B SHIVANNA Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article-226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing of the impugned letter dated 29-5-1996, issued by the Secretary, Housing Development, Government of Karnataka and has sought quashing of impugned notice dated 2nd of July, 1996, bearing Reference No. BDA-4: MUB:

(2.) THIS petition has been filed (by) a former holder of the Constitutional Office of the Minister Sri B. Shivanna. No doubt third respondent is also the former holder of the Constitutional Office of the Minister, in the Government of Karnataka. Petitioner has described himself in the petition as a Former Minister of the Government of Karnataka, vide. , Paragraph-1. A person who occupies the Constitutional Office is always expected to keep pace with the Constitutional obligations and he is expected to act keeping pace with his oath, its spirit, and with spirit of the Constitution with which he takes the oath to bear true allegience. The Petitioner's case is that in 1981, he was the Member of Legislative Assembly of the Karnataka Legislature. That the Legislators Housing Development Co-operative Society devised a scheme by which it had sought to allot sites to legislators including the Ministers. As per the scheme, all the Legislators were entitled to apply for allotment of sites. The petitioner's case is the petitioner being M. L. A. , at the relevant time had been entitled to apply for the site and he did apply for allotment of a site at Ravindranath Tagore Nagar, popularly known and called in Bangalore by residents of Bangalore as R. T. Nagar. For what best reasons people call here area such as Ravindranath Tagore Nagar as R. T. Nagar and Mahatma Gandhi Road as M. G. Road, instead of taking pride in calling the places named after the name of great figures of India, by name of those great men who name such places or roads bear, is not clear. Here I am referring to R. T. Nagar as "ravindranath Tagore Nagar" as well in the judgment.

(3.) PETITIONER's case is that pursuant to the application, he was allotted scheduled property namely Site No. 165, situate in Ravindra Nath Tagore Nagar i. e. , R. T. Nagar and he paid consideration for purchase of the said property to the Legislators Housing Co-operative Society. The petitioner has stated in paragraph-5, that the first respondent, by its letter dated 18-11-1992 sent to the petitioner, informed that he (the petitioner) has in his name two sites allotted to him, namely. , Site No. 1133, HAL II Stage, since 1973 and Schedule Site No. 165, R. T. Nagar, in the year 1981. Petitioner was informed by that letter dated 18-11-1992 that the petitioner was entitled to hold only one site and was called upon to relinquish his rights over one of the two sites allotted to him. Petitioner's further case is by letter dated 16-2-1993, petitioner gave a reply to the notice issued by the first respondent, alleging that first respondent was not entitled to call upon the petitioner to relinquish one of the sites allotted to him and he asserted that site beaing No. 1133, HAL II Stage, was allotted by the first respondent, that is B. D. A. , in the year 1973 and not in 1979, as wrongly mentioned in the notice. He mentioned that he had paid full consideration towards the purchase of the said site. He asserted in the reply that Site No. 165 was allotted to the petitioner under a scheme devised by Legislators Housing Development Co-operative Society and petitioner being a member of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Karnataka at the relevant time was entitled to purchase the site offered to him by the Legislators Housing Development Co-operative Society, under the scheme. Petitioner's case is that in his reply he further stated that first respondent - B. D. A. , was not entitled to call upon him to relinquish one of the sites. Petitioner's reply dated 18-11-1992 and 16-2-1993 have been annexed as Annexures - C and D to the petition. Petitioner has further stated that subsequently on 13-9-1993, respondent No. 1 sought for certain clarification regarding the allotment of site in favour of the petitioner in the year 1973-74 and the petitioner gave a reply on 23-9-93 and stated that the site at Hal IInd Stage was bought by him out of financial assistance rendered by his family members and as Hal site was allotted as early as in 1973-74, for full consideration paid to it, it was not open to the first respondent to call upon the petitioner in the year 1992, after two decades from the date of purchase to relinquish that site. Copy of the letter of the respondent dated 13-9-93 and petitioner's reply have been annexed by the petitioner as Annexures E and F. Petitioner's case is that on 25-7-1994 petitioner requested the first respondent to execute the sale deed in his favour in respect of Site No. 1133, Hal II Stage, Indiranagar. But there was no response and thereafter petitioner addressed another letter 4-2-1995 with a request to the first respondent to execute the sale deed in respect of both the site Nos. 1133, Hal II Stage, Indirangar and No. 165, Ravindranath Tagore Nagar i. e. , R. T. Nagar, but there was no reply. Petitioner annexed those letters as Annexures - G and H. At this stage it may be mentioned that it appears from the record of the B. D. A. , that the petitioner has not disclosed. nor brought on record what happened between 25-7-94 to 4-2-1995, namely that the petitioner himself had written a letter Annexure-R1 - to the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 3, the original of which has been placed before me as per the record of Corporation of 15-12-1994, in which it has been stated - with reference to the above, I would like to inform you that I am surrendering Site No. 165, of Mattadahalli, R. T. Nagar, Bangalore measuring 60' x 90' allotted by the Karnataka Legislature Co-operative Housing Society, as I have been allotted another site by the then City Improvement Trust Board (B. D. A. ,) during the year 1973-74.