Smt. H.V. Lalitha vs The Commissioner, The Executive Engineer and The Revenue Officer

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus directing the respondents to pass an order on the application dated 22.12.2012 and for release of the site and change of katha in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner claims to be an allottee of site No. 175 measuring 30ft X 40ft situate in the layout formed by the Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. in Kempapur Agrahar, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. Since the society has executed the sale deed and the petitioner claims to be in possession of the said property the petitioner is seeking release of the site from the respondents. At an earlier instance, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P. No. 41026/2012. This Court while disposing of the petition on 07.02.2013 has directed that if an application is filed by the petitioner, the respondent would consider the said application. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner has got issued a legal notice dated 06.03.2013 seeking consideration of the application. Since same has not evoked any response, the petitioner is before this Court. The petitioner also relies on the orders passed in similar cases where this Court has directed consideration of the application for release of the site.

Though at this juncture all that is required to be noticed by this Court is that the direction issued earlier needs to be complied by the respondents in disposing of the application of the petitioner in accordance with law it is also necessary to notice the contention put forth by the learned counsel for respondent-BDA that in respect of the layout in question, the society has indiscriminately allotted sites whereby certain open areas and the civic amenity sites have also been included for executing the sale deeds to the members and the BDA has been forced to consider the application in such cases. It is contended that the said society has wrongly utilised more than 65% of the area and at an earlier point, when they were before this Court seeking issue of modified plan, the same had not been considered by this Court.

Notwithstanding the said contention, all that is required to be noticed in the instant case is as to whether the site bearing No. 175 allotted to the petitioner is one such site situate in the open area or civic amenity area. If the same is not located therein, but, is a regularly formed house site, then certainly the respondents at this juncture insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the application would have to be considered in view of the similar directions being issued in the earlier cases when persons were similarly placed. Needless to mention that if the respondents have any other right against the society in respect of utilization of the open areas, the respondent would be free to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

In that view of the matter, insofar as the instant case is concerned, a direction is issued to the respondents to consider and dispose of the application filed by the petitioner in the event of the site being situate as a house site in the originally approved layout plan within four weeks from the date of furnishing a copy of this order.

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.