DENNIS JACOB Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, it is heard finally.

(2.) In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to refund a sum of Rs.16,27,560/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. The petitioner also seeks for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to allot a site measuring 30 X 40 feet, free of cost in terms of the representation dated 25.10.2016.

(3.) The facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that on 15.04.1996, the petitioner purchased the land measuring 16X40 feet at Sy.No.79 situated at Malathahalli Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore. The Bangalore Development Authority issued a preliminary notification dated 08.04.2003 under the Bangalore Development Authority Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) for acquisition of the land comprising 4 acres 3 guntas of land in Sy.No.79, Malathahalli Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore. The State Government issued a final notification on 09.09.2003. A Bench of this Court by an order dated 30.09.2004 in JUNJAMMA v. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, 2004 7 KarLJ 677, issued certain directions to the Bangalore Development Authority for allotment of alternative site to the land owners who have purchased the land /site before the issuance of preliminary notification. Upon the assurances and representations held out by the Bangalore Development Authority, petitioner executed a registered relinquishment deed dated 07.10.2016 relinquishing the revenue site owned and possessed by him in favour of the Bangalore Development Authority, under which, Bangalore Development Authority agreed to allot an alternative site free of cost to the petitioner. Subsequently, the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the alternative site and a sum of Rs.16,27,560/- was recovered from the petitioner towards the sale consideration of the alternative site. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.