M R NARAYAN Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the petitioner who is an Advocate of this Court as well. Petitioner has sought the following reliefs.

(2.) THE issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ or order of direction as the court deems fit, whereby the respondent be directed to regularise the schedule property of the petitioner after collecting the necessary charges in accordance with law and to further direct the respondents not to demolish the schedule property of the petitioner and has further sought for grant of such other reliefs as this Court deems fit.

(3.) THE petitioner claims himself to be the absolute owner and to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the residential House No. 29 owned by him existing on Sy. No. 53/2-C (converted vide Order No. B. dis. ALN. SR. 483-73-74, dated 24-2-1973 of the Deputy Commissioner, bangalore District, and Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk and Certificate No. ALN. SR. 723 of 1973-74, dated 2-4-1974) situated at Sarakki Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 40' x 30'. The petitioner asserts that he had purchased this property from one Smt. Vidyavathi, W/o. Sri M. Venugopala Naidu vide sale deed dated 11-10-1995. It has further been stated that Smt. Vidyavathi did purchase the schedule property from one Sri T. G. Gopala Shetty vide sale deed dated 8-8-1988 and registered on that day. The petitioner has stated that the title deed itself has not been handed over to the petitioner by the Sub-Registrar and the same has been referred to the Deputy Commissioner for determination of the extent of undervaluation. The petitioner's case is that the Government of Karnataka has been issuing orders from time to time directing the respondent and other local authorities to regularise the unauthorised constructions on what is known as revenue sites including those revenue lands which are under acquisition proceedings at various stages. On 7-9-1994 according to the petitioner, petitioner's vendor Smt. Vidyavathi had made an application for regularisation of construction and thereafter petitioner on 30-12-1995 himself made an application for regularisation. The petitioner's case is that, he has been ready to make deposit of necessary charges and that the applications for regularisation by the entire public in and around Bangalore are pending before the respondent and the respective local authorities. Petitioner has further stated that the officials of the respondent, with vested interests are bent upon flouting the order and threatening to demolish the suit schedule property. The petitioner has further stated that his neighbour's property was being demolished on 3-5-1996 and Bangalore Development Authority officials threatened that they would come with bigger force and bulldoze the entire area. The petitioner therefore, having apprehended that respondent may carry out the threat approached this Court. Petitioner's further case is that the petitioner's neighbour had filed writ petition in 1993 namely W. P. No. 11055 of 1993 and obtained interim order and thereafter the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent not to demolish the building until the disposal of the application for regularisation. In the circumstances, the petitioner stated that, he is filing this writ petition. In para 8 he has mentioned the documents on which the petitioner is and has been relying i. e. , Registered Sale deed dated 8-8-1988, Registered Sale deed dated 11-10-1995, Registration Fee Receipt, Katha extract, Application for regularisation dated 7-9-1994 and Application for regularisation dated 30-12-1995 one made by Smt. Vidyavathi and the other by the petitioner. With these allegations the petitioner has filed this writ petition.