G.S. ADILAKSHMI Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby he declined to issue any direction to BDA to execute a sale deed in respect of the property, which has fallen to the share of the appellant at a family partition. The subject-matter of this proceedings is site bearing No. 180 in Banashankari 3rd Stage, 3rd Phase, I Block, Bangalore, measuring 370.20 square meters. The petitioner's father-in-law G.V. Damodar Naidu purchased the said site in a public auction, sale agreement came to be executed on 23-2-1996 in his favour. He died on 15-3-2007. His son G.D. Sreedhar--husband of the petitioner also died on 10-10-2009. At a partition decree in O.S. No. 527 of 1998, dated 23-6-1998 between husband of the petitioner and his other family members, a portion of the aforesaid site has fallen to the share of the husband of the petitioner. The petitioner made an application to the BDA to execute the sale deed in respect of the said portion of the site. The said application came to be dismissed vide endorsement dated 21-10-2010, stating that it is impossible to grant a separate sale deed in respect of the residential property which is in the possession of the husband. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to execute the sale deed.

(2.) The learned Single Judge relying on sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 of Bangalore Development Authority (Disposal of Corner Sites, Intermediate Sites, Commercial Sites and Other Auctionable Sites) Rules, 1984, which provides that the site which has been designed and auctioned as a unit shall not be allowed to be split up into two or more sites without obtaining the previous approval of the Authority, held in, the absence of any approval being obtained by the petitioner from the authorities she is not eligible to get a sale deed in respect of the portion of the property. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned order contends that it is not a case of splitting up of a site, it is a case where at a family partition a portion of the site has been allotted to the petitioner and as the BDA has yet to execute the sale deed in respect of the site, which was the subject-matter of auction purchase, she made a request and she is entitled to a sale deed.