Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. vs Bangalore Development Authority

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondent to expedite the allotment of the proposed alternate land i.e., 29 guntas in Sy. No. 10/1 and 24 guntas in Sy.No. 16/1 totaling 1 acre 13 guntas of land in Gottigere Village, Bangalore. The brief facts are that the petitioner/society had been granted lands by the respondent by way of bulk allotment in Sy.Nos. 16, 17, 18 and 19 of Gerehalli Village, Bangalore North Taluk and Sy.Nos. 101, 103/1, 103/2, 104/1, 104/2, 105, 106 of Hosakerehalli Village, Bangalore South Taluk. The total extent of land that was in fact granted was measuring 80 acres 13 guntas as per the resolution dated 21.7.1999. In the said land the Rajakaluve was also passing is not in dispute. It is in that circumstance, since the entire extent of 80 acres 13 guntas was not available and there was a shortfall of 1 acre 121/4 guntas out of the said bulk allotment, the petitioner contends that they are entitled to the extent of shortfall. In that regard, reliance is also placed on the order of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 18496/07 dated 16.11.2010 as also the Government Orders said to have been passed.

At this juncture, the only issue for consideration is as to, "Whether the respondent herein has taken a decision in that regard or as to whether the Commissioner should be directed to proceed further in the matter?"

The respondents have filed their objection statement detailing the entire sequence under which the lands had been granted and also to contend that the petitioner cannot insist on any further extent being granted to the petitioner inasmuch as though the total extent of land had been granted by way of bulk allotment, the Rajakaluve running through the property is a part of the said property and therefore petitioner cannot insist on providing the extent of the shortfall of land in any other portion since it would not be a contiguous land to the land which has been already allotted for the purpose of formation of the layout. In that view of the matter it is sought to contend that the prayer made in the instant petition is liable to be rejected.

Having taken note of all these aspects of the matter, the reliance placed on by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the sequence of events that has been noted in the order sheet maintained by the respondent relating to the instant case at Annexure A is also to be noticed. A perusal of the same would indicate that the respondent had taken note of the events which had led to there being a shortfall of 1 acre 121/4 guntas out of the total extent of 80 acres 30 guntas which was to be allotted by way of bulk allotment. In that regard, the directions of this Court as also the Government Order has been referred to and certain lands were identified for the purpose of allotment in favour of the petitioner. However, since the said land was found to be located in a civic amenity area, further consideration was made as to whether any land can be allotted. Since at that juncture, after putting up the note the matter was placed before the Commissioner as per the noting at No. 385, the decision relating to land in Gottigere Village ultimately is to be taken by the Commissioner for the purpose of approval by the Board and also to seek for Government approval if the same is to be concluded.

The grievance of the petitioner is that though the said process has been adopted, the Commissioner is yet to take a decision and therefore, the interest of the petitioner is affected. If this aspect of the matter is kept in view, the objection statement filed herein does not explain the situation as to whether the Commissioner has arrived at a conclusion that the request made by the petitioner cannot be accepted and the note put forth before him is to be rejected by him or should be put forth for further approval in the matter. Hence, at this juncture, I am of the view that this Court will not go into the question with regard to the right as claimed by the petitioner since the respondent themselves are yet to take a decision finally based on the noting that is placed before the Commissioner. Hence, notwithstanding the contention put forth in the objection statement, the limited scope in the instant petition is only to direct the Commissioner of the respondent to take note of the sequence of events which has been placed before him vide noting no. 385-Annexure "G" to the petition and thereafter come to a conclusion one way or the other in accordance with law. Needless to mention that if the Commissioner comes to a conclusion that the request of the petitioner requires to be accepted and any other land is available, the further process in that regard shall be commenced by the Commissioner. On the other hand, if there are valid reasons not to agree to the proposal, a speaking order shall be passed in that regard and the same be communicated to the petitioner. Keeping in view the fact that the matter has been pending for quite some time, the petitioner shall now file a representation along with a copy of this order and the supporting documents with the Commissioner of the respondent within three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. A decision in this regard, one way or the other shall be taken by the Commissioner as expeditiously as possible but not later than two months and convey the same to the petitioner. If, in the process of consideration the Commissioner arrives at the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the land as stated above, the further process shall also be expedited thereof.

Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of.