SMT. CHINNATHAYE Vs. THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has assailed cancellation order dated 5 -4 -2004 (Annexure -E though mentioned as 10 -4 -2000 in the prayer column) and has sought a direction to the respondent to consider representations dated 10 -1 -2008, 26 -3 -2012 and subsequent representations with regard to the allotment and cancellation of site bearing No. 329, measuring 20x30 feet, situated at J.P. Nagar 9th Phase, 3rd Block, Bengaluru.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he had applied for allotment of site in the year 1989 on the premise that he belongs to Scheduled Caste category. On 10 -4 -2000, the site in question was allotted to the petitioner and the balance sital value of Rs. 33,490/ - had to be paid by her. Admittedly, the same was not paid in time. The respondent issued show -cause notice to the petitioner and thereafter cancelled the allotment on 5 -4 -2004. Petitioner thereafter made an attempt to deposit the entire sital value through demand draft bearing No. 483722, dated 12 -5 -2004 vide representation dated 24 -7 -2004 (Artnexure -F). The grievance of the petitioner is that the said amount has not been accepted by the respondent -BDA. Subsequently, the respondent issued two circulars dated 18 -10 -2007 and 18 -11 -2010. It is the case of the petitioner that said circulars were issued in the interest of the persons such as the petitioner and thereafter she intended to pay the balance sital value, but the respondent has not considered the representation made by the petitioner dated 15 -2 -2011 and 26 -3 -2013 at Annexures -L and M respectively. Hence, the petitioner has challenged the cancellation of allotment dated 5 -4 -2004 and has sought a direction to consider his representation.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.