B K SHRINIVAS Vs. BANGLORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was the owner of revenue site bearing No. 3 measuring 30 x 40 feet situated in survey No. 170 of Kethamara-hally, which was acquired by respondent authority in the year 1976 for formation of residential layout. No compensation was paid to the petitioner. However, the respondent by its official letter dated 14-7-1976 bearing No. BDA/adm/pa/197/76-77 vide Annexure-A to the writ petition intimated the petitioner that he would be allotted a site at the old allotment rate on filing of an affidavit within one month from the date of receipt of the above letter in lieu of compensation. According to the petitioner, he complied with all necessary formalities as instructed by BDA in the letter annexure-A. But alternative site was not allotted to him though similarly situated landowners who have also lost their respective revenue sites in acquisition got alternative sites. According to the petitioner, he made repeated representations for getting alternative site, but in spite of the same, the BDA did not fulfil its promise of allotting alternative site at the old allotment rate. Ultimately, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W. P. No. 354/07 which came to be disposed of on 10th January, 2007 directing the respondent to consider the representation expeditiously within an outer limit of 16 weeks from the date of the receipt of the said order. After considering the request of the petitioner, the BDA rejected the representation/application of the petitioner on the ground that the request of the petitioner is belated, inasmuch as, the same is made after a lapse of 30 years. Hence, this writ petition is filed questioning the endorsement/order of rejection vide Annexure-F dated 31-8-2007.

(2.) SRI. Ravi G. Sabhahit, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that there is no provision or resolution passed by BDA to allot alternative site after the year 2000; that the petitioner has kept quite for 30 years and, therefore, he cannot take advantage of his own fault.

(3.) THOUGH the contention of the respondent that the petitioner has kept quiet for 30 years and, therefore, he cannot get the benefit of allotment of alternative site in lieu of compensation, appears to be prima facie attractive, the same cannot be accepted. The respondent being the statutory authority has unambiguously promised the petitioner that he would be allotted a site at the old allotment rate on filing the affidavit. Such a promise was made as back as in the year 1976, as could be seen from Annexure-A dated 14-7-1976. According to the petitioner, the affidavit has been filed within the stipulated period. In spite of the same, neither the allotment of site is made in favour of the petitioner nor compensation is paid to him. It is the duty of the acquiring authority to pay compensation and thereafter to take possession of the property. It is not in dispute that compensation is not paid to the petitioner. If it is so, the very acquisition of the property of the petitioner is bad in the eye of law. However, in this matter, the BDA chose to acquire the property of the petitioner on the promise of allotting a site at old allotment rate in lieu of compensation. The BDA being the statutory authority will have to fulfill its solemn promise made by it in Annexure-A. The petitioner as a dutiful citizen has surrendered his revenue site based on the promise that he would be allotted a site by BDA. The respondent authority which has undertaken to allot site is estopped from backing out from its promise held out to the petitioner who, acting upon the promise, suffered liability (See Gujarat State Financial Corporation v. M/s. Lotus Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (1983 (3) SCC 379): (AIR 1983 SC 848 ). It is trite law that when one of the contracting parties is "state" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, it does not cease to enjoy the character of "state" and, therefore, it is subjected to all the obligations that "state" has under the Constitution. When the State's acts of omission or commission are tainted with extreme arbitrariness, they are certainly subject to interference by the Constitutional courts of the country. The respondent-BDA has entered into a solemn contract in discharge and performance of its statutory duty and the respondent has acted upon it. Thus, the statutory body cannot be allowed to act arbitrarily so as to cause harm and injury, flowing from its unreasonable conduct, to the petitioner. In such a situation, the Court is not powerless to hold that the respondent is bound to fulfill its promise and it can be enforced by a writ of mandamus directing it to perform its statutory duty.