K VENKATESHWARALU Vs. COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in W.P. No.20506/2011 is assailing the endorsement dated 19.05.2011 which is impugned at Annexure-K to the petition. Further a direction is sought to be issued to the respondents to put the petitioner in actual physical possession of the site to which the petitioner had applied. The petitioner in W.P. No.26718/2012 while attacking the endorsement dated 25.11.2009 would seek for issue of mandamus to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of site No.35 formed in Sy. Nos.38/1 and 39/1 of Valageri Halli Village, Kengeri Satellite Town, Bangalore.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that they are allotted site Nos. 33 and 35 respectively by the then Town Municipal Council, Kengeri and notices in that regard was also issued for payment of the amount. Insofar as the petitioner in W.P. No.20506/2011 he had paid a sum of Rs.11,500/- as on 18.04.1992 as against the total amount of Rs.25,000/- which was payable. Insofar as the petitioner in W.P. No.26718/2012 an amount of Rs.11,000/- had been paid as on 16.07.1993 which included the initial deposit of the amount. However, subsequently since there was some change in the dispensation namely the Town Municipal Council area had come within the BBMP area, the petitioners contend that the present respondents herein are the authorities who were required to allot the sites in favour of the petitioners and execute the documents and put them in possession of the sites. However, the respondents have issued the endorsement as at Annexure-K to the petition in W.P. No. 20506/2011 intimating that the request as made by the petitioner for allotment of the site cannot be granted. Similar is the case in the connected petition, where the petitioner has been directed to receive back the amount which has already been paid and therefore the resultant effect is that the site would not be allotted them. In that circumstance, the petitioners are before this Court.

(3.) While seeking for the relief as prayed herein, the learned counsel for the petitioners would firstly rely on the order dated 05.07.2011 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.42/2011 to contend that in the said appeal, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court taking note of the order passed by the learned single Judge was of the view that if the 50% of the guidance value is paid, the same would be sufficient. Similarly, it is also contended that the single Judge in different petitions including this Court has passed orders more particularly in W.P. Nos.4816- 4818/2011 disposed of on 03.12.2012, whereby the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench was relied and appropriate directions were issued to allot the site and execute the sale deed.