LAWS(KAR)-1995-9-6

RAJASEKHAR Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Decided On September 29, 1995
RAJASEKHAR Appellant
V/S
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition is filed under Article. 226 of the Constitution for a direction to the respondents not to insist upon the petitioner to produce stamp paper of value of Rs. 47,510/- to execute Lease-cum-Sale agreement and further direct the respondents to put the petitioner in possession of the house No. 200 in Rajamahal Vilas II Stage with immediate effect. The further prayer made by the petitioner is for a declaration that Article 5(d) to the Schedule to the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (for short the Act) is not applicable to Lease-cum-Sale Agreement executed under the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Buildings under Self-Financing Housing Scheme) Rules, 1982 (for short the Rules) or in the alternative to declare the said provision as ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature.

(2.) The petitioner applied for allotment of a house under the Rules. A house was allotted to the petitioner. Though originally at the time of allotment the cost was estimated at Rs. 2,85,000/-, subsequently it was enhanced to Rs. 4,75,000/-. The petitioner has paid the entire sum of Rs. 4,75,000/- to the first respondent and requested for handing over the possession of the house to him. However, the petitioner was called upon to execute Lease-cum-Sale agreement on a stamp paper of Rs. 47,510/- and if Lease-cum-Sale agreement is not executed within 45 days from the date of intimation, the allotment of house would be cancelled by the first respondent. At that stage the petitioner approached this Court and this Court stayed the cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) The Act has been amended in the year 1981 introducing a provision thereto so that a transaction of Lease-cum-Sale in connection with an allotment of a building site with or without building thereon should be stamped as a Conveyance for a market value equal to the security deposit. It is contended that the provision is contrary to the Rules framed under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976.