Smt. Lalitha vs The Bangalore Development Authority

Ashok B. Hinchigeri

The petitioner has called into question the respondent''s order, dated 17.10.2007 (Annexure-O) canceling the allotment of site measuring 20 ft.x 30 ft. bearing No. 356 in 19th Block of Arkavathi Layout. Sri Prakash M.H., the Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not suppressed any material fact. He submits that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste. She has made 4 attempts. He submits that the vigilance officers of the respondent have held the spot-inspection, collected all the information and have satisfied themselves that the petitioner belongs to the low income group (economically weaker section).

The Learned Counsel has also relied on this Court''s order, dated 14.12.2007 passed in W.P. No. 18606/2007 wherein the cancellation of the allotment on the ground that the allottee was born after the cut off date was quashed.

Sri K.M.Prakash, the Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that this petition is liable to be rejected on the short ground of delay and laches. The cancellation order is challenged after 4 years of its passing. He submits that only those, who have made 6 attempts and who are born before 20.5.1966 are entitled to get the allotment. As the allotment was made without noticing this material aspect, it came to be cancelled. He would therefore justify the impugned order and pray for the dismissal of this petition.

On the ground of delay and laches, I am not inclined to reject this petition. The petitioner is an unlettered woman belonging to the Scheduled Caste and economically weaker section. It is not the case of the respondent that on the cancellation of the allotment of the site in question, it is allotted to a third party. The allotment was made in 2005; it was cancelled 2 years thereafter. The respondent has also not chosen to act swiftly.

The respondent on holding the enquiry with the petitioner''s neighbours, etc. has arrived at the conclusion that her annual income is Rs. 11,000/-. This being her income, the petitioner must have struggled to mobilise the amount to pay the allotment consideration of Rs. 56,700/-. If she were to be told in few weeks or months of the issuance of the allotment letter that her allotment was cancelled, because she has made only 4 attempts and not 6 attempts, its cancellation order would have been supportable.

Even if the sital value of Rs. 56,700/- is refunded to the petitioner, now she cannot buy any site measuring 20 x 30 in any locality in the vicinity of Bangalore, much less in Bangalore itself.

It is nobody''s case that the petitioner has made any inflated or false claim that she attempted 6 times. Her application clearly furnishes the particulars of the earlier 3 attempts. If the officials of the respondent have acted inadvertently, the petitioner cannot be penalized for the same. On being asked what action is taken against the officials of the respondent, who have issued the allotment letter inadvertently, the Learned Counsel submits that he has no instructions in the matter.

As far as the petitioner not being born before the cut off date of 20.5.1966 is concerned, she is an unlettered woman, who does not have the birth certificate issued by the Corporation or Municipality. As per the information collected by the vigilance officers of the respondent, the petitioner''s sons are already married and are living separately. It probablises that she was around 40 years of age at the time of making the application on 27.2.2004.

In more or less similar circumstances, this Court has already quashed the orders canceling the allotments - order dated 14.12.2007 passed in W.P. No. 18606/2007. For all the aforesaid reasons, I quash the impugned order. This petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.