R. NAGARAJU Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was allotted site bearing No. 274, situated at 8th Block Further Extension of Sir M. Visweswaraiah Layout, measuring 6 x 9 mtrs. (approximately 20' x 30') under Economically Weaker Section Category as per the allotment letter dated 6.2.2004. The petitioner was to pay the balance of sital value of Rs. 49,900/ -. The petitioner has paid the entire balance of sital value of Rs. 49,900/ - on 2.4.2004 itself as is clear from Annexure -B to the writ petition. Such payment by the petitioner is also not disputed fairly by Smt. Vijaya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent -BDA. Even a draft sale deed came to be issued in favour of the petitioner as per Annexures -C and D. However, the sale deed was not executed in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not signed the application filed by him praying for allotment of site. A show -cause notice came to be issued by the BDA to the petitioner to show cause as to why the allotment of site should not be cancelled. However, the petitioner did not file his reply to the show -cause notice and ultimately, the impugned order came to be passed as per Annexure -E, dated 27.1.2006, cancelling the order of allotment made in favour of the petitioner. It is no doubt true that the petitioner had not signed the application filed by him originally for allotment of site in his favour. But such a lapse on the part of the petitioner seems to have been condoned by the respondent -BDA, inasmuch as it has not raised any objection at the time of allotment of site in his favour. As aforementioned the allotment of site is made in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner has paid entire sital value within the prescribed time as far back as in the year 2004. After lapse of two years, the allotment came to be cancelled on the ground that the petitioner had not signed the application filed by him praying for allotment of site.

(2.) THOUGH technically, respondent may be justified in contending that the petitioner has not signed the application for allotment, but the same cannot be the ground to reject the prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition. As aforementioned, the respondent -BDA has condoned the lapse on the part of the petitioner in not signing the application by allotting the site and accepting the sital value paid by the petitioner. Thus, the technical defect, if any, committed by the petitioner is condoned by the respondent -BDA. Therefore, it is not open subsequently for the respondent -BDA to take 'U' turn and to pass an order of cancellation of allotment site. However, this Court hastens to add that the petitioner has to be imposed with costs as he is at fault in not approaching this Court within a reasonable time. The impugned order is passed in the year 2006 and this writ petition is filed in the year 2013. In the normal course, this Court would have dismissed on the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner comes under economically weaker section category, I propose to take a lenient view by imposing cost on the petitioner. Accordingly, the following order is made: - Impugned order dated 27.1.2006 stands set aside, subject to deposit of costs of Rs. 20,000/ -(Rupees twenty thousand only) with BDA, within six weeks from today. In case if costs are deposited within six weeks from today with the BDA by the petitioner as aforementioned, the respondent -BDA shall proceed to execute the necessary documents in respect of the site in question. It is made clear that if the site in question is re -allotted in favour of third parties, the petitioner shall be allotted another site of equal dimension in any other layouts subsequently formed by the BDA without insisting the petitioner to pay higher price. Petition is allowed accordingly.