M SHTVAKUMAR Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims that site No. 388, situated at 6th block, koramangala, Bangalore, was allotted by the first respondent-Bangalore development authority to him. Petitioner has produced the lease-cum- sale agreement at Annexure-b, dated 16-9-1992, possession certificate at Annexure-C dated 3-10-1992 and katha entered in his name vide Annexure-D , dated nil during October 1992, receipt as per Annexure-E , dated 1-4-1992 for having paid the tax, conditional sale deed as per Annexure-F dated 30-10-1992, certificate as per Annexure-G , dated 11- 11-1992 to show that the property in question stands in his name, Annexure-H series for having paid the tax, sanction of plan vide aannexure-j dated 'nil' and the special notice issued under Section 147 of the Karnataka municipal corporations act for revision of tax. Annexure-n, dated 15-10-1997 is produced to show that loan is raised by mortgaging the property in question for constructing the house. The petitioner asserts that he has constructed a house and has been residing therein and two photographs are produced vide Annexures-m and ml showing the existence of building. However, the petitioner has not produced the letter of allotment of site.

(2.) WHEN the things stood thus, a show-cause notice was issued by the revenue officer of the bda as per Annexure-o, dated 21-4-1997 calling upon the petitioner to produce the relevant documents in respect of the site in question. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply as per Annexure-p dated 23-4-1997. However, the bda has cancelled the lease- cum-sale agreement and the conditional sale deed under Annexure-q dated 1-8-1997 on the ground that the said documents were got executed by the petitioner fraudulently. The petitioner is seeking to quash the said cancellation deed at Annexure-q.

(3.) MR. Lakshmipathy reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the bda is in contravention of the various acts and rules of the bda without hearing the petitioner and without following the procedure contemplated under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. According to him, the cancellation of the original document is bad in law. He has placed reliance on several decisions of the Supreme Court and of this court in support of his contentions.