L SAROJA Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for a writ to declare that sub-rule (9) of Rule 13 of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules')insofar as the same relates to forfeiture of sital value which was deposited by the petitioner as ultra vires of the Constitution of India and to strike down the same and further for a direction to the first respondent-BDA to refund the entire sital value recovered from her for the cancelled allotment along with interest at 8% per annum from the date of receipt till the date of repayment.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner, an elderly lady, had applied for allotment of a site in response to a notification issued by the first respondent. On her application dated 29-8-1997, a site bearing No. 341 situated at II Block, 8th Phase, J. P. Nagar was directed to be allotted to her on a sale price of Rs. 2,90,000/-, that thereafter the petitioner as required got sworn to an affidavit dated 22-9-1997 as per Annexure-E produced along with the writ petition and also made an initial deposit of rs. 6,885. 00 and thereafter paid rest of the amount and thus altogether i he petitioner has paid a total sum of Rs. 3,04,642. 00.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the allotted site was not given possession to the petitioner at any time. The petitioner received a show-cause notice dated 11-11-1999 and 18-10-2000 as per Annexures-G and H produced along with the writ petition calling upon the petitioner to show cause why action in accordance with law should not be taken against her for not disclosing the fact that her husband owned a site at the time when the petitioner submitted the application for allotment of the site. The petitioner gave a reply to the said notice. She has stated that it was never her intention to mislead or make false statement while applying for the site. That thereafter, the first respondent by its letter dated 10-4-2000 as per Annexure-J informed the petitioner that it has cancelled the site allotted to her. It is also pertinent to note that in the order Annexure-J except stating that the site allotted has been cancelled, the first respondent did not direct imposing of any penalty on the petitioner.