S NARASIMHAIAH Vs. COMMISSIONER B D A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal has been presented against the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Peti- tion No. 7440 of 1985 dismissing the writ petition presented by the appellant in which he had chal- lenged the legality of the order of the Bangalore Development Authority, permitting the second respondent-society to form 10 additional sites in an area which had been reserved for civic amenities in a private lay-out.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are these: The second respondent is a House Building Co- operative Society. For the purpose of formation of a lay-out and distributing sites among its mem- bers, the society had purchased 25 acres of land in Kempapura Agrahara. The society had sought the approval of the Bangalore Develop- ment Authority to the lay-out. It was approved by the B.D.A. in its order dated 7-1-1976. An agreement has also been entered into between the society and the Bangalore Development Authority under which the society was required to pay lay-out charges to the Board. In the lay- out so approved by the B.D.A, a few areas were reserved for civic amenities, one of them, was marked as site No. 19. The society desired to modify the lay-out by forming 10 small houses sites, out of site No. 19 reserved for civic amenity so as to enable the society to realise the money which it required for paying the balance of the lay-out charges to the B.D.A. As in view of Sec- tion 32 of the Act, the society could do so only with the previous approval of the B.D.A, the society made an application to the B.D.A. seek- ing permission for modifying the lay-out by way of forming 10 sites out of the area marked as site No. 19. After the application was processed, as directed by the Commissioner of the B.D.A, a note was put up, which reads:

(3.) In the writ petition, it was contended by the appellant that the conversion of the site reserved for civic amenity into house sites was illegal. It was contended by the B.D.A. and the second respondent-Society that it was competent for the B.D.A. to accord permission for modify- ing the scheme and to allow conversion of a civic amenity site into house sites for good reasons and in the present case it had been done so as it was considered expedient and it was done in accord- ance with law. It was also contended that the writ petition presented by the appellant was not bonafide as it had been filed only, for the reason that he had personal grouse against the manage- ment of the society. Both the contentions were accepted by the learned Judge and the writ peti- tion was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has presented this appeal.