S SURYANARAYANA SETTY Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Petitioners' prayer is for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Bangalore Development authority to reconvey in their favour revenue sites purchased by them pursuant to the applications filed by them as per Annexures-A, N, W and AM after complying with the formalities and if, those very sites cannot be reconveyed, it may be directed that respondents may allot to the petitioners any other alternative sites of any dimensions in its layout at the same rate for which the other sites were reconveyed to others. It has also been prayed by the petitioners that respondent-authority be directed to pay each petitioner as compensation and damage a sum of rs. 2,00,000/-, for unreasonable delay caused, for not reconveying and allotting the sites, within reasonable time as authority allotted other revenue sites in Sy. No. 5 of Saneguruvanahalli, and to grant such further relief.

(2.) THE petitioner's case has been that petitioner 1, by the registered sale deed dated 28-11-1969, purchased a vacant site No. 20 in Sy. No. 7 of Saneguruvanahalli, Yeshawanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, as mentioned in Paragraph 2 of the petition. According to the petitioners' case, said Sy. No. 7, was acquired by the City Improvement Trust board, Bangalore and an award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Thereafter, the respondent-authority formed the sites under the reconveyance scheme and the Revenue Officer of the B. D. A. , on behalf of the authority issued letter No. RD-HC-PR 24/76-77, addressed to the Secretary of the Adarsha Welfare Association (Regd.) informing and promising that the respondent-authority has decided to reconvey revenue sites formed in Sy. Nos. 6 and 7 of Saneguruvanahalli Village to the respective purchasers of sites and further directed the revenue site owners to deposit the sital value at the rate mentioned in the said letter. According to the petitioner's case, the 1st petitioner deposited a sum of rs. 1,460/-, towards the sital value and also furnished to the authority the original sale deed, index of the land etc. Petitioner's case is that thereafter, they made. several representations to the respondent -authority with the request for reconveyance of their sites. Thereafter, on 21-7-1984, respondent-authority called upon first petitioner to produce all documents and also directed the 1st petitioner, on the appointed date, to show to the surveyor the location of his site. Petitioner's case is that petitioner complied the requirements of Annexure-H and submitted to the respondent-authority an affidavit dated 25-4-1996, duly sworn in. Thereafter, inspite of several requests being made, there was no response from the authority. The petitioner 1, issued legal notice on 15-4-1997, but there was no response, so petitioner 1, filed this petition. Similar is the case of petitioners 2, 3 and 4. According to them, petitioner 2, had purchased the site under registered sale deed dated 18-3-1970, while Petitioners 3 and 4, had also purchased the sites vide registered sale deeds dated 18-3-1970 and 17-9-1969. These petitioners 2, 3 and 4, have also alleged that they had deposited the reconveyance charges and had furnished the receipts thereof. Petitioners' case is that inspite of complying with the necessary formalities and requirements, authority has not paid any heed to their applications for reconveyance and almost more than 20 years have passed. So, the need for this petition had arisen. The petitioners have alleged in the petitions that they have not been given any compensation till this date inspite of the acquisition of the sites and they have also not claimed for refund of the reconveyance charges. The petitioners' cases have been that there has been undue cause of delay in the matter of reconveyance or allotment of the sites, the petitioners claim rights of the reconveyance on the basis of section 38-C of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976.

(3.) PETITIONERS' Counsel submitted that under Section 38-C, the authorities have been authorised to make the reconveyance. Learned counsel contended that it may be called reconveyance or allotment, but the authority can make the allotment. He submitted that, as long delay has been there, so, the petitioners have claimed the compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-, for each petitioner on account of the damage that has been caused on account of the inaction of the respondent-authority.