SANTOSH DEVI KHETAN AND OTHERS Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA KRUPA ROAD, BANGALORE REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitions coming on for preliminary hearing 'B' group is considered for final disposal. It is the case of the petitioners that they had purchased revenue sites appurtenant to Sonnenahally village, Kengeri hobli, Bangalore South Taluk in various parcels of land and such purchases were said to be prior to the acquisition proceedings that were initiated by respondent - BDA of the properties of the petitioners apart from other lands for the formation of Sir M. Visweswaraiah Layout. The same having been challenged before this Court in the case of Junjamma and Others Vs. BDA reported in ILR 2005 KAR 608 , this Court had directed that the petitioners therein had purchased the lands prior to the acquisition proceedings being initiated and hence, they should be allotted alternative sites. Accordingly, the petitioners and others similarly placed as them had approached this Court by way of series of Writ Petitions all of which were disposed of, directing the respondent - BDA to consider their case for allotment of alternative sites, if they were so eligible. It is the case of the petitioners that though the respondent had proceeded to allot sites to various persons as indicated in the statement annexed to the petition at Annexure -E, the names of the petitioners were significantly missing from the list and therefore, the petitioners having approached the BDA, having been negated from being eligible to any such allotment, the petitioners are before this Court.

(2.) THE respondent - BDA has filed statement of objections denying the petition averments and denying that the petitioners herein have made applications that they are eligible for allotment of alternative sites. In the face of copies of application and in the light of the earlier orders in favour of the petitioners, it is for the BDA to cross check the bona fides of the petitioners and if they are found to be eligible for allotment of alternative sites, it would be for the BDA to allot alternative site. Therefore, the denial by the BDA on the bona fides of the petitioners notwithstanding the earlier proceedings and copies of applications having been filed by them would seem to be a bald denial without reference to the said material. Therefore, the BDA would be obliged to process the same expeditiously and in any event, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. Accordingly, the petitions stand disposed off.