E R MANJAIAH Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Bangalore development authority (hereinafter referred to as 'authority') dated 16-1-1993 attached to the petitions as annex-t, various allottees of the plots under the scheme advertised vide annex-a have filed these petitions with the prayer of quashing the resolution of the authority under subject No. 235/1992 dated 19-12-1992 holding the same to be illegal, unconstitutional and void. It is further prayed that the authority be directed to fix the sital value of the sites allotted to the petitioners strictly in proportion to the actual cost of forming the sites of different dimensions and receive the balance of sital value from the petitioners only after completing the development scheme strictly in accordance with the requirements of Section 16 of the b. d. a. act. In some of the petitions, a prayer has been made for declaring Rule 12 of the Bangalore development authority rules, 1984 (hereinafter called 'the rules') as unconstitutional and thus void. The relief is claimed mainly on the ground that the action of the respondents being discriminatory violates the fundamental right of equality as enshrined in article 14 of the Constitution of india. It is further prayed that as the authority has admittedly been constituted for the purpose of planned development of the city of Bangalore and is not a commercial institution entitled to earn profits, the announcement of the value of the plots decided to be allotted to the petitioners consequent upon the issuance of notification vide annex-a being against the Provisions of the Act, rules made thereunder and the schemes formulated was illegal and not liable to be acted upon.

(2.) IT is submitted that the petitioners mostly civil servants having no house of their own were persuaded to apply for the allotment of sites in response to the notification of the authority dated 10-3-1988 and annexed with the petitions as annex-a. Vide annex-a, the authority had announced the availability of residential sites for allotment to the general public in various layouts specifying therein the dimension of the sites, area of the sites, the provisional value and the registration fee and the initial deposit to be paid along with the application. In various layouts about 2500 sites of the sizes 20'x30', 30'x40' 40'x60' and 50'x80' with provisional value at Rs. 6,000/-,rs. 25,000/- Rs. 55,000/- and Rs. 90,000/- respectively were advertised. It was notified that the allotment of the sites shall be made in accordance with the Bangalore development authority (allotment of sites) rules, 1984. The petitioners were intimated during the year 1988 (annex-b) that after consideration of their applications seeking allotment of sites in response to annex-a, sites of various sizes had been allotted to them. The petitioners were further intimated that the site number and other particulars and conditions relating to the allotment shall be sent at their address through registered post shortly. They were further directed not to contact the authority personally. The petitioners thereafter did not receive any further communication for a considerable period of 41/2 years and finally received the allotment orders attached with the petitions as annex-c intimating the enhanced value of the sites allotted to them. Various petitioners have detailed their economical position and the status held by them to impress upon that the escalated value was likely to adversely affect them which ultimately may deprive the petitioners of owning a house of their own and getting a shelter to hide their family members. It is submitted mentioned in Annexure-A without taking into consideration the actual cost incurred for forming a layout and sites of various dimensions, allegedly with ulterior motives and malafide intention of not only making wrongful gain but also to make illegal exaction of monies from the members of the public in general and the petitioners in particular. The announcement of the sital value is alleged to be far in excess of the actual cost incurred by the authority for forming the layout and the sites. The announcement is said to have been made to swell the Bangalore development fund through illegal means at the cost of the innocent general public including the petitioners. The announcement is said to be opposed to the rules of natural Justice and equity. The respondents are alleged to have been guilty of hostile discrimination towards the petitioners. The unreasonable and exorbitant enhancement of the sital value as per annex-t is said to be violative of articles 13 (2), 14 and 21 of the Constitution of india.

(3.) IT is contended that under the scheme of the act and the rules made thereunder, the obligations, functions and responsibilities of the authority come to an end after the allotments are made. The government thereafter has to issue necessary notification under Section 4 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. The respondent-authority is stated to be entrusted with the responsibility of effecting a balanced development and expansion of the city and to check any haphazard growth of the city. According to the petitioners, the only major items of expenditure towards the cost of forming a layout by the b. d. a. are regarding the cost of acquisition in respect of the lands acquired and the expenditure incurred for executing the government scheme under Section 16 of the act. At the relevant time, the cost of the land acquired is stated to be less than Rs. 50,000/- per acre. The cost of forming layout in one acre of land cannot exceed Rs. 2,00,000/- as asserted by the petitioners. According to the petitioners, in one acre of land, about 13 sites of the size 40' x 60' can be formed after providing adequate space for roads and sanitary, etc. It is alleged that the actual cost for forming a site measuring 40' x 60' cannot be more than Rs. 15,384. 61 and the amounts sought to be recovered from the petitioners being in excess of the actual cost tantamounts to illegal exaction of monies from them. The action of the b. d. a. is attributed to be made with ulterior motive. The impugned enhancement of the sital value is likely to be 10 times in excess of the actual cost of the site. The respondent-authority is alleged to be in the habit of making illegal exaction of monies from the public in collusion with the government of karnataka. The authority is alleged to be indulging in violating various laws, so called regulations, the demands of the comprehensive plan, etc.