Judgment:
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the Respondents to consider the representations dated 5.10.2007, 5.1.2007 and 9.5.2007 vide Annexures-M, N and P Respectively.)
1. This petition through listed for further orders, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, is finally heard and disposed of by this order.
2. Petitioner claims to be a Power of Attorney holder of one Smt Latha under a registered General power of Attorney dated 11.10.1995 in respect of site No. 53 formed in Sy.No.46/1. According to the petitioner, the said Latha purchased land measuring 1 acre 15 ½ guntas in Sy. No. 46/1 of Ullal village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk under a registered sale deed dated 24.2.1995 executed by R. Veerabhadraiah S/o Rudrappa and formed a layout of sites on the basis of a layout plan Annexure ‘B’. The General Power of Attorney, It is said, covenants that the holder is empowered to convey the said immovable property. It is further stated that the said Latha has sworn to an affidavit dated 11.10.1995 stating that she has sold the site in favour of the GPA holder for a valuable consideration of Rs. 41,000/- and handed over possession of the said site.
3. At paragraph 4 of the Memorandum of Writ Petition, it is stated that respondent-BDA issued a Preliminary notification dated 14.12.2001 for acquisition of lands to form a layout known as ‘Sir M Visveswaraiah Layout’ published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 24.1.2012 and yet another preliminary notification dated 15.4.2002, while the final notification was published in the gazette on 23.5.2002. Since the land in Sy. No. 46/1 amongst other large tracks of land when acquired under the aforesaid notification, followed by a paper advertisement issued by the 1st respondent, led the petitioner to make a representation to allot an alternate site in lieu of his site acquired for the layout. It is said that the 3rd respondent issued a notice dated 17.6.2004 calling upon the petitioner to meet him in person along with original documents, following which, petitioner submitted a sworn statement dated 27.7.2004 as also a mahazar stating that petitioner does not own a site in Bangalore. Since there was no response, petitioner is said to have furnished yet another representation dated 21.12.2005 to allot an alternate site to which, the 2nd respondent addressed a letter dated 26.12.2005 calling upon the petitioner to submit all original records. For the second time, it is said, petitioner furnished the relevant records on 4.1.2006, which too was not conclusive and therefore, petitioner addressed yet another letter dated 5.10.2006 and thereafter, two other representations dated 5.1.2007 and 9.5.2007
4. According to the petitioner, since there was no response from the BDA, a notice dated 5.5.2011 was issued through learned counsel which when not responded, led to filing W.P. No. 31712/2011, in the name owner of the land, which was rejected reserving liberty to GPA holder to file writ petition. Hence, this petition to direct the respondents to consider petitioner’s representations- Annexures M, N and P and to allot an alternate site.
5. Conveyance of immovable property of value more than Rs. 100/- is required to be effected by a conveyance deed duly registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. Any other form of conveyance, more appropriately by execution of a General Power of Attorney and an affidavit sworn to by the vendor-in-title admitting receipt of consideration and placing the Holder of the Power of attorney in possession of immovable property, does not conform to the mandate of registration law and payment of stamp duty under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. Petitioner having not pleaded the execution of a conveyance deed by the vendor-in-title except for the execution of the GPA-Annexure ‘A’ and an affidavit Annexure ‘C’ cannot claim to have acquired a right, title and interest in immovable property.
6. The observation of the Apex Court in Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd., V. Sate of Haryana and other reported in AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 206 in the circumstances is apposite:-
“Immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/ conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. Transactions of the nature of ‘General Power of Attorney Sales’ or sale agreement /WILL transfers do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized as valid mode of transfer of immovable property. The Courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfer or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property. They cannot be recognized as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of Section 53A of the TP Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in Municipal or Revenue Records. This rule applies not only to deeds of conveyance in regard to freehold property but also to transfer to leasehold property. A lease can be validity transferred only under a registered Assignment of Lease.
7. In the light of the aforesaid observations, there can be no more doubt that the General Power Attorney-Annexure ‘A’ executed in favour of the petitioner by her vendor-in-title and the affidavit Annexure ‘C’ stating that the vendor-in-title has received the sale consideration for the conveyance of the site bearing No.53 formed in Sy. No. 46/1, cannot be constructed as a conveyance for a valid transfer of immovable property.
8. The Petitioner having failed to establish a valid title to immovable property, it is needless to state can claim no benefit under any law for an alternate site much less from the BDA.
Petition is accordingly dismissed.