NARENDRA KUMAR RAMPURI Vs. VANAMALA VISHWANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 2nd respondent-Bangalore development authority issued a notification as per Annexure-B dated 19-12-1986 offering sites for allotment in 20 layouts formed by it. One of the layouts among them is sarakki layout. In response to the said notification the petitioner applied for a kite measuring 60' x 90' in sarakki layout as per Annexure-C dated 20-1-1987. He claimed allotment of site in the reserved category since he belongs to scheduled caste. The Bangalore development authority published the list of allottees on 5-7-1987. In the said list the name of the petitioner was not included in respect of site measuring 60' x 90' but his name was shown against site measuring 50' x 80'. However, the site numbers and the layouts were not mentioned. Subsequently, the Bangalore development authority announced the site numbers and layouts in which the sites were allotted. It is stated that the application of the petitioner for allotment of site measuring 60' x 90' was overlooked on the ground that the petitioner was not married and he had not indicated the number of previous attempts, which is not correct as is evident from the application at Annexure-a. In those circumstances, the petitioner took up the matter with the Bangalore development authority by corresponding from 29-7-1987 to 25-9-1987. It is stated that in respect of site No. 32 measuring 50' x 80' allotted to him in btm tavarekere vide allotment letter at Annexure-F dated 4-11-1987 was a smaller dimension and there was litigation in respect of the said layout. The stay order granted in that litigation was still in force. In the circumstances, the petitioner wrote a letter on 19-1-1988 to the Bangalore development authority requesting to allot him site No. 5 or 62 or 100, all measuring 50' x 80' in btm layout. Pending consideration of the same, the sital value of Rs. 85,000-00 was paid by him. Thereafter, the petitioner made several representations as per Annexures-j to j-4 and consequently, vide Annexure-K dated 20-4-1989 the petitioner was informed that in view of the stay order in respect of site No. 32 allotted to him, he would be allotted an alternate site. Accordingly, site No. 2 in btm layout was allotted under Annexure-L dated 13-9-1989. According to the petitioner, the said site is formed in sy. No. 34 of madiwala and it actually measures 50' x 90' and it is in a pucca slum area. This made the petitioner to seek allotment of another alternative site in indira nagar or sarakki or banashankari I or ii stages vide Annexure-m dated 20-11-1989. Another letter was addressed on 14-6-1990 pointing out the allotment of alternate site to certain persons mentioned in the petition. The petitioner has furnished the details of allotment of alternative sites in similar circumstances in Annexure-o. Subsequently alto the petitioner made representations vide Annexures-p and p-1, dated 16-2-1991 and 6-8-1991 respectively seeking allotment of alternative site in the layouts preferred by him, thereafter, the Bangalore development authority called for a report from the concerned engineering Section on the matter and accordingly, report was submitted on 8-3-1991 stating that site No. 33 in btm layout I stage measuring 60' x 84' was vacant and the same may be allotted to the petitioner in lieu of site No. 2 in sy. No. 34 of madiwala. However, vide Annexure-s dated 13-7-1992 the state government conveyed their approval for allotment of the said site No. 33 in favour of the first respondent in lieu of another site allotted to her in hennur-banaswadi layout. The petitioner alleges that this was done since the first respondent and one u. a. chandramouly are close relatives. According to the petition allegations, the said chandramouly is an income tax officer and he also moved for allotment of alternative site along with the petitioner. It is further alleged that the file of the petitioner was moved faster but the Bangalore development authority had taken extra care to make recommendation in the case of the said chandramouly and in the meanwhile the first respondent got allotted the site No. 33 in her favour. Several other allegations are made in this regard but they are not germane to the case on hand. Aggrieved by the approval given by the government under Annexure-s for the allotment of site No. 33 in btm layout in favour of the first respondent the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) THE prayers in this writ petition is to quash the approval of the government under Annexure-s for allotment of site No. 33 in btm layout in favour of the first respondent and for a direction to the Bangalore development authority to consider the case of the petitioner for allotment of the said site in his favour.

(3.) RESPONDENT 1 has filed statement of objections contending that the allotment in favour of the petitioner was not a conclusive one and justifying the impugned action.