D S VIJAYALASHMAMMA Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions are taken up together for passing a common order. W. P. No. 6811 of 2004 is before me seeking for a direction directing the respondent to consider the objection of the petitioner dated 29-9-2000, Annexure-K with a further direction of an opportunity of being heard.

(2.) ACCORDING to petition averments petitioner is an absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of site bearing No. 1208, Sarakki II Phase extension, II Stage, J. P. Nagar, Bangalore measuring East-West 12. 19 meters and North-South 18. 29 meters. Respondent pursuant to allotment of the schedule property was put the petitioner in possession of the same in terms of the possession certificate dated 19-5-1980 thereafter an absolute registered sale deed was executed in terms of annexure-B. J. P. Nagar Second Stage was developed by the BDA. The said layout was transferred to Bangalore Mahanagara Palike for its maintenance by local board. Petitioner applied for change of katha in her name. The property was assessed to property tax. Annexure-C is the copy of the assessment and katha extract dated 4-12-1995 issued by the bangalore Mahanagara Palike. Petitioner applied for sanction plan and licence for constructing a residential house. Bangalore Mahanagara palike issued the same. Petitioner could not put up construction on account of financial difficulties. Construction of the shed and the compound wall was done with a view to protect the property. According to petition averments, BDA issued notice to the petitioner in terms of annexure-H, dated 25-7-2000 and sought for removal of unauthorised construction put up by him. Petitioner aggrieved by the same filed a writ Petition No. 19807 of 2000 in this Court. This Court disposed of the writ petition on 5-9-2000 and directed the parties to treat Annexure-H as show-cause notice in the matter. Petitioner was granted time to file objections in terms of the order of the Court. Petitioner filed objections on 22-9-2000 and acknowledgement dated 29-9-2000 is also produced at annexure-L. Petitioner with these facts is seeking for various directions as referred to above. 2-A. Impleading application was filed and the same was allowed. Impleading applicant was treated as additional respondent 3. It is further stated that the land belonging to this respondent situated at rajamahal Vilas and the lands belonging to the other farmers measuring 1344 acres and 12 guntas was acquired by the BDA for development of a layout called Rajamahal Vilas II Stage, Bangalore. While notifying the land for acquisition the BDA passed a resolution dated 26-6-1984 wherein it was decided that each of the landowners would be given a site measuring 40 x 60 feet free of cost per acre. The resolution was not implemented. Petitions were filed in this Court. Petitions were dismissed. Matter was taken to Supreme Court. The supreme Court allowed the Civil Appeal Nos. 14037 to 14056 of 1996 by setting aside the judgment of this Court and directing the BDA to deliver possession of sites to landowners. Pursuant to the orders of the supreme Court, the BDA allotted the site in question in favour of this respondent in terms of Annexures-R1, R2, R3 and R4. Respondent further states that the petitioner is guilty of forgery and manipulation in terms of the averments made in the objection statement. After noticing the forgery and the manipulation BDA has chosen to cancel the document in favour of the petitioner. He wants this petition to be dismissed.

(3.) BDA has filed its objections supporting the contesting respondent. BDA states that this Court on an earlier occasion directed an opportunity to the petitioner. Petitioner did not file objections in terms of the orders of this Court. After expiry of eight weeks, BDA took a decision and issued a sale deed in favour of the third respondent. They say that in the absence of any objections question of consideration of objections does not arise. They want the petition to be dismissed.