The General Manager vs State of Karnataka

Anand Byrareddy, J.—These petitions are considered together and disposed of by this common order given the facts and circumstances.

The petitioner in W.P. No. 67186/2009 is a Government of India undertaking and therefore, allotted a land to construct the administrative building in land bearing survey No. 166 to the extent of 6098.70 square metres as on 17.12.1984. The possession of land was also delivered to the petitioner and the revenue entries were effected in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner had submitted its building plans for sanction to the concerned authorities. But the same was not sanctioned as it was discovered that there was no approach road to the land and therefore, the plans were not sanctioned. The petitioner, hence approached the respondents 1 to 3 to provide an approach road to the land allotted to the petitioner. The Urban Development Authority in turn informed the Secretary of the Urban Development, forwarding the request of the petitioner. No steps were taken in this direction and ultimately this delay resulted in the petitioner not abiding by the conditions of allotment, one of which was that the building in question was to be erected within a particular time frame and that having elapsed, the allotment was cancelled.

Insofar as the petitioner in W.P. No. 67570/2010 is concerned, it is stated to be a Nationalised Bank and similarly allotted two plots of land totally measuring 9128 square metres in survey No. 166, which is now renumbered as CTS No. 5725, in order to provide accommodation for its administrative office complex and staff quarters. The land involved in the first of these petitions and this land were adjacent to each other and suffered from the same disadvantage of not having been provided with an approach road. A similar request having been made and since there was no response, as a desperate measure, this petitioner is said to have purchased the adjacent land in order to facilitate the formation of a road and accordingly had formed the road, thereby providing access to the property, which also benefited the adjacent property, namely the land belonging to the first of these petitions. Thereafter, the authority demanded that in keeping with the legal requirements, any public road ought to be surrendered to the authorities and accordingly, notwithstanding that the petitioner had incurred the entire expense of purchase and formation of the road, the road was surrendered to the authority. Notwithstanding this delay, which was not on account of the petitioner''s want of diligence, but on account of the circumstances that no road was provided, though a site was allotted, but the plans were not sanctioned on account of there being no road, was not the fault of the petitioners. But yet, the authority proceeded to apply the conditions strictly and opined that the construction not having been put up in terms of the conditions imposed, the allotment ought to be cancelled and accordingly cancelled the allotment. It is this common grievance of these petitioners, which is the subject matter of these petitions.

Though statement of objections are filed by the Government Advocate seeking to justify the action of the respondents, given the above circumstances, it is evident that there is no want of diligence on the part of the petitioners, which would have enabled the respondent-authority to invoke the default clause under the allotment conditions in revoking the allotment. As the delay was only on account of the plans for the building not having been sanctioned and that being on account of the absence of a road, which in the first place was the duty and responsibility of the authority to have formed before making allotment of the sites in question, it cannot be said that the authority was justified in canceling the allotment on the footing that there has been default in not putting up construction in time.

Consequently, these petitions are allowed. The impugned orders of cancellation of allotment are quashed. The respondents are directed to address the building plans of the respective petitioners and to consider the same for sanction thereof and to permit the petitioners to put up construction within a time frame, which shall now run from the date of submission of the application for sanction of plan and the construction shall be put up within two years from the date of this order.

Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. The impugned Annexures are quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the building plans for sanction of the respective petitioners and to permit them to put up construction in due course.