MOHAMMED NAZARULLA TIPPU Vs. COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 04.06.2004 impugned at Annexure -D to the petition. The petitioner is also seeking consideration of the applications at Annexures -F and L. The petitioner who belongs to backward class had applied for allotment of a site measuring 30'x40'. On consideration of the application, a site bearing No. 376, V Block, Sir M Vishweshwaraiah Layout, Bangalore was allotted in favour of the petitioner. The allotment price of Rs. 1,71,700/ - was required to be deposited after deducting the initial deposit of Rs. 21,500/ -. The balance amount of Rs. 1,50,500/ - which was to be deposited by the petitioner is stated to have been deposited subsequently. Prior to the deposit of the balance amount the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled on 04.06.2004. It is in that regard, the petitioner has made representation seeking consideration of the case of the petitioner permitting him to pay the interest as provided. Further the benefit of the circulars at Annexures -J and K to the petition was also sought by the petitioner. Since the request of the petitioner was not considered, the petitioner is before this Court.

(2.) THE respondents have filed their objection statement justifying their action. It is contended that the amount was paid only after cancellation order was passed. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any benefit in the instant case. It is also their case that on the allotment being cancelled, the same site bearing No. 376 to which the petitioner is claiming has already been allotted in favour of Smt. C.K. Lucy and possession has been granted to her. Hence, it is contended that the request of the petitioner which is made after a long delay cannot be considered. In the light of the rival contentions, the fact that the petitioner was allotted a site and the payment in respect of the same was to be made in the manner provided and also that the petitioner had deposited the amount subsequent to the cancellation order said to have been passed by the respondent is evident from the records. However, what is required to be noticed is that the time frame that was available and the cancellation that was made prior to the same. In that regard, the petitioner in any event would be entitled to the benefit of the circulars which are produced at Annexures -J and K. In fact, the said question had arisen for consideration before this Court in W.P. Nos. 19093/2012 disposed of on 06.06.2013, W.P. No. 14304/2013 disposed of on 06.06.2013 as also W.P. No. 15645/2013 disposed of on 06.08.2013. Since in the said petitions similar questions had been considered and this Court had directed that the representation of the petitioner be considered and also keeping in view the fact that though in the instant case the respondent has produced material to show that the site in question has already been allotted to third parties, but in view of the circular providing for allotment of alternate site, the case of the petitioner would have to be considered in that regard. Accordingly, though the order of cancellation dated 04.06.2004 is quashed, in view of the same site not being available the benefit of allotment of the same site would not be available to the petitioner. However, the respondent may identify a site of similar dimension in any of the other layouts subject to the petitioner depositing the interest, which is required to be paid in accordance with law. On the interest being calculated and deposited, the respondent shall consider the representation of the petitioner in the manner as indicated above and thereafter, complete the transaction by allotting an alternate site and executing the documents in that regard. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.