AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to the Respondent No. 2 to allot an open space to which he can shift his petrol bunk, which came to be closed down on account of the compulsory acquisition of land. The Petitioner claims to be a lessee under Subramanyeshwara Temple Trust in respect of the premises bearing No. 117, Old Madras Road, Bangalore. He was running the petrol bunk in the name and style of ''Ulsoor Service Station''. The said premises along with the adjoining properties were acquired for the benefit of the Respondent No. 1.
Sri Janardhana G, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent No. 1 has already written a letter, dated 23.7.2008 (Annexure-D) calling upon the Respondent No. 2 to allot a civic amenity site measuring about 5,000 sq.ft. for running the petrol bunks, which had closed down their operations on account of the compulsory acquisition of the land for the project. He submits that the Petitioner''s representations to the Respondent No. 2 BDA and the Respondent No. 3 Government have not lead him anywhere. He pointedly brought to my notice the note, dated 19.6.2009 (Annexure-G) issued by the concerned Minister for processing the Petitioner''s representation. He submits that as the same is issued by the then concerned Minister, it is virtually in the nature of the Government order.
He submits that, that the civic amenity sites are available is not in dispute at all. He has produced 8 photographs in Annexures-J, K, L and M series to show that the vacant civic amenity sites are indeed available. He submits that the Petitioner is willing to abide by all the rules of allotment, if a civic amenity site/open space is allotted to him. He submits that the allotment could be on any basis, lease or sale. He submits that the Respondents are required to act responsibly. Having aroused the Petitioner''s legitimate expectation to get the civic amenity site, they cannot now turn around and deny the allotment to the Petitioner.
Sri K. Krishna, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submits that the first Respondent''s letter, dated 23.6.2008 (Annexure-D) is only in the nature of the request. He submits that under the rehabilitation package (Annexure-R2), compensation of Rs. 11,47,370 (after deducting tax at source) is already disbursed to the Petitioner on 5.8.2008. He submits that the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this petition.
Sri D.L. Jagadeesh, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 submits that the allotment of civic amenity site to the Petitioner on priority basis and too without examining his eligibility would run contrary to Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Civil Amenity Sites), Rules 1989. He submits that if the Petitioner responds to the advertisements for the allotment of civic amenity sites and if he is a lawful applicant and meets the eligibility criteria, his case would be considered in accordance with law. He submits that there is no privity of contract between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 or between the Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2.
Sri K.S. Mallikarjunaiah, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the Respondent No. 3 submits that no relief is sought as against the Respondent No. 3. He submits that the note, dated 19.6.2009 (Annexure-G) can at the most be treated as a minute only; it is no Government order. He further submits that it may have been issued by the then Minister in his capacity as the local M.L.A. while considering the grievances of the people of his constituency.
The submissions of the learned Counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. The question that falls for my consideration is whether the Petitioner is entitled in law to the allotment of open space on account of the compulsory acquisition of land on which his petrol bunk had stood earlier? I am afraid, the law does not provide for such an allotment.
There is no provision in law under which the Respondent No. 1 can make recommendation to the Respondent No. 2 for the grant or allotment of an open space. While appreciating the first Respondent''s concern for the Petitioner, (a displaced person) the Respondent No. 1 itself could have provided for the benefit of giving alternative space or land to the displaced occupants in the rehabilitation package. Having not done so, it cannot ask the Respondent No. 2 to allot an open space.
Similarly, that the Petitioner''s representations to the Government and the BDA have not evoked any response also does not constitute the ground for the issuance of the writ of mandamus. That the Government and BDA have not responded to the Petitioner''s representations may be reflective of un-responsiveness. But the same does not constitute the ground for issuance of a direction to the Government and the BDA to allot some open land to the Petitioner. It is trite position in law that the writ of mandamus would be issued only, if an authority fails to perform the duty cast on it by the statute. There is no statutory duty cast on the Respondent No. 2 to allot an open space on account of the displacement of the Petitioner in the course of the first Respondent''s project implementation.
The Government can give only the general directions to the Respondent No. 2.
It is also trite position in law that if there is a head-on collusion between the Rules and legitimate expectation, the Rules have to prevail over the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
Thus, none of the grounds urged and strenuously argued by Sri Janardhana come to the rescue of the Petitioner in any way.
In the result, this petition is dismissed.
However, if the Petitioner makes an application for the allotment of an open space, the same shall be considered by the Respondent No. 2 in accordance with law. Further, other things remaining the same i.e., if all the applicants for the open space have the same merit, the factum of the Petitioner being displaced on account of compulsory acquisition of lands should weigh with the Respondent No. 2.
Subject to these observations, this petition is dismissed No order as to costs.