SIDDALINGAPPA Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioners have sought for quashing the resolution bearing No. 508 dated 14th December, 1977 passed by the first Respondent allotting on lease basis, a civic amenity site measuring 236' + 241' X 90' + 93' 2 2 situated near K. R. Road, Banashankari II Stage, Bangalore in favour of the 2nd Respondent for construction of Kalyanamantapa-cum-Vinayaka Temple Complex to cater the needs of all communities on outright payment of Rs. 96,990/- at the rate of Rs. 40/- per Sq. yard and subject to other usual conditions of allotment, of civic amenity site. At the time of allotment, the site in question did not bear any number. Subsequently, it is not now in dispute that, it has been assigned a number as 41. Pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, a lease deed for a period of thirty years has also been executed on 17-11-1978 by the first respondent in favour of the 2nd respondent.

(2.) The Petitioners are residents of Banashankari II Stage Layout. It is the case of the Petitioners that the site in question in the layout plan of Banashankari II Stage, had been reserved for civic amenities and as such, it was not permissible for the first respondent to divert the use of the said site for any other purpose or to allot it on lease basis or otherwise to any other person, authority or institution for the purpose other than the one for which it was reserved ; that there are no other civic amenity sites and as a result of diversion of the use of the site in question for the purpose other than civic amenity, the residents of the locality are deprived of the civic amenities and as a result thereof, they have been put to health hazards; that the 2nd respondent is not a public trust and it is only a private body and the allotment of the site in question for the purpose of construction of Kalyan Mantap-cum-Vinayaka Temple Complex, cannot at all be considered to be in conformity with the intended use of the site for which it is reserved and such an allotment is opposed to the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act')and the Bangalore City Improvement (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') ; that the allotment in question for the purpose for which it is now made is also opposed to the definition of 'Amenity' as defined in the Act ; that even otherwise, it is also submitted that by Act No. 17 of 1984, the definition of the expression "civic amenity" has been inserted, and the purpose for which the allotment is made in favour of the 2nd respondent does not fall within the said definition inasmuch as it is submitted that the Act No. 17/84 is retrospective in its operation ; therefore, it must be deemed to have been in force when the allotment was made and as such, the allotment in question does not satisfy the definition of the expression "civic amenity" ; therefore it is bad in law ; that as per the terms of the trust deed, by reason of substitution of eat of the objects contained in the trust deed, the temple has been deleted and as a result thereof, the purpose for which the allotment is made cannot at all be adhered to by the 2nd respondent as it cannot now construct a temple ; hence the 2nd respondent has committed breach of conditions of the allotment ; therefore the allotment is liable to be set aside on this ground also.

(3.) The respondents 1 and 2 have filed separate statements of objections, According to the case of the first respondent, the site in question, was not reserved for any specific civic amenity; therefore it was open to the first respondent to allot it to any person or authority or institution for such use which was not inconsistent with the civic amenity ; that the allotment of a site for the purpose of construction of Kalyan Mantap-cum-Vinayaka Temple Complex does fall within the scope of the expression "civic amenity" as it is useful to the general public for the purpose of celebrating marriages and holding other social congregations ; and Vinayaka Temple serves the religious faith of members of the public ; that according to the conditions imposed under the lease-deed produced as Annexure-R2 by the 2nd Respondent, it is not open to the 2nd Respondent to use the site in question for any other purpose other than the one mentioned in the lease-deed ; that at the end of the lease period, in case it is not renewed, the land along with the buildings put up thereon, reverts to the first Respondent ; that even in the event the trust ceases to exist during the period when the lease is in force, the land and the properties comprised therein go to the another trust only and it will not go to any other private individual ; that there are several civic amenity sites in the extension in question ; that as per Rule 4 of the Rules, the first Respondent is entitled to allot the civic amenity sites to individuals or institutions or the public authorities ; therefore, it is the case of the first Respondent that the allotment of the site in question for the purpose of construction of Kalyana Mantap-cum-Vinayaka Temple Complex is for the purpose of providing civic amenities, as such, the allotment is valid in law.