What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the BDA to consider the petitioner's representation regarding the allotment and possession of the site. The BDA was asked to verify the validity of the allotment and any legal impediments to granting possession and executing documents.

The petitioner was allotted a site by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) and had paid the required amount. However, the petitioner was not put in possession of the site, nor were the necessary documents executed.

What were the issues?

Whether the Bangalore Development Authority should be directed to deliver possession of a site and execute documents in favor of the petitioner, and whether the allotment remains valid.

Sri K A Jayamurthy vs Bangalore Development Authority | Karnataka High Court 2013

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF JULY 2013

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA

WRIT PETITION No.11287/2013 (BDA)

Between: Sri K A Jayamurthy S/o late Amruthayya Aged about 42 years R/at 77, Type 3rd “I” Income Tax Quarters Jayamahal Extension Bangalore – 560 046 …Petitioner (By Sri Sirajin Basha, Adv. for M/s. Justice Lawyers)

And : Bangalore Development Authority T Chowdaiah Road Kumara Park West Bangalore – 560 020 Rep. by its Commissioner … Respondent

(By Smt. A D Vijaya, Adv.)

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to direct the respondent to consider the representation dated 20.12.2012 in accordance with law and to deliver the physical possession of the said site with all civic amenities vide Anex-A 20.12.2012.

This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary hearing, this day, the Court made the following :

2 O R D E R Smt A.D. Vijaya, learned counsel to accept notice for respondent and file vakalath in the registry in four weeks. 2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondent to consider the representation dated 20.12.2012 in accordance with law by registering and delivering possession of the site. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he had filed an application seeking allotment of site. Accordingly, the respondent had allotted site detailed in the petition, in ‘Arkavathi’ Layout and the value as stated by the respondent was also paid. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the said position, the petitioner has not been put in possession of the site nor have all the documents been executed in favour of the petitioner. In that regard, the petitioner is stated to have made representation as annexed to the petition. Since, the same has not evoked any response, the petitioner is before this Court.

3 5. Considering the contention that the site was stated to have been allotted in favour of the petitioner and also considering the lapse of time, a positive direction cannot be issued at this juncture. However, the respondent would have to look into the records, find out as to whether the allotment made in favour of the petitioner remains valid and as to whether there are any other legal impediments to grant possession of the property and execute the documents in favour of the petitioner. Hence, such consideration in accordance with law is required by the respondent. Therefore, a direction is issued to the respondent in that regard.

To enable expeditious consideration, the petitioner shall now file one more copy of the representation and the supporting documents with the respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent shall thereafter look into the records in the manner as indicated above and intimate the result of such consideration one way or the other to the petitioner within a period of four weeks thereafter. If it is found that the petitioner is entitled to

4 the possession and execution, the same shall also be done expeditiously thereafter.

In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- JUDGE

st/bms

SRI K A JAYAMURTHY vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments