PAVAN AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the third round of litigation between the parties in the matter of fixation of price of marginal land which was allotted by the respondent to the petitioner. W.P. No. 8916 of 2006 filed questioning the direction to pay the amount at the rate of Rs. 30,197/- per sq. mtr., on an average auction rate prevailing in the area in question, in all amounting to Rs. 46,38,863/-, was allowed on 15-11-2007 and the BDA was directed to reconsider the matter in terms of proviso (a) to Rule 5 of the Bangalore Development Authority (Disposal of Comer Sites and Commercial Sites) Rules, 1984, BDA having passed a resolution dated 8-5-2009, sent a notice dated 22-5-2009 and informed the petitioner to remit Rs. 39,21,891/-, for conveying of the marginal land situated adjacent to the property held by him. Contending that the said demand is not in conformity with the order passed on 15-11-2007 in W.P. No. 8916 of 2006 and W.P. No. 18554 of 2009 was filed. After consideration of the rival contentions, by an order dated 16-1-2012, BDA was directed to reconsider the matter in terms of the direction issued in the order passed on 15-11-2007 in W.P. No. 8916 of 2006. Three months time was granted for compliance. No action having been taken by the BDA, this writ petition was filed on 11-1-2013, to direct the BDA to issue possession certificate in respect of the said land by treating the payment of cost of allotment in terms of endorsement dated 16-9-2008 and the payment made on 17-9-2008 as per Annexures-F and G as sufficient and extend the benefit of the decision reported in the case of Bhaskara Reddy v. Bangalore Development Authority, Bengalooru and Another, 2009 6 KarLJ 670. After filing of the writ petition, a decision having been taken to collect Rs. 44,06,897/- from the petitioner, an intimation dated 18-7-2013, copy of which has been produced at Annexure-R1, was dispatched by the respondent and statement of objections was filed to the writ petition.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel on both sides and perused the writ record.

(3.) Sri V. Lakshminarayana, learned Advocate for the petitioner vehemently contended that BDA has generated endless litigation on the petitioner. He submitted that no action was taken pursuant to the order dated 16-1-2012 passed in W.P. No. 18554 of 2009 within the period stipulated therein. He submitted that the decision taken on 18-7-2013, after filing of this petition vide Annexure-R1 is contrary to the orders passed in the earlier two rounds of litigation and thus there is arbitrary and contumacious act on the part of respondent 2 and that this is a fit case to mould the relief, to end further litigation in the matter.