B K PARVATHAMMA Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order Annexure-L dated nil, as per copy to the writ petition and praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to grant sale deed in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) THIS case by itself is a sample to exhibit how our institutions under the Constitution are forgetting the concept of justice social, economic and political at times have caused social injustice against poor and downtrodden people. The people, who belong to the weaker sections not simply based on castes, but those suffering from economic disability.

(3.) THE petitioner's case is that petitioner was allotted site bearing No. 652, 4th Block, West of Chord Road, 3rd Stage measuring East to West 20 feet and North to South 25 feet, more specifically described in the schedule. The grant certificate was issued on 12-8-1975, copy of which is annexure-A and the possession certificate was issued on 8-6-1981. The lease-cum-sale deed agreement was entered into between the parties as per Annexure-C, to this writ petition registered in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Bangalore, on 29-1-1981. There is no dispute that petitioner had paid the entire amount due to the respondent-B. D. A. and there was nothing due or payable to B. D. A. thereafter. Petitioner has mentioned the circumstances that her husband was working in the Corporation girls High School, as a Peon in 1984. Her husband fell ill, he could not attend duties. Thereafter, though, he had applied for leave with medical certificate, but he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for the alleged unauthorised absence for more than a year. The further plea was that due to the paucity of money and circumstances prevailing in the family and serious illness of the husband of the petitioner, petitioner could not construct house and in 1993, petitioner was served with a notice by B. D. A. , as to why the allotment should not be cancelled, as no house had been constructed during the stipulated period as per terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement. No doubt, petitioner has stated that when she met the authorities, they exhibited some sympathy only and she was told that she could put the construction of the house happily and the B. D. A. will not trouble her. In view of this sympathetic approach, the petitioner applied for sanction of the building plan to the bangalore Development Authority and the same had been sanctioned by the Bangalore Development Authority. The petitioner's case is that in pursuance thereof, she constructed the building. According to petitioner, her plan was sanctioned on 7-3-1996. The petitioner's case is that somehow or the other, she could construct the house with tin shed. The petitioner's case is that she had deposited the property tax and she has filed the receipts of payment of tax, the copies of which have been annexed as Annexures-D, E, F, G, H and J. The petitioner's case is that when she was likely to hypothecate the house to earn the loan to perform the marriage of her daughter, she came to know that B. D. A. had already passed an order cancelling the allotment. Petitioner's case is that after show-cause notice and reply given by her, no order cancelling the allotment had ever been communicated to her or in any case, no order was served, whereby the allotment could be said to have been cancelled. Petitioner stated that to her best rememberance, she had not received any order of cancellation and asserted that at no occasion, she came to know about the cancellation of that allotment. The petitioner's case is that she had raised the construction of house with tin shed, and the respondent may be directed not to implement that order as well as she has prayed for quashing the order of cancellation of that allotment, as the authorities have not duly applied their minds to the circumstances narrated by her in the reply. The petitioner has also filed the copies of photographs and the plan showing the existence of the building at the place or at the site allotted to her vide the affidavit dated 5-11-1997.