RANOJIRAO T K Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner joined the services of the Respondent -Department of Industries and Commerce as a Manager, on 1.7.1982 and is at present a Joint Director of Industries, Bidar. On 23.11.2001, the Petitioner having made an application for allotment of a site in a layout at Tumkur, formed by the Karnataka Housing Board (for short 'KHB') in response to a notification, was allotted Site No. 3, HIG. A.M. Palya, Tumkur Extension, Tumkur, measuring 23 mts. x 12 mts. on 22.1.2002, followed by execution of the sale deed dated 6.5.2003 Annexure-"C", conveying the site, for a valuable consideration of Rs. 1,94,656/-. Thereafterwards, on 20.12.2002 the Petitioner applied to the Bangalore Development Authority (for short 'BDA') for allotment of a site at Sir. M. Visweswaraiah Layout, Bangalore, whence, by allotment letter dated 7.4.2003 was allotted Site No. 558, measuring 24 x 15 mts, followed by execution of a sale deed dated 19.06.2004 Annexure-"E" conveying the property for a valuable consideration of Rs. 5,72,400/-. The Respondent - State Government issued a notice dated 25.08.2007 Annexure-"G" proposing to cancel the site on the premise that the Petitioner having secured allotment of a site at a subsidised rate from KHB, was disentitled to allotment of a site by BDA, in terms of the circular dated 29.10.2002 Annexure-"F". which the Petitioner did not respond. The BDA, by communication dated 19.02.2009 Annexure-"A", cancelled the allotment on the premise of violation of Rule 10(3) of the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 for short 'Allotment Rules of BDA'. Hence this writ petition.

(2.) Petition is opposed by filing Statement of objections of the 1st Respondent - BDA interalia contending that the sale deed Annexure-"C" of the Karnataka Housing Board conveying the site No. 3, HIG, AM Palya, Tumkur was at a subsidised rate and not the prevailing market value which when suppressed in the application to the BDA for allotment of a site, the Secretary, Department of Commerce and Industry having addressed a letter dated 12.07.2005 to the Petitioner to surrender one of the sites, when not responded, the Government of Karnataka issued a show cause notice dated 28.11.2007 Annexure-"R2", to which too, there was no reply. It is further contended that in terms of the circular dated 29.10.2002 prohibiting a Government servant or a member of his family from owning more than one site in any part of the State of Karnataka, the allotment of site by the BDA, being in contravention of the said circular, was accordingly cancelled. According to the BDA, Petitioner was extended a reasonable opportunity to show cause over the proposal to cancel the site and, therefore, can have no grievance.

(3.) Petition is also opposed by filing Statement of objections of the 2nd Respondent - State contending that the Petitioner while at Tumkur forwarded a requisition on 11.02.2002 for permission to purchase site bearing HIG No. 3 allotted by the KHB, to which the 2nd Respondent sought clarifications relating to Petitioner's assets, liabilities and savings, by letter dated 3.5.2002 which remained without a response. In the absence of permission sought for, the Petitioner purchased the said site from KHB and thereafter submitted the statement of assets and liabilities for the year 2001-2002 disclosing the acquisition of the said site. As regards the site allotted and purchased from the BDA, it is stated that the Petitioner did not seek prior permission of the competent authority but disclosed the same in the list of assets submitted for the year 2003-04 on 14.02.2005. According to the 2nd Respondent, as the 1st Petitioner is disentitled to own and possess two sites, contrary to the circulars dated 5.11.1989 & 29.10.2002, the Government addressed the letter dated 19.12.2008 to the 1st Respondent - BDA to cancel the site allotted to the Petitioner. In addition, it is stated that the department issued notices dated 26.07.2010 and 31.08.2010 to the Petitioner initiating a Departmental enquiry.