AJAY R. GOWDA Vs. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in these petitions is over the Cancellation Deed dated 23.12.1997 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kengeri as Document No.11304/1997-98, pages 33 and 34, Volume 1745 of Book-I, dated 27.12.1997, Annexure-N, executed by the Bangalore Development Authority (for short 'BDA') and the endorsement No.DSII/JPNIII/633/15-16 dated 26.6.2015 Annexure-Q of the respondent, 'BDA', while the other relief is for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent, 'BDA', to consider petitioner's representation dated 9.3.2015 Annexure-P, and to execute an absolute sale deed in terms of Rule 13[8][i] and [ii] of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984, ('Rules' for short) as it existed prior to amendment by Notification dated 23.10.2000.

(2.) One Radha, wife of Gundappa Shastry the allotee of site bearing No.633, 15th Cross, Sarakki, J.P. Nagar, Bengaluru, when put in possession under a possession certificate dated 04.01.1985 Annexure 'B' and a lease-cum-sale agreement dated 24.12.1984 executed between the allottee and the respondent/BDA, was registered as Document No.6113/1984-85 of Book-I, Volume 2256 at pages 75 to 80 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore South Taluk Annexure 'A'. That allottee unable to abide by the conditions of allotment as incorporated in the lease-cum-sale agreement, requested respondent 'BDA' to transfer the allotted site to Smt. R. Gayathri Devi, mother of the petitioner, whence, 'BDA', permitted the transfer as endorsed on 2.3.1992, on the reverse of the possession certificate dated 4.1.1985, Annexure 'B' stating that site No.633 is transferred from the name of Smt. Radha, wife of Gundappa Shastry, to the name of Smt. R. Gayathri Devi, daughter of late Sri. M. Ramaswamy, as per usual conditions of allotment as per orders of Secretary dated 2.3.1992. Petitioner's mother, it is said, deposited Rs. 500/- as 'transfer fee', and paid Rs.32,758/- towards value of the site, as per demand duly credited to the account of the respondent 'BDA' on 12.3.1992, following which respondent 'BDA', executed a transfer agreement in favour of petitioner's mother on 17.8.1992, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kengeri as Document No.5035/1992-93, pages 79 to 81, Volume ADL587, Book-I, dated 29.10.1992 Annexure-G, recording conditions that the allottee will abide by the terms and conditions of the lease cum sale agreement dated 24.12.1984 including the obligation of the transferee to put up construction of a building on the said site. According to petitioner, his mother obtained sanction of a building plan from the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and put up construction of a building consisting of three floors with a total built up area of 12,000 sq. feet, presently in the occupation of M/s. Shekar Nethralaya and Eye Hospital. Petitioner's mother reportedly died on 26.12.2012, whereafterwards, the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike recognized the acquisition of the right, title and interest jointly by the petitioner and his father and recorded their names in its tax assessment record. Father of the petitioner reportedly died on 22.11.2013, following which petitioner having succeeded to the immovable property, secured khata of the said property in his name from the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. Petitioner having sought a loan by mortgage of the immovable property was informed by the Bank that he did not possess an absolute title to the immovable property, whence on enquiry, BDA informed the petitioner that the transfer agreement was cancelled on 23.12.1997 by execution and registration of a cancellation deed, Annexure-N. Petitioner's representation dated 9.3.2015, Annexure-P requesting 'BDA' to regularize the transaction of the transfer of the lease-cum-sale agreement and to execute and lodge for registration the conveyance deed, when considered, was responded to by endorsement dated 26.6.2015, Annexure-Q of the 'BDA', stating that there is no provision in law to re-allot/re-grant site in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) Petitions are opposed by filing counter statement dated 20.8.2015 of the respondent 'BDA', inter alia, admitting facts set out in the memorandum of writ petition, however, contending that Annexures-N & Q legally valid do not call for interference.