Smt. Shanthamma C. vs The Bangalore Development Authority

Mohan Shantanagoudar

Petitioner was allotted a site bearing No. 330, measuring 305(40'' in 9th Block, Banashankari 6th Stage Layout, Bangalore vide allotment letter dated 13.3.2002 (Annexure-B). The petitioner has initially deposited Rs. 21,500/- at the time of making the application for allotment of site. The balance of sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,500/- was to be paid by the petitioner within 60 days from the date of receipt of the allotment letter. The same was made clear in the allotment letter itself. However, the petitioner did not deposit the balance of sital value within the prescribed period. Ultimately, the BDA after waiting for about 10 months, has passed the impugned order of cancellation of allotment of site vide Annexure-C, dated 29.1.2003 clarifying that the allotment of site made in favour of the petitioner stands cancelled. The sarrie was not questioned by the petitioner subsequentiy before this Court. However, the petitioner chose to make representation on 16.5.2004 as per Annexure-D praying for taking lenient view in the matter by accepting the balance of sital value. Strangely, the BDA has issued an endorsement as per Annexure-E, dated 31.1.2005 to the petitioner directing her to produce the original documents and the domicile certificate. But, no further records are produced by the petitioner before this Court as to what action she has taken pursuant to the said endorsement, till this day. However, this writ petition is filed on 9.1.2012 praying for quashing the impugned order at Annexure-C dated 29.1.2003 ard fora direction to the BDA to consider her representation vide Annexure-D, dated 16.5.2004.

As aforementioned, the site measuring 30''x40'' was allotted in favour of the petitioner and the same was intimated to her as per the allotment letter dated 13.3.2012 vide Annexure-B. The allotment letter amply clarifies that the petitioner has to deposit the balance of sital value of Rs. 1,50,500/- within 60 days from the date of receipt of the allotment letter. It further makes it clear that at the most another 60 days can be extended for payment of balance of sital value with a condition that the petitioner should pay the interest at the rate of 18% for first 30 days and at the rate of 21% f.-ir the next 30 days. Rule 13(1) of Bangalore Development Authority(Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 (for short hereinafter referred to as the ''Rules'') as it then existed specified exactly the similar days for payment of balance of sital value. However, suhccquently, subsequently, Rule 13(1) is amended in the year 2008 and consequently now the allottee may be given an opportunity of extended time up to 120 days with a condition that the allottee should pay the amount as stipulated in the said Rule.

Be that as it may, the petitioner has neither paid the balance of sital value within 120 days (60+60 days) as contemplated under the then sub-rule(1) of Rule 3.3 of the Rules or within 60+120 days as contemplated under the amended Rules of 2008. However, the BDA having waited for about 10 months from the clan of service of allotment letter, passed the impugned order at Annexure�C, dated 29.1.2003 cancelling the allotment of site made in favour of the petitioner as the petitioner has failed to deposit the balance of sital value within the prescribed period. In view of the same, it cannot be said that the impugned order of cancellation of allotment of site is bad in the eye of law.

It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was the owner of Bajaj Van bearing Regn.No. KA-05/3392 in which 24 persons were travelling. The said vehicle met with an accident in the year 1993 within the jurisdiction of Suligere Police Station, Hosur Taluk, Dharmapuri District. Consequently; Crime No. 136/1993 was registered against the driver of the said vehicle in the jurisdictional Police Station. ln the said accident 15 passengers have expired and 8 passengers were injured. According to the petitioner''s counsel, since the petitioner was attending the matters before the jurisdictional Court/Tribunal pertaining to the accident/compensation matters; she could not approach this Court within time. The said submissions cannot be accepted. Copies of the judgments passed in MVC matters are produced before this Court. The same reveal that the claim petitions were disposed of as far back as in the year 1996 itself. The liability was foisted on Tiruvalluvar Transport Corporation as well as New India Insurance Company along with the owner of the vehicle, i.e.; the petitioner herein. Thus, it cannot be said that the liability vtias foisted only on the petitioner.

Be that as it may, the same cannot be taken advantage of by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in this writ petition. The very fact that the petitioner has made an application for allotment of site prior to 2002 itself would clearly reveal that the petitioner was able to pay the initial deposit as well as she was able to attend all her works in regular manner. Moreover, she was not injured in the said accident. The matters were disposed of as far back in the year 1996 before the MACT, Krishnagiri. The liability was foisted on Tiruvalluvar Transport Corporation as well as New India Insurance Company. Hence, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that she was not ahle to file writ petition before this Court immediately. This petition is filed in the year 2012. Thus, the reasons assigned by the petitioner for approaching the Court with the delay, cannot be accepted. So also, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the endorsement issued by the BDA vide Annexure-E, Gated. 31.1,2005. Had the petitioner been due diligent in pursuing her application, she would have definitely furnished. the records as required by the BDA immediately. But there is nothing on record to show that she has produced such documents in the year 2005 as required by the BDA. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and !aches also.

Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed not only on the ground of delay and laches, but also on merits.