MATADAHALLY JAGAJIVAN RAM SARVODAYA SANGHA REGISTERED BANGALORE Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a registered society engaged in imparting education. Pursuant to the notification at Annexure-C issued by the respondent inviting applications for allotment of Civic amenity Sites, the petitioner applied for allotment of a site. The petitioner was allotted C. A. Site no. 2 in Nagarabhavi 1st Stage on 16-4-1994 as per Resolution No. 107 of 1994. However, the allotment letter was not issued to the petitioner as in the report submitted by the Engineering section of the respondent it was stated that the site in question had already been handed over to p. W. D. for formation of Link Road and hence the site was not available. The petitioner submitted a representation on 18-6-1994 as per An-nexure-E requesting for allotment of an alternative site. As the same was not done, the petitioner filed W. P. No. 31475 of 1994 seeking a writ of mandamus in that regard. By an order dated 5-4-1995 this Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the respondent to consider the recommendation made by the executive Engineer for allotment of a site situated in Binny Mill Labour Association Housing co-operative Society Layout at Jodi Kempapura Agrahara in favour of the petitioner or in any other layout within six months. Accordingly, the respondent allotted a site in the aforesaid layout in favour of the petitioner vide Annexure-J dated 6-5-1997. The lease amount payable in lumpsum as per Annexure-J is Rs. 14,69,085/ -. The grievance of the petitioner is that the present allotment of site at the rate of Rs. 650-00 per sq. metre is illegal, unreasonable and unjust. According to the petitioner, the rate of the site ought to have been at Rs. 150/- per sq. metre as per the rate prevalent in 1994 when the site was allotted at the first instance. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Annexure-J and for a direction to the respondent to refix the value of the site at the rate prevailed as on 19-1-1994.

(2.) THE submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that since the respondent failed to comply with the direction issued by this Court in W. P. No. 31475 of 1994, the petitioner filed C. C. C. No. 245 of 1996 and the same was disposed of on 9-4-1996 on the basis of the reply filed stating that an alternate site had been allotted to the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that having made such a statement in the contempt proceedings, it is not open for the respondent to alter the site amount. It is further contended that the present site was allotted to the petitioner in lieu of the site notified and allotted earlier and therefore the respondent has no authority to alter the sital value and the lease amount mentioned in annexure-J is wholly unsustainable in law.

(3.) IN the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondent, after narrating the factual position, it is stated that the earlier decision of the Authority could not be given effect to because the site that was proposed to be allotted to the petitioner was required for Ring Road and therefore the intimation regarding allotment of site was not communicated to the petitioner and no right was accrued to the petitioner in respect of the site proposed to be allotted earlier and the allotment made subsequently cannot be treated as an allotment made in the year 1994. It is further stated that as per Rule 8 (3) of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Civic amenity Sites) Rules, 1989, the lease amount notified could be altered by the respondent.