ASHA RAMSH KUMAR Vs. BANGOLARE DEVELOPMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, petitioners are challenging the order dated 9. 8. 2006 passed by the Commissioner, Bangalore Development authority, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the BDA', for short)cancelling the allotment of site bearing No. 751, Block-II of Sir M. Visweshwaraiah Layout, Bangalore.

(2.) 1st petitioner is the daughter of the 2nd petitioner. They have jointly filed this writ petition. The 1st petitioner applied on 13. 11. 2001 to the respondent-BDA requesting for allotment of a site measuring 15 x 24 metres by paying a deposit of Rs. 71,500/ -. As she was not allotted a site and as she had to go abroad, she executed a registered General Power of attorney in favour of her father, the 2nd petitioner herein on 7. 12. 2001. Through her father and the General Power of Attorney holder, she again applied on 7. 6. 2002 seeking allotment of a site of the same dimension by paying the deposit amount of Rs. 71,500/ -. The BDA issued one more notification calling for applications of allotment of sites in Block-II, Sir M. Visweshwaraiah Layout, Bangalore. The 1st petitioner again applied through her GPA holder on 15. 12. 2002 by paying the necessary deposit. By order dated 7. 4. 2003, the BDA allotted a site bearing No. 751, Block-II, sir M. Visweshwaraiah Layout, Bangalore and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 5,03,400/- within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. This order is produced at Annexure-D. A No Objection Certificate was also issued by the BDA on 7. 4. 2003 for mortgaging the said property in favour of certain specified Banks/financial institutions for raising loan.

(3.) THE 1st petitioner paid the amount of Rs. 5,03,400/- to the account of the respondent on 11. 6. 2003 which is evidenced by Annexure-F receipt. A show-cause notice dated 15. 4. 2006 vide Annexure-H was addressed to the 2nd petitioner by the Deputy Secretary of the respondent-BDA calling upon him to show cause why the site allotted to the 1st petitioner should not be cancelled since the application for allotment of site was signed by the 2nd petitioner and not by the 1st petitioner.