SALMA BEGUM Vs. COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner has sought for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order impugned of 4-2-1991, under Annexure-K to this writ petition issued by respondent No. 1. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to sanction the plan submitted by the petitioner for putting up construction on the site in question if it is not already deemed to have been sanctioned under the deeming provisions of the Act and the petitioner has further prayed for granting such other reliefs as think fit.

(2.) The facts of the case in nutshell is that the petitioner claims to be the owner of site No. 68-F, measuring 47 feet East to West and 30 feet North to South, situated at Sy. No. 66/3 of Nagasettyhalli, Bangalore North Taluk, as described in paragraph 1 of this writ petition. According to petitioner, the said layout was formed by NGEF Employees Housing Building Co-operative Society. The petitioner claims that the said layout was approved by 1st respondent. Further, the petitioner was successful bidder, so, the 2nd respondent had executed a registered sale deed dated 23-4-1984, in favour of the petitioner, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-A to this writ petition. As such, the 2nd respondent had put the petitioner in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid site, thereby, issued possession certificate on September 22, 1984, thereafter, the petitioner had paid taxes with respect to the site to the Bangalore Development Authority at Bangalore on 13-10-1984. But, it is averred by the petitioner that the petitioner applied for the transfer of khata in her favour and the same was allowed vide, khata certificate dated 19-10-1984. Thereafter, the petitioner forwarded plan for sanction to respondent No. 1, but, no acknowledgement was given and no action was taken any way. A Writ Petition No. 6637 of 1939, was filed and vide order dated 29-1-1990 Annexure-E to this writ petition. The learned single Judge of this Court dismissed Writ Petition No. 6639 of 89, subject to the observations made therein that petitioner may send an application for sanctioning of the plan to construct a residential house on the site in question together with taxes by registered post A.D., so that there would be some evidence for having forwarded plan and in the event there being refusal to receive the documents sent by registered post, the endorsement to that effect will give a cause of action to the petitioner to approach this Court afresh for proper relief and then, she can demand the plan to be sanctioned by grant of mandamus to the B.D.A. According to the petitioner's case thereafter, the petitioner moved another application for sanction of the plan by registered post and the same was received by respondent No. 1 on 28th February, 1990. But, again the petitioner waited, no action having been taken, the petitioner filed another petition bearing No. Writ Petition 7679 of 1990 which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 24-7-1990, with direction to the respondent B.D.A. to consider the petitioner's request for sanctioning the plan within one month from the date of the production of the copy of the order before the respondent No. 1. Accordingly, the petitioner did approach the 1st respondent on certain dates and thereafter the contempt proceedings had also been launched. After service of the notice of the contempt proceedings; the 1st respondent rejected the plan through Annexure-K which is mentioned above.

(3.) According to the petitioner's case, the said order of refusal was made on erroneous basis and was unsustainable, as it was without application of mind to many facts and circumstances and particularly, to the grounds mentioned in this writ petition. On notice having been issued, the statement of objections along with the affidavit had been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1. To the counter, the petitioner filed an additional statement which may be said to be a rejoinder statement.