of the petitioners.

In this regard, it is also on record that the petitioners have made representations even prior to filing of the present petitions and the same have not been pursued.

The petitioners would therefore be well-advised to renew their representations, which the BDA shall consider forthwith, under Rule 11 A of the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules 1984, and pass orders, in any event, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of fresh representations. The petitioners are permitted to reopen this petition in the event there is any delay on the part of the BDA in making such alternative allotment.

It is made clear that since the petitioners have already paid the sale consideration for the sites that were allotted earlier, the question of payment of any sale consideration or bearing the registration and stamp duty expenses shall be exempted insofar as the petitioners are concerned. Any such duty and charges shall be borne by the BDA and the BDA shall also not raise a contention that there is a difference in land value and therefore, the petitioners would have to be satisfied with a lesser extent of sites. The sites to be allotted shall be of similar dimensions as that of the sites allotted earlier. The BDA shall endeavour to allot alternative sites in respect of the petitioners in J.P. Nagar VIII Phase where the present sites had been allotted, and if not, in a similar area.

With that observation and direction, the petitions stand disposed of.