What did the High Court hold?

The Court held that the BDA could not have acquired the property without the leave of the Court. However, to avoid hardship to the respondent, the allotment of alternative land was considered appropriate.

The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) acquired land that was under the custody of the Court for winding up a company. The BDA subsequently allotted alternative land to the purchaser of the original property to mitigate difficulties.

What were the issues?

Whether the BDA could acquire property under the custody of the Court without its leave, and the validity of allotting alternative land in such circumstances.

Sri K Nagaraj vs The Commissioner | Karnataka High Court 2016

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WP No.6682/2016 (BDA-PIL) BETWEEN :

SRI K NAGARAJ S/O LATE MR. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS DOOR NO.26, 1ST STAGE R.K. MUTT LAYOUT K.G. NAGAR BANGALORE-560 019. ... PETITIONER (By Sri RANJAN KUMAR K, ADVOCATE)

AND :

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD BANGALORE 560 020.

M/S SHANTHA INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES MAVALLI CHIKKANNA CHARITIES BUILDING SUBEDAR CHATRAM ROAD BANGALORE 560020. BY ITS PARTNER SRI B H SATHISH S/O LATE HALAGUNDE GOWDA ... RESPONDENTS

(By Sri CHANDRANATH ARIGA FOR C/R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 5.01.2015 PASSED BY R-1 AT ANNEXURE-B; DIRECT R-1 TO ALLOT THE LANDS AS REQUIRED UNDER THE BDA ACT, 1976 AND ETC.,

- 2 -

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This is a writ petition, in the nature of public interest litigation, challenging the allotment of an alternative land in favour of the respondent No.2 by the Bengaluru Development Authority (for short ‘the BDA').

The lands in question originally belonged to Mahalakshmi Woolen and Silk Mills Company. A petition being Company Petition No.8 of 1965 was filed for winding up of the said Company. The Company was ordered to be wound up on September 10, 1965. The assets and the properties of the Company went into the hands of the Official Liquidator.

The Official Liquidator moved an application before this Court in Company Application No.299 of 1974 to sell the property of the Company in liquidation in order to clear its income tax dues. This Court allowed the said application. 4. Wide publicity was given in the daily Newspaper for sale of the landed *properties measuring *54,446 Sq.ft, 1,09,700 Sq.ft and 1,22,312 Sq.ft. The respondent *Corrected Vide Court order dated April 4, 2016

- 3 - No.2 purchased the property. The sale was confirmed by this Court on June 20, 1975. Draft sale deeds were, also, approved by this Court and the property was conveyed. The sale deeds were executed by the Official Liquidator on *June 6, 1975, June 9, 1975 and June 16, 1975.

In the meantime, the BDA initiated steps for acquiring the selfsame property for the purpose of forming a layout. The property was acquired and the layout has, since, been formed.

When the Court was the custodia legis of the property, the BDA could not have acquired the property without the leave of the Court. Since the property has been acquired and layout was formed, in order to mitigate the difficulties of the respondent No.2, the BDA has offered alternative site in favour of the respondent No.2.

The writ petitioner is challenging such an allotment of alternative land in favour of the respondent No.2.

In order to cover up the illegality that has, already, been committed by the BDA and not to harass the persons, who are residing in the layout, the alternative land was allotted to the respondent No.2. *Corrected Vide Court order dated April 4, 2016

- 4 - 9. We do not think that this was done with an ulterior motive or illegally.

10.

The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

11.

We make no order as to costs.

Sd/- ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- JUDGE

SRI K NAGARAJ vs. THE COMMISSIONER

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments