K T SHIVAIAH Vs. CHAIRMAN BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER having fought and lost his battle in the State Consumers Disputes Redressal commission, National Consumers' Disputes Redressal Commission, and the Supreme Court, the appellant herein filed a writ petition with prayer for quashing the resolution of the respondent 1 dated 23-3-1982 by which alleged marginal land was allotted in favour of the purchasers of sites bearing Nos. 670 and 671 with a further prayer to direct the respondent to take all appropriate action for marking-out Site No. 669 as per the sketch submitted by the appellant. The learned single Judge considered all aspects of the matter and agreeing with the conclusions arrived at by the State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the writ petition vide the order impugned in this appeal.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the submissions made by the appellant it is necessary to have a resume of the facts as detailed by him in his petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted by the appellant that on an application made by him to the respondent-authority, the site bearing No. 669 in layout, West of Chord Road, II Stage in the City of Bangalore, was allotted on 12-8-1970 vide letter Ex. B. It is alleged that due to inadvertance on the part of the officials of the respondent a triangular piece of land was left out from being handed-over to the appellant in Site No. 669 on the West. The request made for rectification of the measurements were not accepted by the officials of the respondent. It is contended that the respondent-authority wrongly treated the left-out land as marginal land and allotted the same to three sites bearing nos. 669, 670 and 671. Such an action is allegedly to be against the circular instructions of allotment of marginal land attached with writ petition as Ex. E. The action of the respondents was termed to be a deliberate fraud. When the purchaser of Site No. 670 started construction, the petitioner protested and was allegedly got arrested by the police on a complaint filed by the aforesaid respondent. It is alleged that no action was taken against purchaser of site bearing No. 671 when he started construction. Various representations filed by the appellant were not considered. The petitioner thereafter filed a complaint before the State Consumers Disputes redressal Commission (hereinafter called "the State Commission") which was dismissed vide order attached with the writ petition as Ex. R. His appeal filed against the order of the State commission was rejected by the National Commission vide order Ex. S. The appellant thereafter filed an Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court which was dismissed vide order of the supreme Court dated 7-11-1990 with the observation that the appellant was at liberty to move the High Court for the redressal of his grievances. In the writ petition filed in this Court it was submitted that the respondent being a public authority has failed to perform its statutory functions and also violated its own layout plan. The respondent was allegedly bound to honour its own commitments and was not permissible for it to allegedly submit false submissions which according to appellant amounted to fraud. It was stated that the respondent-authority could not arbitrarily violate substantive rights of the parties which involved by shifting the border between site Nos. 668 and 669 by 2 ft. which amounted to encroachment on Site No. 669.

(3.) WE have heard the appellant who appeared in person at length and perused the record.