Smt. S. Glory vs Bangalore Development Authority

Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.—The petitioner has raised the challenge to the order, dated 15.06.2009 (Annexure-J) cancelling the allotment of the site bearing No. 2314/B made to the petitioner''s vendor. The facts of the case in brief are that the site measuring 20 x 25 ft. bearing No. 258 of Anadapura Slum Layout was allotted to one Issacc. It was transferred to his wife''s name (Smt. Salath Mary) on 29.9.1997. As the unauthorised construction had come up on the allotted site, the said Smt. Salath Mary sought the allotment of alternative site. The respondent allotted the alternative site measuring 9.14 x 7.60 + 9.72/2 metres bearing No. 2314/B in HAL 3rd Stage Layout on 04.04.2005. On noticing that the alternative site is allotted in the layout formed prior to the layout in which the site was originally allotted, it gave the notice to the petitioner''s vendor Smt. Salath Mary and on receiving no reply from her, cancelled the allotment of the alternative site.

Sri D.L. Jagadish, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased the site No. 2314/B from the said Smt. Salath Mary. He submits that thereafter the petitioner has been paying the property tax from time to time. She has also got the khata transferred to her name, as is evident from Annexure-F on 22.05.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner has been residing there by constructing a small shed.

He submits that the petitioner has not received any notice. He submits that the issue is no more res-integra; it is covered by the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sri K. Raju Vs. Bangalore Development Authority, wherein it is held that once the sale deed, is executed and registered, the owner completely loses his right over the property. As the purchaser becomes the sole owner, the sale transaction cannot be nullified by executing the deed of cancellation. He also brings to my notice the two Division Bench judgments, dated 27.11.2009 passed in W.A. No. 2768/2009 and dated 13.04.2011 passed in W.A. No. 4037/2010 wherein the quashing of the similar cancellation orders was upheld.

Sri K.M. Prakash, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the instant case, the allotment of alternative site runs contrary to the sub-rule (3) of Rule 11A of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984. As the HAL 3rd Stage Layout is formed subsequent to the formation of Anandapura Slum Layout, the site in HAL Layout ought not to have allotted on account of the cancellation of the allotment of site in Anandapura Slum Layout.

The impugned order is liable to be quashed for more than one reason. The respondent has not put the petitioner on notice; it has proceeded as if there is no subsequent change. It ought to have ascertained from the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar''s Office as to who is the recorded owner of the site in question. The impugned order is passed without verifying the subsequent purchase and without observing the requirements of the principles of natural justice.

The petitioner''s conduct is blemishless. She appears to be bonafide purchaser of the site in question for lawful consideration from Smt.Salath Mary. The respondent has executed the registered sale deed on 21.02.2006. Thereafter the said Smt Salath Mary sold the site to the petitioner by executing the registered sale deed, dated 06.03.2006. Even assuming that the allotment runs contrary to the Rules, the respondent cannot unilaterally cancel the allotment, more so when it has culminated in the execution of the registered sale deed. If the parties mutually agree, the allottee/its subsequent purchaser, has to execute the re-conveyance deed. If no agreement is reached by them, the only recourse open to the B.D.A. is to approach the Civil Court for seeking the relief of cancellation of the sale deed. In taking this view, I am fortified by the decisions of the learned Single Judge in the case of K. RAJU (supra) and of the two Division Benches in W.A. Nos. 4037/2010 and 2768/2009 upholding the learned Single Judge''s order quashing the similar cancellation orders. For all the aforesaid reasons, I allow this petition by quashing the impugned order. No order as to costs.