NAL LAYOUT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioners, who are an association of residents and a house building co-operative society have assailed the allotment of school and playground area in the lay out formed by National Aero Space Laboratories Employees House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., i.e., the second petitioner herein in Sy.Nos.50, 51 and 52 of Tavarekere Village of Bangalore South Taluk (Annexure-E) and they have sought a further direction to the respondents to remove the illegal construction being put up by the second respondent by amendment of the writ petition. The petitioners have also sought for handing over the physical possession of the said site (CA site) which has been allotted by the first respondent-authority and a direction is sought to the first respondent-society to maintain the Civic Amenity Site after taking possession of the same from the second respondent by demolishing the construction put up by the second respondent.

(2.) The petitioners have contended that the second respondent-co-operative society after purchase of various parcels of land has formed the layout which is now part of BTM Extension, after obtaining necessary sanctions and approval from the first respondent authorities as well as from the other authorities. After the formation of the layout, in terms of the conditions of the sanctioned plan, the second respondent relinquished certain areas to the first respondent-authority by a relinquishment deed dated 11.9.1996, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-D. It also contains the layout plan showing the CA site, which is surrendered to the first respondent-authority and which is marked in red colour borderline. The said area is demarcated as school and playground area. When the matter stood thus, the members of the first and second respondent bodies found that there was construction coming up on the said area which has been relinquished by the second petitioner. On making enquiries, they realised that a portion of the area has been allotted to the second respondent. The petitioners, thereafter obtained copies of the allotment order made to the second respondent by the first respondent and have also produced photographs and other documents which are annexed to the writ petition.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the allotment made in favour of the second respondent is not in accordance with the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'') and the relevant Rules. It is also contended that the allotment is contrary to the Karnataka Parks, Play-Fields and Open Spaces (Preservation and Regulation) Act, 1985, the petitioners have also contended that, had they known about the impugned allotment, they would have also sought for allotment in their favour so that the petitioners could have utilised the said area for the object for which the said area has been earmarked. Under the circumstances, the petitioners have assailed the allotment made by the first respondent-authority in favour of the second respondent-authority and have sought various other incidental reliefs referred to above.