B S MUDDAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 4th January, 1989 of a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No. 21344/1982. In the course of this order, we will refer to the parties by the ranks assigned to them in the writ petition.

(2.) The facts of the case as noticed by the learned single Judge are as follows : The City Improvement Trust Board of Bangalore(hereinafter referred to as C.I.T.B.) which had been constituted under the provisions of the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945(hereinafter referred to as the Improvement Act) prepared a development scheme to bring into existence one of the many extensions of the City of Bangalore. That came to be known, first as Palace Upper Orchards/Sadashivanagar and later came to be named as Rajamahal Vilas Extension. The writ petitioners, numbering 30, are all persons to whom sites are allotted by the C.I.T.B. and on which they have constructed their residential houses in the Rajamahal Vilas Extension. In the said extension, an area facing the Sankey Tank was ear-marked for developing a low level park. By resolution dated 14-7-1976 the said site was allotted in favour of the 4th respondent- Bangalore Medical Trust of No. 4, Residency Road, Bangalore-1. The allotment was for the purpose of constructing a nursing home and a hospital. The writ petitioners have questioned the validity of that allotment.

(3.) The site in question was reserved for a park is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that by a notification dated 3-1-1973 issued by the State Government in purported exercise of its powers under Section 23 of the Improvement Act, (since repealed and replaced by Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 which came into force with retrospective effect from 20-12-1975 hereinafter referred to as the B.D.A. (Act), the entire extension came under the control of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore and Corporation has since been collecting taxes from the resident owners of the properties in the extension. At the instance of the Bangalore Development Authority, the successor to the C.I.T.B., by an order made on 27-5-1976 the State Government permitted to conversion of the low level park earmarked in the original scheme to a civic amenity site. Subsequently, by another order dated 11-6-1976 the Government accorded sanction for the allotment of the site in favour of the 4th respondent - Bangalore Medical Trust which is said to be a registered public charitable trust with the laudable object of establishing a nursing home and a hospital providing medical benefits to the poor, the sick and the suffering. The above facts have been culled out from the pleadings of the writ petitioners and the statement of objections filed by the 2nd respondent - Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the B.D.A.).