SHANMUGAM S. Vs. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , claiming to belong to scheduled caste, applied for and secured an allotment of a site No. 94 measuring 20 ft. x 30 ft. in Nandini layout, under letter, dated 26.05.1989, of the respondent/ Bangalore Development Authority ('BDA' for short) demanding payment of Rs. 2,200/ - being the full value of the site within the time stipulated. The said sum was not paid within the said time but, on 26.06.1996, letter Annexure -E was addressed stating though he was ready and willing to pay the amount, but the bank was not willing to disburse the money until and unless time was extended for such payment. It appears that the respondent/ BDA addressed a letter to the State Government on 02.12.1997, Annexure -F, seeking permission to condone the delay and extend time for the petitioner to pay the balance value of the site under sub Rule (1) Rule 13 of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 ('Rules' for short). That communication led to a reply, dated 29.01.1998, Annexure -G, of the State Government permitting BDA to condone the delay and receive the payment, following which, petitioner was issued with letters dated 21.04.1998 and 08.07.1998 to make payment of the value of the said amount with interest thereon totaling to Rs. 15,850/ -, which when not responsive, was finally issued with a show cause notice dated 24.08.1998. Petitioner did neither responded nor make payment of the sum demanded in entirety and therefore, respondent/BDA by order, dated 21.04.1999, Annexure -K, cancelled the allotment for non payment of the full value of the site, within the time stipulated.

(2.) IT appears that on 18.05.1999, petitioner addressed a letter, Annexure -L, informing the deposit of Rs. 5,000/ - on 14.09.1998 and Rs. 10,850/ - on 19.05.1999 totaling to Rs. 15,850/ - and sought for registration of site No. 94 in Nandini Layout, Laggere, which allotment was since cancelled. There afterwards, petitioner is said to have made another representation, dated 30.12.1999, Annexure -M, while alleged letters dated 14.06.2002, 02.03.2008, Annexures -N and N1 said to be addressed to the respondent/BDA are not supported by acknowledgments, however, letter dated 30.03.2013, Annexure -N2 copy of which is issued under the Right to Information Act shows that it was received by the BDA. Subsequent thereto, petitioner claims to have written another letter dated 09.06.2014, Annexure -N3 though not supported by an acknowledgement of the BDA. Hence this petition filed on 02.06.2015 for the following reliefs:

(3.) IN the first place, it is not known as to the source of power of BDA to address a letter to the Government to condone the delay by extending time as stipulated in the 'Rules' and in the second place, it is not known as to what is the source of power of the State Government to extend time dehors a Rule since the 'Rules' do not provide for such a power of the State Government. Therefore, condonation of delay and extension of time allegedly by the State Government is without competence and jurisdiction, under the 'Rules'. Be that as it may, BDA is said to have acted on such extension and addressed letters to the petitioner to make payment within the stipulated time, despite which petitioner did not make payment leading to cancellation of the allotment by order, dated 21.07.1999, Annexure -K.