SANGAMMA PATIL Vs. COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OFFICE reports that respondents have been served. The respondents in this writ petition appear to have been served. On behalf of the Commissioner, bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore appearance has been filed by Sri N. K. Patil. Notice had been served on the respondents in the first week of September 1997. No counter affidavit has been filed.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that the petitioner applied for allotment of residential site and site No. L-97, in Section No. 6, Agara, Hosur Sarjapura road, Bangalore was allotted in the name of petitioner i. e. , petitioner, petitioner's husband and her daughter jointly. Thereafter an agreement of sale was entered with respondent 1 on 28-6-1991 and possession was handed over to the petitioner-allottees on 16-9-1991. It so happened that one of the joint owner-allottees Sri C. N. Patil died and the site stood in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner's case is that there were many beneficiaries and no basic amenities were available and were provided. There was no drainage, and there has been no proper formation of layout. All vehicles including two wheelers could not enter into the layout. Entire layout had been filled with garbage and other waste materials and under such circumstances, the petitioner could not take up construction work. Petitioner's case is that a publication came in Deccan Herald No. BDA/commissioner/182/96-97, dated 28-11-1996, to the effect that allottees who have not constructed houses within the stipulated period of 3 years from the date of taking possession of the site, a penalty has been imposed on them. Petitioner's case is that he made a representation to the first respondent, stating reasons as to why he could not put up the construction and sought for extension of time. Petitioner's case is that without disposing off and considering the petitioner's application, respondent 1 issued endorsement calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 33,444/- towards the penalty for extension of time, vide Endorsements Annexures-F and G dated 21-2-1997. In such circumstances, the petitioner in the absence of any remedy has come up before this Court.

(3.) ONE of the grounds taken in the petition is that apart from absence of necessary facilities which were needed in order to enable the petitioner to complete the construction, the penalty on the allottees for noncompliance of the terms of the agreement to complete the construction within 3 years has been passed without the petitioner being provided opportunity of hearing and showing cause, the petitioner's case as such is that the order impugned is illegal and bad. She has prayed for quashng of the order of penalty and for direction to the respondents to provide basic civic amenities to the layout of the petitioner site.