S. Padmini vs Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) and Smt. Beeramma <BR> Smt. Beeramma Vs The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and The Assistant Commissioner Bangalore Development Authority Dept. of Re-Allotment and Reconveyance, Smt. S. Padmini and Bapujinagar and Attiguppe Entension Site Owners'' Association (Regd.)

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—W.P. No. 13613/2013 has been filed by Smt. Padmini by stating that she was allotted site No. 460, measuring 30x40 feet in Block No. B-ASO Association in RPC Layout Extension, Bangalore and that the Bangalore Development Authority (for short ''the BDA'') executed a registered lease-cum-sale agreement on 21.03.1991 and put her in possession by issuing a possession certificate dated 22.03.1991 and that after expiry of the lease period, she approached the respondent to obtain the absolute sale deed of the allotted site and after a lapse of 5 years and 9 months, an endorsement dated 21.12.2012 was issued, stating that one Smt. Beeramma has sought re-allotment of the same site and for issue of absolute sale deed and the petitioner was directed to approach the Court and have the matter settled. Feeling aggrieved, W.P. No. 13613/2013 was filed on 19.03.2013 to direct the respondent to execute the absolute sale deed in respect of the said site or in the alternate to allot any other suitable alternate corner site of the same dimension in the RPC Layout and execute the absolute sale deed. BDA by filing statement of objection dated 24.07.2013 contested the writ petition. In the statement of objections, it has been inter alia contended that the documents which the petitioner has produced are all fake documents and upon learning that one Mr. Ashok S. Nayak created false record, the matter was taken up with COD. The lawful allotment of site, execution of lease-cum-sale agreement and issuance of possession certificate having been denied, it has been stated that the petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction and the writ petition is not maintainable.

Pursuant to an order passed on 12.11.2013, Smt. Beeramma, who has filed W.P. No. 19756/2013 against the BDA and the petitioner herein was impleaded as respondent No. 2.

Smt. Beeramma has filed W.P. No. 19756/2013 on 26.04.2013. According to her, her husband Doddaiah purchased a site measuring 30 x 40 feet, situated in Sy. No. 137 of Attiguppe Village under a registered sale deed from one Papaiah and that an Association formed in the name and style Bapuji Nagar and Attiguppe Extension Site Owners Association having made correspondence with the CITB, a resolution having been passed, the development charge was deposited and that her husband died on 15.01.1994 before the CITB issued re-conveyance deed and possession certificate and she having submitted an application dated 12.08.1984, to convey the site purchased by her husband, by a communication dated 30.09.1985, she was asked to produce the documents and also letter from the Association, in pursuance whereof, a joint affidavit, indemnity bond, self affidavit etc., were submitted. Smt. Padmini claiming to be the power of attorney holder of Papaiah having approached the BDA, certain documents allegedly having come into being and she having been informed on 04.09.2012, vide Annexure-S, to have the matter adjudicated in the Civil Court, feeling aggrieved, she filed the writ petition to grant the following reliefs:

a) Declaring that the allotment of site in favour of the third respondent under the original of Annexure ''N'' bearing No. BDA/DC/R&R/90-91 dated 7.3.1991 and consequent lease cum sale agreement dated 21.3.1991 under Annexure-P and possession certificate bearing No. PR No. 43/90-91 dated 22.3.1991 under original of Annexure-Q as illegal and without authority of law and quash the same;

b) Further quash the endorsement under the original of Annexure ''S'' dated 4.9.2012 bearing No. BDS/SA/MM/58/2012-13 as illegal;

c) And pass such other orders as this Hon''ble Court might deem meet in the interests of justice.

The BDA has filed statement of objections and has contended that the writ petition is not maintainable. It has been stated that there being inter se disputes between the petitioner and Smt. Padmini, the endorsement dated 04.09.2012, vide Annexure-S was issued, directing the parties to get the issue adjudicated in the Civil Court.

Heard Sriyuths B.R. Dwarakanath, M. Ravi Prakash and M. Karunakaran, learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the record of the writ petitions.

In these cases, the basic facts are in dispute. The genuineness of the documents produced by both the writ petitioners have been disputed by the BDA. Even there is inter se disputes between the two writ petitioners. The allotment intimation, which Smt. Padmini, claims as having been issued to her, a copy of which has been produced, as Annexure-N in W.P. No. 19756/2013, makes a reference to ''the order of Commissioner/Chairman dated 18.02.1975''. The BDA having come into being in 1975, there cannot be any order in the name of BDA, even prior to its establishment on 12.12.1975. Mere reading of the pleadings would show that complicated questions of facts are involved and this Court is not the proper forum for seeking the reliefs and the right course open to the writ petitioners is to have the matter adjudicated before the Civil Court. In the circumstances, the BDA is justified in issuing the impugned endorsements to the parties, directing them to approach the Civil Court for adjudication of the matter. Since an enquiry into complicated questions is necessary before the rights of the petitioners are decided, I do not find justification to decide these writ petitions on their merit and dismiss these writ petitions on this preliminary ground without entering into the merit of the cases of either of the writ petitioners. Consequently, both the writ petitions are dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioners, if so advised, to seek relief by instituting the suit/s before the jurisdictional Civil Court.

No costs.