A.N. VISWESWARAIAH Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has purchased a site bearing No. 8, 5th Main, 5th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore -41 from one G.V. Ganapathy under a registered sale deed dated 30th March, 1992. According to him, after obtaining the plan and the licence put up a building measuring 30 squares in the year 1995. It is also his case that the then City Improvement Trust Board - the Bangalore Development Authority has allotted the site in question to the vendor on 6th October, 1959.

(2.) THE Bangalore Development Authority on the ground that the site in question has not allotted to the vendor of the Petitioner abruptly made an attempt to demolish the building. Therefore, he filed a suit in OS No. 4571 of 2004 to grant an injunction to restrain the Respondent from demolishing the building. The said suit is pending decision and no order is passed on I.A. filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2. Therefore, he has approached this Court to direct the Respondent not to demolish the building till the application filed by him in the suit for grant of Injunction is disposed off.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned Counsel for the parties that BDA has demolished several buildings in Bangalore constructed by the purchaser's due to the fraud committed by one Narasimhamurthy. According to them, value of some of the building demolished by the BDA were even runs to several crores. No doubt, BDA has power to demolish the building if the construction is made by the purchasers by purchasing the site from a vendor without having any title to the property. It is not the case of the BDA that after demolishing such structures, BDA would keep those sites for its benefit. BDA either has to allot such sites to any other person or sell the same by collecting the market value. If such sites are to be disposed of either by way of sale or by way of allotment, this Court is of the opinion that no purpose would be served in demolishing the buildings constructed by such purchasers. In the interest of the nation, it would be appropriate for the BDA either to sell the site along with building to any other needy person so that the value of the building would be saved and B.D.A. would be benefited or in the alternative if really the purchasers have constructed the building as a bonafide purchasers without knowing the fraud played by them or their vendors, in such circumstances, BDA can also consider to allot the very same site or sell the same site to such purchasers so that the value of the building may be saved by the purchasers. If the building worth crores of rupees are to be demolished, it would not be beneficial either for the BDA or for any other person. Considering the present day of cost of construction and the financial condition of the State, the action of the B.D.A. to demolish the posh residential or commercial buildings may not be in the interest of the nation. Instead of demolishing such buildings, the B.D.A. can make use of such buildings for a better purpose either by using such buildings for its own use or by letting out the same to the tenants or selling the same to the public or sell the same to the bonafide purchaser by collecting the value of the site. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that till the disposal of the injunction application by the Civil Court, Respondent shall not demolish the building of the Petitioner. It is also open for the Petitioner to give a representation to the BDA to consider his request either to allot or sell the site in question to him if he is willing to purchase in order to save the building in question. If such a representation is given, the same shall be considered by the BDA sympathetically provided Petitioner is not a party to the fraud said to have been committed by his vendor or Narasimhamurthy as alleged by the BDA. If such representations are also submitted by any other person who has become prey for the act of Narasimhamurthy or any other persons, BDA shall consider their request also, in the light of the above observation.