USHA RANI Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus directing the respondent to execute the title deeds in respect of the alternate site bearing No. 1265 measuring 30ft X 40ft situate at Block -5G, 5th Stage, 8th and 9th Phase, J.P. Nagar; Bangalore., in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondent to consider the representation dated 04.09.2012. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the brother of the petitioner Sri B.R. Raghavendra had purchased a site under a sale deed dated 21.10.1992. The said site was indicated as Grama Thana site bearing katha No. 233/248 situate at Nuglipalya village, Yeshwantpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The place wherein the site was situate, has been acquired by the respondent -BDA for formation of Visheswaraiah layout. In respect of the earlier site purchasers, a scheme was evolved for the purpose of allotting alternate sites. It is in that context the sister of the petitioner is stated to have made an application seeking that a site be allotted in the name of Sri B.R. Raghavendra. Considering the said application, the allotment letter dated 15.11.2010 was issued by the respondent indicating that the site No. 1258 has been allotted. Subsequent thereto, the sister Smt. Geeta Devi also expired and as such the petitioner herein who claims to be the only other surviving sister of Sri B.R. Raghavendra made an application seeking that site be transferred to her and the documentation be completed. The respondents by their note No. 43 to Annexure -F have indicated that since the said Sri B.R. Raghavendra had expired on 26.12.1992 itself, the petitioner could not have made the application and therefore, the claim made by the petitioner for allotment of site cannot be accepted. It is in that circumstance, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) HAVING noticed the rival contentions and also having taken into consideration that the application in fact had been made in the name of Sri B.R. Raghavendra, the question that would still arise for consideration is as to whether the petitioner should be denied the relief only due to that. In this regard, as already noticed, it is seen that earlier the Grama Thana site had been purchased by the brother of the petitioner under a document dated 21.10.1992. Notwithstanding the fact that acquisition had taken place, any right accruing in respect of the suit property would have been derived by the Sisters of the deceased B.R. Raghavendra as they have succeeded to that property. If not the alternate site they were entitled to seek compensation when it was acquired. All right would not have extinguished on his death. In such situation, when they had acquired right in respect of the site which had been purchased by their deceased brother, they were entitled to make an application seeking for alternate site. In such circumstance, when they had a right to apply as successors, merely because they have submitted the application in the name of Sri B.R. Raghavendra, that alone in my opinion should not disentitle the petitioner for the relief.