D. VENKATESH GUPTHA S/O LATE D.C. REDDAPPA SETTY Vs. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND SMT. J.P. SHANTHA W/O LATE B. SRINIVASAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER 's vendor in title by name B. Sri Nivasamurthy was allotted site No. 21 Old No. 1539, 39th 'E' Cross, 24th Main, 4th 'T' Block, Jayanagar, measuring East West 36 feet and North South 58 feet, by communication dt. 30/31.1.1968 followed by execution of lease cum -sale agreement dt. 10.2.1969 by the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board (CITB) and delivery of possession under possession memo dated 17.4.1969. The Bangalore Development Authority, for short BDA, the successor of CITB executed an absolute sale deed dt. 4.3.2002 conveying the said property in favour of the Petitioner's vendor, registered in the office of the jurisdictional Sub -Registrar and katha made out in his name by the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. The Petitioner purchased the immovable property for a valuable consideration under a sale deed dt. 4.12.2008 Annexure -A executed by the Petitioner's vendor in title and thereafter has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. The Petitioner on receipt of the letter dt 18.11.2009 Annexure -D of the Respondent -BDA, addressed to the Petitioner's vendor in title, informing that the allotment of site in question was cancelled since wife of the Petitioner's vendor in title was also allotted yet another site No. 317, Koramangala and hence disentitled to the allotment of the site, has presented this writ petition.

(2.) PETITION is opposed by filing statement of objections dt. 26.10.2010 inter alia contending that B. Sri nivasamurthy was allotted a site by CITB and a sale deed was executed in his name and when the BDA came to know that the allottee's wife was also allotted a site at Koramangala layout and conveyed under a sale deed executed on 15.2.2002, in violation of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of sites) Rules, 1984, for short 'BDA Rules' when brought to the notice of the Authority, the Board by its order dt. 18.11.2009 resolved to cancel the site allotted in favour of B. Sri nivasamurthy. According to the BDA, allottee having furnished false information, in terms of Rule 13(10) of the 'BDA Rules', the authority is empowered to cancel the allotment as and when it conies to its knowledge about the suppression of facts. The BDA asserts that the title of the vendor of the Petitioner was shaky and the Petitioner's vendor having secured the allotment by misleading the authorities, the Petitioner cannot claim a valid title.

(3.) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order dt. 18.11.2009 Annexure -D of the Respondent -BDA cancelling the allotment of the petition schedule property is quashed. It is needless to state that if the wife of the Petitioner's vendor in title suppressed material facts in the application for allotment of site followed by allotment of site No. 317 of Koaramangala, it is open for the BDA to take action as is permissible in law.