Smt. S. Shakunthala Vs. Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/934967
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided OnMar-21-2012
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 5172 of 2012 (LA-BDA)
JudgeMOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR
AppellantSmt. S. Shakunthala
RespondentBangalore Development Authority, Bangalore and Another
Advocates:For the Petitioner: K.S. Narayana Swamy, Advocate. For the Respondents: M. Karunakarana, Advocate.
Excerpt:
1. heard the counsel for the petitioner and the respondents’ counsel. 2. petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 15-11-2011 vide annexure-n to allot an alternate site in her favour in btm layout, bangalore or in hosur-sarjapur layout, bangalore. 3. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is entitled to get the relief in view of the judgment of this court in the case of chairman, bangalore development authority v smt. radha bai and others 1 2001(4) kar. l.j. 196: ilr 2001 kar: 416. 4. records reveal that the petitioner is stated to have purchased the site formed in sy. nos. 12/5 and 14/6 of tavarekere village. bangalore south taluk. said lands were acquired for formation of btm layout. the petitioner and other site owners filed w.p. nos. 30571 to 30594 of 1982. the said writ petitions came to be allowed directing the respondents to consider the prayer of the petitioners therein for grant of alternate site under rule 2(4) of the bangalore development authority (allotment of sites) rules, 1984. according to the petitioner, she has filed form 2 within four weeks as directed by this court in w.p. nos. 30571 to 30594 of 1982 and has paid an amount of rs. 8,400/- being the amount towards allotment of site. grievance of the petitioner is that though the prayers of certain other people like kamalamma. n.v. ranganath rao are considered, the prayer of the petitioner is not yet considered till this day. hence, this writ petition is filed. 5. the question involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of this court passed in w.p. no. 28388 of 2009, disposed of on 20-9-2011 (n.v. ranganatha rao v bangalore development authority and another 2 2012(2) kar. l.j. 359), vide annexure-m. in the said judgment, this court has concluded thus: “11. in more or less similar situations, this court by its order dated 26-5-2009 passed in w.p. 15026 of 2007 (b.k. srinivas v bangalore development authority, bangalore 3 2009(6) kar l.j. 666: ilr 2010 kar. 831, order dated 27-5-2010, in w.p. no.28495 of 2009, order dated 16-7-2010 in w.p. no. 34042 of 2009 and connected matters and the order dated 26-10-2010 in w.p. no. 21146 of 2010 has given a positive direction to the respondents to allot an alternative site to the similarly placed persons. following this court’s orders passed in the cases of the petitioner and of the similarly placed persons, i direct the respondents to allot an alternative site to the petitioner in any layout measuring 40 ft x 60 ft, at the current price within four months today”. 6. from the facts of this case, it is clear that the petitioner like other land losers has been fighting to get alternate site allotted in her favour since 1982 and till this day no positive action is taken by the respondents, though the certain other land losers are allotted the sites. in view of the above, the respondents are directed to consider the prayer of the petitioner as per law in the light of the judgment of this court passed in w.p. no. 28388 of 2009, disposed of on 20-9-2011, for allotment of alternate site in any layout at the current price within four months from today. writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Judgment:

1. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents’ Counsel.

2. Petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 15-11-2011 vide Annexure-N to allot an alternate site in her favour in BTM Layout, Bangalore or in Hosur-Sarjapur Layout, Bangalore.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is entitled to get the relief in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Chairman, Bangalore Development Authority v Smt. Radha Bai and Others 1 2001(4) Kar. L.J. 196: ILR 2001 Kar: 416.

4. Records reveal that the petitioner is stated to have purchased the site formed in Sy. Nos. 12/5 and 14/6 of Tavarekere Village. Bangalore South Taluk. Said Lands were acquired for formation of BTM Layout. The petitioner and other site owners filed W.P. Nos. 30571 to 30594 of 1982. The said writ petitions came to be allowed directing the respondents to consider the prayer of the petitioners therein for grant of alternate site under Rule 2(4) of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984. According to the petitioner, she has filed Form 2 within four weeks as directed by this Court in W.P. Nos. 30571 to 30594 of 1982 and has paid an amount of Rs. 8,400/- being the amount towards allotment of site. Grievance of the petitioner is that though the prayers of certain other people like Kamalamma. N.V. Ranganath Rao are considered, the prayer of the petitioner is not yet considered till this day. Hence, this writ petition is filed.

5. The question involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court passed in W.P. No. 28388 of 2009, disposed of on 20-9-2011 (N.V. Ranganatha Rao v Bangalore Development Authority and Another 2 2012(2) Kar. L.J. 359), vide Annexure-M. In the said judgment, this Court has concluded thus:

“11. In more or less similar situations, this Court by its order dated 26-5-2009 passed in W.P. 15026 of 2007 (B.K. Srinivas v Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore 3 2009(6) Kar L.J. 666: ILR 2010 Kar. 831, order dated 27-5-2010, in W.P. No.28495 of 2009, order dated 16-7-2010 in W.P. No. 34042 of 2009 and connected matters and the order dated 26-10-2010 in W.P. No. 21146 of 2010 has given a positive direction to the respondents to allot an alternative site to the similarly placed persons. Following this Court’s orders passed in the cases of the petitioner and of the similarly placed persons, I direct the respondents to allot an alternative site to the petitioner in any layout measuring 40 ft x 60 ft, at the current price within four months today”.

6. From the facts of this case, it is clear that the petitioner like other land losers has been fighting to get alternate site allotted in her favour since 1982 and till this day no positive action is taken by the respondents, though the certain other land losers are allotted the sites.

In view of the above, the respondents are directed to consider the prayer of the petitioner as per law in the light of the judgment of this Court passed in W.P. No. 28388 of 2009, disposed of on 20-9-2011, for allotment of alternate site in any layout at the current price within four months from today.

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.