OSCAR P MASCARENHAS Vs. COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIG. L.A.P. Kamath @ BRIG. L.A.P. Sequeira was allotted site No. 342 situated at Koramangala 1st stage (1st Block), Koramangala extension, Bangalore-34 measuring 5328 sq.ft. The description of the site in favour of BRIG. Kamath @ Sequeira is found in the schedule attached to the writ petition. A sale deed dated 30th May 1973 came to be executed in favour of Kamath pertaining to the aforementioned site as per Annexure-M. Subsequently, the petitioner purchased the aforementioned site from BRIG. Kamath Sequeira through registered sale deed Annexure-D dated 14.8.1984. Since then, the petitioner is in possession of the property and the revenue records are changed in his favour. Despite such settled position, first respondent allotted the very site in favour of 2nd respondent herein and executed sale deed also in his favour on 11.4.2011. It is needless to observe that the petitioner did not know about such transaction between the BDA and respondent No.2. It seems, during the pendency of this writ petition, respondent No.2 has inturn sold the very site in favour of respondent No.4 Smt Paravathamma Since the subsequent allotment as well as sale deed executed in favour of 2 respondent pertaining to the site in question is illegal and arbitrary, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for the following reliefs:

(2.) OF-late, this Court has been finding that BDA is not performing its functions as a State. It neither allots the sites to the genuine applicants nor allows the genuine allottees/ purchasers to live peacefully. This case is again one such example of highly atrocious attitude of BDA. The site in question was allotted in favour of Brig. LA.P. Kamath way back in the year 1978 and registered sale deed is executed in his favour, Khatha was changed in favour of the original allottee. The petitioner purchased the very site as back as on 14.8.1984 through registered sale deed. Pursuant to the sale deed revenue entries are changed in favour of the petitioner. Inspite of the same, BDA has chosen to allot the very site owned by petitioner in favour of respondent No.2, who in-turn sold the very site in favour of respondent No.4. The action of 1st respondent in making second allotment in respect of the site in question is illegal and arbitrary. By such acts of BDA, innocent people are suffering without any fault of them. This Court is flooded with only such writ petitions because of illegal orders of respondent No. 1. Though respondent No.1 is manned by number of Senior OFficers having legal knowledge, illegal orders are being passed.

(3.) IN view of the same, the following order is made: It is declared that the allotment of site bearing No.342 situated at Koramangala 1st at Stage (1st Block) Koramangala extension, Bangalore-34 measuring 5328 sq.ft in toto made in favour of 2nd respondent is illegal and hence the same shall not be acted upon, consequently, sale deed executed by 2nd respondent in favour of 4th respondent will not affect the petitioner's ownership over the site in question. Copy of this order shall be sent to the Commissioner Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore personally for his information.