R SATHYANARAYANA Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has assailed order dated 6-10-2000 issued by the respondent (Annexure-D) and has also challenged endorsement dated 6-6-2014 (Annexure-H). Further, petitioner has sought a direction for allotment of the site in question in his favour by accepting the balance sital value with requisite penal interest. It is the case of the petitioner that he belongs to socially and economically weaker section of society and that he had applied for allotment of a site measuring 30' x 40' on 13-5-1998 after depositing the requisite amount of Rs. 21,750/- as the initial sital value to the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). Site bearing No. 1859, measuring 30' x 40' situated in Hosur-Sarjapur Road, Sector-2 valued at Rs. 1,74,000/- was allotted to the petitioner by allotment letter dated 7-5-1999, subject to certain terms and conditions with regard to payment of balance sital value. Petitioner had to pay the balance sital value of Rs. 1,52,000/-. Admittedly, the balance sital value was not paid in time. Consequently, the allotment was cancelled on 6-10-2000. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not aware of the cancellation of allotment, as there was no communication of the cancellation to him, as in the meanwhile he had changed his residence which was also informed to the respondent-BDA. Thereafter, the petitioner is stated to have made certain representations to the BDA. Finally, representation dated 28-3-2014 was made which was considered and impugned endorsement dated 6-6-2014 at Annexure-H has been issued to him which is assailed in this writ petition. The petitioner therefore seeks quashing of the order of cancellation of allotment and also the endorsement dated 6-6-2014 while seeking other reliefs.

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

(3.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on account of the financial constraints, balance sital value could not be paid in time. The petitioner had made representations in that regard. He had also brought to the notice of the respondent-BDA that he had changed his residence, but without heeding to the request made by the petitioner, BDA simply cancelled the allotment. He contended that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the balance sital value and that a direction may be issued to allot the site in question to him on acceptance of balance sital value with requisite interest and revoke the cancellation of the allotment, if the site in question is available. If the site in question has been allotted to the third party, then consider the case of the petitioner for allotment of an alternative site.