V S GOPALSWAMY Vs. BANGLORE DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are questioning the act of the respondent BDA and also the provisions of Rule 6 (2) and 6 (3) of the BDA (Disposal of Corner Sites and Commercial sites), Rules, 1984 as constitutionally invalid and, to strike down the said rules and to issue a mandamus and any other appropriate writ directing the respondent BDA to issue notice under Rule 6 (3) confirming the auction sale in favour of the petitioners in respect of site nos. 823, 410, 438, 796 and 824 comprised in Sector 1 of Hosur Sarjapur Road Layout sold at public auction held by the BDA on 30-7-1993 and to accept the balance of 75% of the site value in respect of each of the said sites in question and deliver vacant possession of the said sites to the petitioners.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, in the petitions filed earlier, they had sought for an interim direction to the BDA not to dispose of the auction sites in any manner. After notice was served on the respondent in the earlier petitions, after the appearance of the respondent, on 13-10-1993 this Court granted an interim order to maintain status quo until further orders. According to the petitioners, they being the highest bidders in respect of the above stated sites as to the auction held on 30-7-1993, the price was fixed at Rs. 1510/-in respect of the first two sites and Rs. 1710/-, rs. 1,760/- and Rs. 1,510/- per sq. mtr. was fixed in respect of the other three sites and the same was accepted by the BDA and 25% of the bid was accepted by it, amounting to rs. 92,400/- Rs. 1,29,900/- Rs. 1,05,000/-, Rs. 1,03,200/- and Rs. 94,700/- respectively. However, the earlier petitions were dismissed on 22-11-1996. Later, a Civil Petition was filed for recalling but, in the CP filed, there was an interim order passed on 5-7-2002 and a stay order was issued against the BDA for a period of one month. During pendency of the cp, respondent BDA issued five endorsements each dated 6-2-2003 to the petitioners informing that petitioners had been allotted an alternative site each measuring about 40 x 60 ft. bearing Nos. 1245 of BTM 4th stage 2nd block; No. 303, HSR Sector 4; No. 304 A, hsr Sector 4; No. 199a, HSR Sector 4 and no. 199b, Sector 4 Extensions. Acting upon those endorsements, by order dated 14-2-2003, CP 1000/2002 was disposed of. In spite of it, respondent did not take necessary steps in regard to newly allotted sites despite petitioners approaching the BDA personally, and sending several requisitions requesting to take further steps. Since there was no response from the BDA, a Contempt Case was filed in ccc 257-261/2004. Subsequently, some other letters were received i. e. , allotment letters dated 8th and 6th April 2004 directing petitioners to pay Rs. 31,21,550/- in respect of one site and Rs. 32,91,810/- in respect of the other four sites. When the auction of the sites by the BDA took place, then the rate was fixed at Rs. 13,998/- per sq. mtr. in respect of one site and at Rs. 14,772/- in respect of the other four sites mentioned above. Stating that in respect of each of the allotted sites, the rate fixed is entirely arbitrary, whimsical and without any rationale, petitioners preferred to file these petitions contending that though the bda has accepted the highest bid of the petitioners in the auction and also in this regard 1/4th of the bid amount was accepted, subsequently, on the writ petition filed and thereafter, on dismissal of the same, in the Civil Petition filed pursuant to the undertaking given by the BDA, alternative sites were allotted but, while fixing the prices, arbitrarily exorbitant rates had been quoted without quoting the same bid rate for the alternative sites allotted and without giving opportunity to the petitioners. It is also stated, the endorsement issued by the BDA at annexures J to N fixing astronomical rate per sq. mtr. in respect of each of the allotted sites is contrary to settled principles.

(3.) HEARD the counsel representing the parties.