FELICIA FALIVARIAVA Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) BY this petition, petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing the endorsement No. BDA/ds-II / 288/96-97 dated 8-1-1997 issued by the Deputy Secretary-II, bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore, and for issuance of writ of mandamus directing Bangalore Development Authority to allot Site nos. 288 and 289 formed in Sarakki VI Stage Layout or in any other layout formed by the Bangalore Development Authority of sites measuring 50' x 80'.

(3.) THE facts of the case in the nut-shell are that, the petitioners claimed to have made applications for allotment of site in Rajamahal vilas II Stage extension under a special scheme of allotment called The dollar Scheme'. The applications were alleged to have been made on 4-12-1979. According to the petitioners, the opposite party having found it not possible to allot site in Rajamahal Vilas II Stage to all the dollar registrants, the Bangalore Development Authority decided to allot sites to such persons in other layouts. According to the petitioners, vide resolution dated 26-3-1986 passed by the authority, Site No. 289 in Sarakki v Phase measuring 50' x 80' was allotted in favour of the petitioner and the same was communicated vide allotment Intimation No. B-11/289/srk-VI / 86-87. This allotment was made in favour of the petitioner 1. According to the petitioners in the same resolution Site No. 288 vas allotted in favour of the 2nd petitioner in the same order by resolution dated 26-3-1986 and allotment was communicated in 1987. Petitioner, however, says that on 8-2-1988 guardian of the petitioners received a letter from the Bangalore Development Authority stating that the applicants were minors and were not eligible for allotment of sites under the scheme. On 3-3-1988, the guardian addressed a letter stating that the Bangalore Development Authority having accepted payment was not right in discovering an [illegibility] nearly ten years later and the petitioners requested the Bangalore Development Authority to transfer one plot reserved in the name of the 1st petitioner to the guardian and that reserved in the name of her daughter to Ms. Frenny M. Variava. The letter has been annexed as Annexure-C. Petitioner's case is that though the guardian of the petitioners met the Commissioner several times, no firm reply was given except it was stated that the authorities are seriously considering the matter. On 8-1-1997 vide Annexure-F the respondent with reference to letter dated 3-3-1988 informed the petitioners that their request for revoking of cancellation of Site Nos. 288 and 289 of Sarakki VI Phase was placed before the authority for consideration and the authority at its meeting held on 30-1-1989 vide subject No. 1494 has rejected the request. It was mentioned in the letter that the petitioner may claim refund of the deposit made towards allotment of site. Feeling aggrieved from that order, the petitioners have filed these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.