G UMADEVI Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for issuance of writ, order or direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation and for reallotment of the sites in question and to reallot the sites in question in favour of the petitioner and to issue possession certificates to the petitioners and to cancel or withdraw the sites granted in favour of respondents 2 and 3. Petitioner has further prayed for grant of such other reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit.

(2.) PETITIONER in the writ petition has stated that she has purchased arevenue site bearing No. 3 measuring 40' x 36' formed in sy. No. 15/2 of kathriguppa village under registered sale deed dated 10-4-1974 from her vendor Smt. B. n, suguna for valuable consideration. She has asserted that from the date of purchase of aforementioned site, petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said site. Petitioner's case is that her name was indicated in the revenue records. She has asserted that she had purchased the site in question with the sole intention of constructing a house. Petitioner has further asserted that 1st respondent has acquired the land in sy. No. 15/2 of kathriguppa village including the site in question. She alleged that there were large number of revenue site holders similarly situated like petitioner who do not own any sites or houses and the 1st respondent in the larger interest of the site owners of their own has formed a scheme known as reconveyance scheme so as to reconvey the sites to respective owners after forming of a layout by the 1st respondent. Petitioner has further averred that layout has been formed and the sites were given number. Petitioner's site which is in dispute namely site No. 3 has been renumbered as 477 and 478 measuring 20' x 35' each. Petitioner's case is that respondent called upon applications from the respective revenue site holders for considering their case for the purpose of reconveyance and issued notice dated 15-11-1979 to the petitioner directing the petitioner to produce all the documents in support of her case. Petitioner has annexed the copy of that notice as Annexure-D. Petitioner's case is that she has produced all the documents called for by the 1st respondent for reconveying the revenue site and made several representations for reconveyance. Petitioner further alleged that petitioner's case was considered and approved by the 1st respondent on 11-1-1980 for regularisation. The copy of the said approval along with the list is produced by the petitioner as annexuere-e and e-1. Petitioner has asserted that application of the petitioner was under process which was approved by the 1st respondent on 11-1-1980 itself for regularisation as it is similar to bda site nos. 490, 410, 412, 418, 445 and 476 which have been reallotted to the respective revenue site holders. Petitioner has further stated that at the time of reallotment of bda sites to the petitioner, it was found that the said site has been allotted to respondents 2 and 3 respectively on 15-12-1984 after the approval made by the 1st respondent in favour of the petitioner for regularisation. Petitioner's case is that allotment of site in favour of respondents 2 and 3 is not a regular one and is illegal and on account of communication gap from one Section to another in the office of the Bangalore development authority-1st respondent. She has further asserted that the land in sy. No. 15/2 including the revenue site held by the petitioner was acquired by the 1st respondent and possession is with the 1st respondent and the possession certificates were not issued either to the petitioner or to the respondents 2 and 3. Petitioner's case is that she filed a suit No. 10402 of 1985 in the court of city civil judge, mayo hall, Bangalore for injunction. That suit was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 5-7-1990 and the court had held that the suit for injunction was not maintainable and on that ground it was dismissed. Petitioner has stated that she did not prefer any appeal from the judgment and decree passed by the city civil judge, mayo hall. She has asserted that the dismissal of the suit by the civil court is of no consequence as so far as the matter relating to reconveying the site is in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner has challenged the right of respondents 2 and 3 to get the site in question allotted. Petitioner's case is that after the dismissal of the suit, she again made representation to the 1st respondent for getting reallotment of the site in question and pursuant to those representations, 1st respondent sought some clarification from the deputy secretary concerned of the 1st respondent. Petitioner's case is that she has been making requests from the beginning till today, but so far the site is not reconveyed to the petitioner. As such, the petitioner has come up with this petition under article 226 of the Constitution before this court seeking grant or issuance of writ of mandamus or writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus.

(3.) I will make reference to the sale deed (annexure-a) which is thebasis of claim which may per se reveal that the petitioner has not stated the facts correctly and has even concealed the fact that the land has been acquired in 1968. Annexure-A is the sale deed which forms the basis of the claim. It is one of the trite principles of law to be taken note of that no person can transfer a better title than what he has got. The sale deed on which much reliance has been placed is Annexure-A to the writ petition. The transferee in the sale deed mentioned that the transferor i. e. t Smt. Suguna has been in possession of the land since she purchased the same from Smt. Puttamma under a registered sale deed. Date of the sale deed is not mentioned. In the sale deed Annexure-A it has been mentioned that vide notification issued in gazette on 9-5-1968, the land had been acquired as per intimation of special land acquisition officer. In the sale deed, smt suguna states that on the application submitted by her on 12-8-1969 stating that she will pay the conversion fee, layout charges and taxes etc. As to the said sites and had requested to get the sites reconveyed to herself. But, since 1969 till the date of execution of sale deed Annexure-A dated 10-4-1974, Smt. Suguna states that she did not receive any reply from the special land acquisition officer or from the 1st respondent. Smt. Suguna has clearly mentioned that no reply has been received in the matter so far. Yet the petitioner came forward to purchase the third item of the sites i. e. , the property in dispute and she had agreed that she will solve all the transactions that may come in respect of the said site. Deed note indicates the number of the site that has been sold for Rs. 1,00,000/- and the sale consideration has been paid. Sale deed was also got registered. No doubt, in the sale deed it has been stated that property has been handed over to vendee's possession. It has further been stated that hereinafter for the payment of layout charges to the citb and for getting it reconveyed in the name of the vendee and to enjoy it according to his own desire and the vendee will have full rights to get it reconveyed. It has further been mentioned in the sale deed that if reconveyance is not done in favour of the vendee, the compensation amount payable may be received by the vendee i. e,, the present petitioner and not by the vendor. It has again been mentioned that if any transactions or problem arose in any manner, vendee should solve it by herself at her expenses. The extract of mutation entry dated 17-7- 1969 in relation to this item, the original deed obtained by the vendor from puttamma, index copy, typed copy deed dated 4-6-1969 submitted to the land acquisition officer, postal acknowledgment dated 12-6-1969 received from the office of the land acquisition officer for having reached the said application and the blue print came from puttamma have been handed over to vendee's possession. It has further been stated that this deed of absolute sale of vacant site had been executed on vendor's free will.