VENKATESH NAIDU Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner claims to have acquired right, title and interest in Site No. 519, BTM II Stage, I Phase measuring 30' x 40'; allotted to the 2nd Respondent, by the 1st Respondent- Bangalore Development Authority, (for short 'BDA') under an agreement of sale dated 10.04.2001 Annexure-"C" and a General Power of Attorney dated 10.04.2001 Annexure-"D" allegedly executed by the 2nd Respondent. It is the assertion of the Petitioner that acting on the terms of the agreement to sell and the Power of Attorney, the site was conveyed by way of sale to one B. Viswha Kumar, for a valuable consideration, by executing an absolute sale deed dated 8.8.2006. There having arisen certain disputes between the Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent, the purchaser is said to have reconveyed the property to the Petitioner under an absolute sale deed dated 1.4.2009 for a higher sale price. As things stood thus, the Petitioner is said to have addressed a communication dated 7.10.2009 Annexure-"H" to the 1st Respondent - Bangalore Development Authority informing the authority of the transactions between himself and the 2nd Respondent over the property in question and to forbear from executing any documents without notice to him. The BDA, acting on the said communication, is said to have referred the matter to the Superintendent of Police, Special Task Force (STF) attached to the BDA and issued an endorsement dated 'nil' Annexure-"J" stating that further action would be taken after receipt of the report from the Superintendent of Police, Special Task Force. Thereafterwards, by yet another letter dated 2.11.2009 Annexure-"K", the Petitioner called upon the 1st Respondent - BDA to execute a sale deed conveying the property in question in favour of the Petitioner while willing to pay the charges and fees, which when not responded, led to issue of a notice dated 30.11.2009 Annexure-"L" through legal counsel reiterating the very same demand, failing which threat of legal action. There being no response, the Petitioner has preferred this petition for a mandamus directing the 1st Respondent - BDA to act on the representations Annexures "H", "L" and "M".

(2.) Petition is opposed by filing Statement of objections dated 18.02.2010 of the 1st Respondent interalia contending that in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease-cum-sale agreement entered into between itself and the 2nd Respondent - allottee, permission was accorded to create a mortgage of the property to secure a loan to put up construction of a residential building and it has neither terminated the lease-cum-sale agreement nor executed an absolute sale deed conveying the property allotted to the 2nd Respondent. It is further stated that the BDA unaware of the execution of the alleged agreement to sell and the General Power of Attorney in respect of the property in question, called upon the 2nd Respondent to have her say over the complaint which was responded to by letter dated 2.11.2009 denying the execution of the documents. The Petitioner's representation, was referred to the Superintendent of Police (STF) whence the Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent gave their respective statements, having appeared in person. It is farther stated that the execution of the sale deed conveying the site in question by the Petitioner in favour of third parties is not a fetter on its rights over the property in question. Lastly it is contended that the BDA not invested with a jurisdiction to adjudicate upon either the genuineness of the documents or the rights flowing thereunder as claimed by the Petitioner is incompetent to decide the dispute between the parties.

(3.) The petition is also opposed by filing Statement of objections dated 1.9.2010 of the 2nd Respondent interalia denying the execution of the documents in favour of the Petitioner, but at Paragraph 10 contends that the Petitioner took undue advantage of her helplessness and innocence by obtaining her signatures on blank papers assuring the eviction of the lessee from the schedule premises while however reserving her right to file appropriate legal proceedings. Lastly it is contended that the BDA has no jurisdiction to resolve the alleged controversy between herself and the Petitioner over the property in question.