MIR IQBAL HUSSAIN S Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st petitioner is the owner ofresidential site bearing No. 63 in Jaladar-shini Coloxny having purchased the samefrom Bharat Electronics EmployeesCooperative House Building Society Limitedunder a sale deed vide Annexure-A. Thepetitioner was put in possession on11-10-1974 by Possession Certificate videAnnexure-B and thereafter he has been incontinuous possession and enjoyment ofthe site. A copy of the lay-out planrelating to the vast extent of land in whichsites were formed by the aforesaid Societyis Annexure C. Petitioners-2 and 3 enteredinto an agreement on 3-2-1988 with the1st petitioner for purchase of the sameresidential site bearing No. 63. It isstated that petitioners-2 and 3 havealready advanced a substantial amountof money towards consideration of thesale agreement. The agreement of salestipulated that the sale shall be completedwithin a period of six months. Thegrievance of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners isthat the respondent B.D.A. has interferedwith the said property without acquiringthe site and have formed storm waterdrain on the site as a result of which thesite is rendered useless from the pointof view of construction of a residentialbuilding on it. Petitioner-2 and 3 filedan application for being impleaded andthe same was allowed and they have joinedhands with the 1st petitioner since all the3 petitioners are affected by the impugnedaction of the B.D.A. Petitioners-2 and 3are worse affected since they have beenput in possession of the site by the 1stpetitioner following the execution of anagreement of sale. It is stated in the writpetition that since the request of thepetitioners to the officials of the B.D.A. wasin vain, they were constrained to approachthis Court by filing the writ petition.

(2.) It is contended on behalf of thepetitioners that the digging of the site inquestion is illegal and arbitrary and theB.D.A. had no authority of law to causethe digging of the site and that there is a contravention of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that the B.D.A. did not even inform the petitioners of the intention of digging a storm water drain across the site before doing so. In the process, the aggrieved petitioners did not have an opportunity of bargaining for an alternative site of similar dimension with the B.D.A.

(3.) In the statement of objections filed on behalf of the B.D.A., it is stated that the respondent notified the Society which allotted the site in question, regarding the construction of a storm water drain and that the Society gave its consent for the construction. But it is admitted that the respondent has utilised a portion of the site bearing No. 63 for the construction of the storm water drain and that the respondent is willing to provide an equal extent of the land in the adjacent civic amenity site. It is also Contended that the B.D.A. has not released the site in favour of the Society and, therefore, the question of issuing a notice to the petitioners does not arise.