Smt.B.Sudharma Vs. the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and anr

Smt.B.Sudharma vs The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and anr

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Nov 10, 2010

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/906813

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/906813
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: V. Jagannathan J.
Decided On: Nov 10, 2010
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No. 26836 / 2010 (EDA)
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[V. JAGANNATHAN J.] Writ Petition filed praying to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction to BDA to squash the notice vide Annex-A dated 10.6.2009.

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Smt.B.Sudharma

Advocate Sri E.V.Gopalakrishna Potty. Adv.

Respondent

The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and anr

Advocate Sri H.Venkatesha Dodderi. Adv

Excerpt

[v. jagannathan j.] writ petition filed praying to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction to bda to squash the notice vide annex-a dated 10.6.2009......of the said site, the petitioner had deposited the entire amount ofrs.3,51,000/-. yet, for the reasons best known to it, r-l b.d.a. has issued the impugned endorsement as per annexure-a. therefore, a direction is sought to r-l b.d.a. to allot site no.230 to the petitioner or in the alternative, any other site of equal dimension3. the order sheet reveals that though r-2 is represented by the government pleader, none appears on behalf of r-1. however, statement of objections has been filed on 17.9.2010 by r-l.4. having heard the petitioner's counsel and the learned government pleader for r-2 and none appearing for r-l to make submissions in respect of the contentions taken in the objection statement, on going tbrough the endorsement issued by r-l b.d.a., the reasons given therein cannot be accepted because, when the b.d.a. itself had accepted the request of the petitioner for allotment of alternate site and also having issued the allotment letter dated 26.12.2000 indicating that site no.230. j.p.nagara phase, 2' block, is allotted and the petitioner also having paid the entire site value, it was not open to the b.d.a. to fall back on its own act and take a reverse stand. though site no.730 was allotted to the petitioner, considering the request made by the petitioner, the b.d.a. came forward and did allot site no.230 to the petitioner and. as such, when the petitioner has also paid the entire amount, it is not open to the b.d.a. to say that the allotment made is liable to be cancelled.5. under the above circumstances, the impugned endorsement of r 1 b.d.a. at annexure-a is quashed and the b.d.a. is directed to allot site no.230, j.p.nagara 8,h phase, 2nd block, bangalore, to the petitioner and in the event of the said site being not available, the petitioner be allotted alternate site of the same dimension. the writ petition, therefore, stands allowed in the above terms.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the endorsement dated 10.6.2009 issued to him by R-l B.D.A. and it was conveyed to the petitioner by that endorsement, that the request for allotment of site No.230 measuring 40' x 60' in J.P.Nagara 8,h Phase, 2nci Block, Bangalore, cannot be considered and aggrieved by the said rejection of the petitioner's request for allotment of the aforementioned site, this writ petition is preferred.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was originally allotted site No. 730 in the year 2000 and as the said site was found to be at a down gradient, the petitioner, therefore, made a request for allotment of another site. Accordingly, the petitioner's request was accepted and site No.230 was allotted to the petitioner and it was in J.P.Nagara 8th Phase, 2nd Block, Bangalore. In respect of the said site, the petitioner had deposited the entire amount of

Rs.3,51,000/-. Yet, for the reasons best known to it, R-l B.D.A. has issued the impugned endorsement as per Annexure-A. Therefore, a direction is sought to R-l B.D.A. to allot site No.230 to the petitioner or in the alternative, any other site of equal dimension

3. The order sheet reveals that though R-2 is represented by the Government Pleader, none appears on behalf of R-1. However, statement of objections has been filed on 17.9.2010 by R-l.

4. Having heard the petitioner's counsel and the learned Government Pleader for R-2 and none appearing for R-l to make submissions in respect of the contentions taken in the objection statement, on going tbrough the endorsement issued by R-l B.D.A., the reasons given therein cannot be accepted because, when the B.D.A. itself had accepted the request of the petitioner for allotment of alternate site and also having issued the allotment letter dated 26.12.2000 indicating that site No.230. J.P.Nagara Phase, 2' Block, is allotted and the petitioner also having paid the entire site value, it was not open to the B.D.A. to fall back on its own act and take a reverse stand. Though site No.730 was allotted to the petitioner, considering the request made by the petitioner, the B.D.A. came forward and did allot site No.230 to the petitioner and. as such, when the petitioner has also paid the entire amount, it is not open to the B.D.A. to say that the allotment made is liable to be cancelled.

5. Under the above circumstances, the impugned endorsement of R 1 B.D.A. at Annexure-A is quashed and the B.D.A. is directed to allot site No.230, J.P.Nagara 8,h Phase, 2nd Block, Bangalore, to the petitioner and in the event of the said site being not available, the petitioner be allotted alternate site of the same dimension. The writ petition, therefore, stands allowed in the above terms.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2010 Same Parties Smt.B.Sudharma vs The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Aut... Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge V. Jagannathan J.

Land Acquisition