N SHEELAVATHI Vs. BANGLORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Site No. 3-C-998/3 Block I, Hennur Road, Banaswadi Road Layout, Bangalore, formed by the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) was allotted to the 3rd respondent under allotment letter dt. 12.11.1990 and following the entire sital value, the BDA executed a lease-cum-sale agreement on 17.11.1990 and put the 3rd respondent in possession of the site under possession certificate dt. 23.11.1994. After the completion of the period of 10 years, there being no breach of terms of the lease-cum-sale agreement, the BDA executed a sale deed dt. 26.6.2002 conveying the site absolutely in favour of the 3rd respondent. Thereafterwards, the 3rd respondent as an absolute owner paid the property taxes and secured a khata in his name in the registers of the BBMP when the site fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the BBMP. On 21.2.2007, the 3rd respondent conveyed by way of sale the said property, jointly, in favour of Sri N.R. Srinivasappa and S. Suresh, who, in turn offered conveyed by way of sale, to the petitioner for a valuable consideration under a sale deed dt. 11.4.2007 duly registered, whereupon the katha was transferred into the name of the petitioner. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the respondent-BDA executed a cancellation deed dt. 14.12.2007 Annexure-F, by cancelling the allotment of the site in question to the 3rd respondent on the premise that the 4th respondent-wife of the 3rd respondent applied for and also obtained allotment of another site, violating the prescription that more than one member of the family should not be allotted a site. According to the petitioner, though a show cause notice was issued nevertheless was not served on the 4th respondent, while the 3rd respondent though served with notice did not file a reply, following which the Commissioner of the BDA by order Annexure-G cancelled the allotment. Hence this writ petition to quash (i) the order dt. 16.11.2007 Annexure- G of the 1st respondent; (ii) the cancellation deed dt. 14.12.2007 Annexure-F; and (iii) to quash the allotment of the said site in favour of the 5th respondent.

(2.) Petition is not opposed by filing statement of objections since the objections filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 are returned by the registry for non-compliance.

(3.) In the undisputed facts supra, the question as to whether the order dated 16.11.2007 of the BDA canceling the allotment of site No. 3-C-998/3, Block-I, HRBR Layout. Bangalore, in favour of 3rd respondent in the year 1990, could be condemned on the ground of unreasonable delay in initiating action?