R. Sathyanarayana vs The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore

Mrs. B.V. Nagarathna, J.—Petitioner has assailed order dated 6-10-2000 issued by the respondent (Annexure-D) and has also challenged endorsement dated 6-6-2014 (Annexure-H). Further, petitioner has sought a direction for allotment of the site in question in his favour by accepting the balance sital value with requisite penal interest.

It is the case of the petitioner that he belongs to socially and economically weaker section of society and that he had applied for allotment of a site measuring 30'' x 40� on 13-5-1998 after depositing the requisite amount of Rs. 21.750/- as the initial sital value to the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). Site bearing No. 1859, measuring 30'' x 40'' situated in Hosur-Sarjapur Road, Sector-2 valued at Rs. 1,74,000/- was allotted to the petitioner by allotment letter dated 7-5-1999, subject to certain terms and conditions with regard to payment of balance sital value. Petitioner had to pay the balance sital value of Rs. 1,52,000/-. Admittedly, the balance sital value was not paid in time. Consequently, the allotment was cancelled on 6-10-2000. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not aware of the cancellation of allotment, as there was no communication of the cancellation to him, as in the meanwhile he had changed his residence which was also informed to the respondent-BDA. Thereafter, the petitioner is stated to have made certain representations to the BDA. Finally, representation dated 28-3-2014 was made which was considered and impugned endorsement dated 6-6-2014 at Annexure-H has been issued to him which is assailed in this writ petition. The petitioner therefore seeks quashing of the order of cancellation of allotment and also the endorsement dated 6-6-2014 while seeking other reliefs.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondent-BDA and perused the material on record.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on account of the financial constraints, balance sital value could not be paid in time. The petitioner had made representations in that regard. He had also brought to the notice of the respondent-BDA that he had changed his residence, but without heeding to the request made by the petitioner, BDA simply cancelled the allotment. He contended that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the balance sital value and that a direction may be issued to allot the site in question to him on acceptance of balance sital value with requisite interest and revoke the cancellation of the allotment, if the site in question is available. If the site in question has been allotted to the third party, then consider the case of the petitioner for allotment of an alternative site.

Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent-BDA submits that the petitioner cannot be granted any relief at this point of time, as tire site was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1999 and till the filing of the writ petition in the year 2014, no steps were taken by the petitioner for payment of the balance sital value. In the circumstances, the respondent was justified in cancelling the site allotted in the year 2014. The petitioner has not taken any steps to ascertain as to what happened to the allotment made to the petitioner in the year 2000. Though several endorsements have been issued to the petitioner, Annexure-H issued in the year 2014 is assailed only in the year 2014. Therefore, the writ petition has to be dismissed on die ground of delay and laches.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, it is noted that in the year 1998 petitioner had applied for allotment of a site by the BDA which was allotted in the year 1999. Though some time was granted to pay the balance payment with interest, petitioner did not take steps to pay the sital value in time or in the extended period with interest. He did not take steps to pay the balance sital value even after the period had lapsed till 2014 i.e. nearly 14 years after cancellation of allotment of the site. Also, petitioner has not taken steps to ascertain as to what has happened to the fate of the site allotted to him during the said period. The knowledge about the cancellation of the site is immaterial in the present case as the petitioner has not taken steps with regard to payment of the balance sital value or to ascertain as to what has happened to his allotment. A reading of Annexure-H clearly reveals that on previous occasions endorsements have been issued to the petitioner stating that the allotment has been cancelled. Those endorsements are dated 23-11-2001, 22-4-2002 and 3-6-2010. The petitioner on receipt of the endorsements at those points of time has also not taken steps with regard to challenging cancellation of allotment. Therefore, this writ petit ion filed in the year 2014 assailing endorsement dated 6-6-2014 in substance, assailing the cancellation order of 2000 is highly belated. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

In this context, a plethora of decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court on the issue regarding delay and as to how a Court of equity exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot extend its hands to such persons who approach the Court after several years can be relied upon. In fact, the Apex Court has held in several decisions that stale claims ought not to be entertained by High Courts exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The recent decisions in that regard are as follows:

(a) In recent decision of the Apex Court in State of Orissa and Another v. Mamata Mohanty, 2011 AIR SCW 1332, the consideration of an application where delay and laches could be attributed against a person who approaches in a writ petition is discussed by stating that though the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to writ jurisdiction, however, the doctrine of limitation being based on public policy, the principles enshrined therein are applicable and writ petitions could be dismissed at the initial stage on the ground of delay and laches.

(b) In the case of Shankara Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. M. Prabhakar and Others, 2011 AIR SCW 3033, the Apex Court at para 53 has given the relevant considerations, in determining whether delay or laches in approaching the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The same reads as follows:

"53. The relevant considerations, in determining whether delay or laches should be put against a person who approaches the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is now well-settled. They are: (1) There is no inviolable rule of law that whenever there is a delay, the Court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition; it is a rule of practise based on sound and proper exercise of discretion, and each case must be dealt with on its owns facts. (2) The principle on which the Court refuses relief on the ground of laches or delay is that the rights accrued to others by the delay in filing the petition should not be disturbed, unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay, because Court should not harm innocent parties if their rights had emerged by the delay on the part of the petitioners. (3) The satisfactory way of explaining delay in making an application under Article 226 is for the petitioner to show that he had been seeking relief elsewhere in a manner provided by law. If he runs alter a remedy not provided in the Statute or the statutory rules, it is not desirable for the High Court to condone the delay. It is immaterial what the petitioner chooses to believe in regard to the remedy. (4) No hard and fast rule, can be laid down in this regard. Every case shall have to be decided on its own facts. (5) That representations would not be adequate explanation to lake care of the delay."

(c) Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Sawaran Latha and Others v. State of Haryana and Others, (2010) 4 SCC 532, has held that when the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued in the year 2001 and the award was passed in the year 2004, writ petitions filed for quashing of the notification in the year 2009 have to be dismissed on the ground of delay as the litigants who dare to abuse the process of the Court in disregard of the law of limitation, delay and laches should not be encouraged.

(d) Reference can also be made to another decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Others v. D.R. Laxmi and Others, (1996) 6 SCC 445, wherein it has cautioned the High Court not to entertain the writ petitions where there is inordinate delay while exercising jurisdiction under Article 2.26 of the Constitution of India.

(e) Similarly, in the case of The Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and Another v. Shah Ryder Beig and Others, (2000) 2 SCC 48, it has been opined thus:

"The real test for sound exercise of discretion by the High Court in this regard is not the physical running of time such but the test is whether by reason of delay, there is such negligence on the part of the petitioner so as to infer that he has given up his claim or where the petitioner has moved the Writ Court, the rights of the third parties have come into being which should not be allowed to disturb unless there is reasonable explanation for the delay."

(f) In fact in S.S. Balu and Others v. State of Kerala, [(2009) 2 SCC 479], it has been held that delay defeats equity and that relief can be denied on the ground of delay alone even though relief is granted to other similarly situated persons who approach the Courts in time.

(g) To a similar effect is the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited v. Chinthamaneni Narasimha Rao and Others, (2012) 12 SCC 797.

The said decisions are squarely applicable to the far ts of the present case.

In the result, the writ is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.