BANGALORE DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY Vs. K. SRINIVAS MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed under Sec. 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dtd. 9/1/2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.38467/2016.

(2.) The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are that the father of the respondent was the owner of the property bearing Sy.No.35/4 of Halasuru Village, Bangalore North Taluk, which was acquired by the City Improvement Trust Board for formation of HAL IV Stage layout and was later, de-notified from the acquisition. The Authority, after de-notification, while forming the layout, utilized 11 guntas of the land of the father of the respondent for formation of 2 roads and 3 sites. The father of the respondent filed a writ petition seeking cancellation of the sale deeds executed by the appellant. The writ petition came to be disposed of on the statement of the appellant that the auction sites are not in the subject survey number. The father of the respondent approached the appellant, sought for conducting the survey and based on such survey, the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.13017-18/2011 were filed wherein a direction was issued to the appellant to consider the representation of the respondent for allotment of an alternate site. The appellant considered the representation and allotted 3 1/2 guntas of developed land to the respondent which was equivalent to 7 guntas of the land claimed to be utilized by the appellant. The respondent sought allotment of developed alternate site to the extent of 50% of 11 guntas which came to be rejected by the appellant under the endorsement dtd. 1/6/2016 which was challenged before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by issuing mandamus to the appellant to allot additional developed land equivalent to 2 guntas of land in any layout formed subsequent to HAL IV Stage, further directed to pay the cost of Rs.5,00,000.00 to the respondent, recover the same from the erring officials and directed the Commissioner, BDA to initiate such action as may be necessary against such persons after following due process. Being aggrieved, the appellant-BDA is in appeal.

(3.) Sri.Unnikrishnan M., learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge committed a grave error in issuing a direction to the appellant-BDA to allot 2 guntas of the developed land despite specific stand of the appellant based on the affidavit that the appellant-BDA has not utilized 4 guntas of the land claimed by the father of the respondent. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have relegated the respondent to the Civil Court to establish his right over 4 guntas of the land. It is further submitted that the official of the appellant conducted survey placing reliance on the documents available with them and came to a definite conclusion that the appellant has utilized only 7 guntas of the land and not 11 guntas as claimed by the respondent and insofar as the utilized land, already alternate developed land has been allotted to the respondent. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge has recorded a finding with regard to the fraud in paragraphs 8 to 10 which was uncalled for as the Authorities have not played any fraud for utilization of the land and already alternate developed land has been allotted and further direction to pay cost and to initiate departmental enquiry against the erring officials was also uncalled for as there is no lapse on the part of the officials. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.