KANCHANDEVI SIPANI Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SMT P.M. PUSHPA W/O P.M. SUBBAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein claims to have been allotted a stray site bearing No. 862/D, Koramangala III Block Bangalore on 14.12.1982. It is the claim of the appellant, that despite having deposited the entire consideration for the aforesaid site (Rs. 24,500/ -), she has been deprived of an allotment letter.

(2.) INSOFAR as the issue of allotment of the site referred to in the foregoing paragraph is concerned, the appellant, in the first instance, approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 4207/1984. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of, by an order dated 07.01.1991. The operative part of the aforesaid order is being extracted hereunder: 6. After hearing both sides, I am of the view that this writ petition has to be dismissed for the following reasons, viz., (1) that merely the allotment was made by the Chairman of the B.D.A. that does not conclude the contract between the B.D.A. and the allottee; (ii) that the contract can be concluded only when the allottee is put in possession of the site in question after executing necessary lease deeds; (iii) that nowhere under the Act the Chairman is empowered to make an allotment and when such an allotment came to the notice of the Government, it stayed the same by exercising its superintendent power and therefore, the petitioner cannot say that the same shall be quashed. If she is aggrieved, she can approach the Government with a request to vacate the stay order; (iv) that merely because the Lok Ayuktha has stated that no fraud has been committed in making such an allotment, that is not a matter to be considered since that issue has not been called upon to be decided in this writ petition; that (v) if the petitioner has again deposited the amount on 20.12.1983 the same has been accepted by the B.D.A. it gives altogether a different cause of action; (vi) that if the petitioner feels that the B.D.A. in view of its conduct, is liable to allot a site, she is at liberty even now to approach the B.D.A. with necessary application for allotting another site; (vii) that, if the petitioner feels that the Government has stayed the allotment under a mistaken belief that she is not a resident of Bangalore, even now she is at liberty to approach the Government and file necessary application for vacating the stay and (viii) that if the Government feel that she is a resident of Bangalore and further that is has got power to direct the B.D.A. to allot a site, it can do as well. If the E.D.A. has again received the amount in respect of the same site, it is for the petitioner to make an attempt to get the same site allotted by the B.D.A. and on its failure, she can approach this Court for proper relief. 7. For the reasons stated above and the observations made above, this writ petition is disposed of. All other contentions are left open. No costs.

(3.) SRI . Nazeer, learned Counsel for B.D.A. stated that for several reasons, B.D.A. has not been able to consider and dispose of the application of the petitioner. The first is that the State Government had stayed the allotment and thereafter the stay was not vacated and Annexure 'D' cannot be considered as vacation of the stay as domicile. The second ground given by him is that B.D.A. subsequently learnt that petitioner was the purchaser of site No. 862/E in Koramangala Layout having purchased it in an auction of sites held by B.D.A. and if a person (or any member of his family) is already owning a site or house in Bangalore, such a person is not entitled for allotment of site and, therefore, the B.D.A. has referred the matter to its Vigilance Cell to verify whether the persons who purchased site 862 -E and the petitioner is one and the same. He stated that though there was some delay in the matter, the B.D.A. will now examine all these matters and decide the petitioners application within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, this Court decided not to express any firm opinion while disposing of W.P. No. 23498/1995, leaving it open to the appellant to make a further representation to the Bangalore Development Authority on the issue as to whether or not the allotment of the stray site claimed by the appellant was barred on account of the purchase of another site, i.e., site No. 862 -E, III Block Koramangala, Bangalore. It would be pertinent to mention, that all issues raised, in spite of disposal of the said writ petition on 18.03.1997, were permitted to be kept open.