BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.A.No.479/2021 is filed by the appellantBDA under Sec. 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 challenging the order dtd. 18/12/2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11182/2020. CCC No.492/2021 is filed by the respondent No.2 alleging willful disobedience of the learned Single Judge.

(2.) The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are that the respondent No.2 was allotted site bearing No.276 at HBR Layout, I Stage, 5th Block (Sy.No.53, Hennur Village, Bengaluru) by the appellant-Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the BDA'). A lease-cum-sale agreement was also entered into between the parties. The respondent No.2 sought allotment of an alternate site on the ground that the allotted site was not in existence and the appellant-BDA allotted the alternate site bearing No.18 at extended RMV II Stage layout (Sy.No.28 of Bhoopasandra Village, Bengaluru). The appellant-BDA sought additional amount towards the value of the alternate site which was challenged by the respondent No.2 in the writ petition.

(3.) Sri.Murugesh V.Charati, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-BDA submits that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant-BDA executed lease-cum-sale agreement and put the respondent No.2 in possession of the site bearing No.276 at HBR Layout in the year 2007 itself. Hence, the question of seeking alternate site is impermissible. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge further committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the respondent No.2 cannot be asked to pay the additional sital value as the alternate site is allotted because of the fault of the appellant-BDA. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to take note of the fact that the initial allotment made in favour of the respondent No.2 was at HBR layout which was formed in the year 1986-87 and the allotment of the alternate site was at RMV II Stage layout which was formed in the year 1973-74, which was much prior to HBR Layout. Hence, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the difference value of the site and the said demand is as per the BDA Rules. It is contended that the direction of the learned Single Judge to execute the absolute sale deed runs contrary to the BDA Rules as the BDA executes lease-cum-sale deed to the allottees. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.