BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner-Bangalore Development Authority has challenged the order dt. 21-11-2006 passed by the first respondent and has sought a declaration that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have no authority to put trie C.A. site measuring 52x80 mtrs. situated at Gayatridevi Park Extension, Bangalore, for public auction and other incidental reliefs.

(2.) It is the case of the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as BDA that it is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the C.A. site measuring 52x80 mtrs. (4,160 sq. mtrs.) situated at Gayatridevi Park Extension Layout and that the said C.A. site is formed in Sy. No. 2 of the Rajamahal Village which was acquired by way of agreement as per section 26 of the City Improvement Act, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as 1945 Act) for formation of Gayatridevi Extension Layout and has been reserved as civic amenity site in the improvement scheme adopted under the said Act. The said Act was repealed by virtue of section 76 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as BDA Act) and the scheme prepared under the repealed enactment is deemed to have been prepared under the new enactment. It is the further case of the petitioner that vast extents of land in Sy. No. 2 of Rajamahal Village was acquired by the City Improvement Trust Board (CITB) i.e., the land measuring 18 acres 10 guntas was handed over by the father of fthe third respondent to the junior engineer, CITB, which is evident from the letter dt. 22, 23-8-1966. The C.A. site measuring 52x80 8mtr. forms an integral part of 18 acres 10 guntas of land described in the letter dt. 22,23-8-1966. That the land was handed over to CITB and was acknowledged by a sketch drawn on 9-8-1965. In the comprehensive development plan of CITB the said C.A. site has been earmarked for a pubic park. When the matter stood thus, the second respondent issued a public notice on 22-3-1993 in Kannada daily newspaper "Praavanr on 26-3-1993 stating that the said C.A. site would be auctioned in a public auction to be held on 29-3-1993 at 11 a.m. Being aggrieved by the said public notice, the petitioner filed Writ Petn. No. 8753 of 1993 before this court. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dt. 16-2-2000, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file objections, if any, along with documents to prove its title and directed the respondent authorities to consider the objections of the petitioner herein after affording an opportunity of hearing and then take appropriate action in the matter. Till such decision was taken, the respondent authorities were directed not to dispose of the property in any manner. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 13-4-2000 which was considered along with the reply filed by respondent No. 3 on 14-8-2000. The petitioner also filed additional objections and submitted additional documents and filed written arguments to show that respondent No. 3 had no manner of right, title and interest in the C.A. site in question.

(3.) After hearing the petitioner and the third respondent and after considering the spot inspection, the first respondent overruled the objections filed by the petitioner and passed an order dt. 21-11-2006 which is marked as Annex. L to the writ petition. The said order is in challenge in this writ petition.