L GOWRAMMA Vs. CHAIRMAN CITY IMPROVEMENT TRUST BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Bangalore City Improvement Trust Board (hereinafter referred to as the Trust Board) formed a lay-out called "The West of Chord Road, II Stage Lay-out" in Rajajinagar, Bangalore. The Trust Board called for applications from persons intending to obtain sites therein. The petitioner as well as respondent-2 had applied for site No.1251. That site was allotted to respondent-2.

(2.) In this petition under Art 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the allotment of that site to respondent-2 She has also prayed for a mandamus directing the Chairman of the Trust Board (Respondent-1) to allot that site to her.

(3.) Mr. M.C.Narasimhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that in allotting that site the petitioner should have been preferred to respondent-2, because she (the petitioner) had purchased a site from a private person under a registered sale deed dated 21-11-1958 and that the site had been subsequently acquired by the Trust Board. Sub-rule(1) of Rule 10 of the City of Bangalore Improvement (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) sets out four prnciples to which regard should be had in making selection of applicants and fixing the priority for allotment of sites. Clause(i) of that sub-rule reads: "(i) applicants whose lands or houses have been acquired by the Board provided they are otherwise qualified for allotment. The site purchased by the petitioner from a private person, was situate in Survey No.171/13 of Kethamaranahalli, which was one of the several Survey numbers acquired for an improvement scheme of the Trust' Board under the final notification dated 18-11-1967 issued under S.18 of the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) Admittedly the petitioner's purchase of that site, was not only subsequent to that final notification but also subsequent to the preliminary notification dated 3-2-1964 under Sec.16 of the Act which preceded that final notification Mr. Vasanth Ron, learned Counsel for the Trust Board, contended that a person who purchases from a private person a land or a site after the issue of a preliminary notification under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act or S.16 of the Act proposing to acquire that land, cannot be said to be a bonafide purchaser and cannot claim any special consideration or priority under clause(i) of Rule 10(1) of the Rules Mr. Ron added that the petitioner who purchased the site after the final notification was fssued, could not claim any benefit under clause(i) of Rule 10(1).