- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4521 WP No. 7592 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 7592 OF 2021 (BDA) BETWEEN: SRI BETTASWAMY S/O LATE CHIKKABORAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BELAGUMBA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRIKANTH M P.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA., AGA FOR R1; SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 02.02.2021 BEARING NO. ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-P AND ETC. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4521 WP No. 7592 of 2021 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the endorsement dated 02.02.2021 issued by the respondent No.2- BDA as per Annexure-P. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he was working as a Compositor in the Government Printing Press, Bangalore and retired from his job in the year 2012 and had submitted the application on 01.10.2007 for allotment of a site from respondent-BDA under 'G' Category, accordingly he was allotted a site bearing No.949/C, measuring 30X40 Feet Situated at BTM, 4th Stage, 2nd Block, Bangalore. He has paid the cost of the site, the respondent-BDA had executed lease cum sale deed and that after lapse of eight years thereafter, the petitioner was issued with a summons by the Enquiry Committee, which was constituted to look into the irregularities in the matter of allotment of 'G' Category sites by respondent- BDA. In the Enquiry Committee, the petitioner had voluntarily disclosed that somewhere in the year 1996 he had been - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4521 WP No. 7592 of 2021 allotted a site by the Government Press Employees House Building Co-operative Society, which was purchased by him not on subsidized but on then existing market value. That taking note of the voluntary disclosure made by the petitioner, the Enquiry Committee by the impugned order had directed the respondent-BDA to resume the 'G' Category site, that was allotted to the petitioner. That in the meanwhile, petitioner had made a representation to the respondent-BDA to execute the deed of sale in his favour. Non-consideration of the said representation constrained the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the writ petition in W.P.No.40347/2017, which was however withdrawn in view of the report filed by the Enquiry Committee. Pursuant to the Enquiry Committee report, a show-cause notice dated 11.05.2018 was issued by the respondent-BDA, calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why necessary action be not taken in canceling the deed in respect of the 'G' Category site allotted to the petitioner. Which constrained the petitioner to approach this Court yet again by filing W.P.No.27431/2018. On 23.09.2019, the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court by holding that the petitioner had approached the Court pre-maturely and reserving liberty to the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4521 WP No. 7592 of 2021 petitioner to submit explanation to the show-cause notice that was issued by the respondent-BDA upon the enquiry report, directed the respondent-BDA to consider the explanation in accordance with law. That subsequently on 23.10.2019, the petitioner submitted the explanation to respondent-BDA, which was not considered. Further he initiated the Contempt Proceedings in C.C.C.No.648/2020 alleging non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court and the same was disposed of by imposing cost of Rs.15,000/- on the respondent-BDA. That however the respondent-BDA without considering the explanation as directed by this Court in its aforesaid order dated 23.09.2019, has unilaterally issued the Communication and impugned endorsement produced at Annexure-P, which has given raise a cause of action for the petitioner to approach this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court through the records at the outset submits that when a direction is issued by this Court as per the order dated 23.09.2019 to consider the case of the petitioner, it was obligated on the part of the respondent-BDA to have consider the case independently without reference to the contents of the report of the enquiry - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4521 WP No. 7592 of 2021 committee. That not having been done by the respondent- BDA the same amounts to violations of principles of natural Justice. Beside, being in violations of the direction issued by this Court. He submits that in any case the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry Committee cannot be the ground for the respondent-BDA not to consider the request of the petitioner for regularization of his site which was allotted to him inasmuch as the petitioner is left with only one site which could be regularized by payment of additional cost or any other charges as provided under law. Thus he submits that the endorsement issued by the respondent-BDA is liable to be quashed. He also points out that there was an interim order of protection granted by this Court, which has been violated by the respondent-BDA by allotting the very same site to some third party and since there is a violation of the interim order, respondent-BDA cannot be heard in this matter, untill determination of the issue regarding violation of the interim order. Hence, seeks for allowing of the appeal. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-BDA specifically pointing out to the report of the enquiry committee produced by the petitioner at Annexure-A submits that the said - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4521 WP No. 7592 of 2021 enquiry Committee was appointed by the Division Bench of this Court in a Public Interest Litigation in W.P.No.23475/2010 and connected matters to look into the irregularities that were committed while allotting the 'G' Category Sites. He refers to paragraph Nos.2, 4 and 8 of the said report and submits that even according to the voluntary information disclosed by the petitioner before the enquiry Committee, he and his wife were holding three sites, which fact was not disclosed by the petitioner at the time when he made an application for allotment of 'G' Category Sites. He refers to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 and submits that the said Rule specifically prohibit allotment of sites under the said category, should the applicant or his spouse hold any site as on the date when the application for the allotment of site was made. Thus he submits that petitioner had suppressed the fact of he and his wife owning the site. That the Committee taking note of these aspects of the matter, had recommended for cancellation of his allotted site. Adverting to the contention of the petitioner with regard to the directions issued by this Court with regard to the impugned endorsement, learned counsel for the respondent- - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4521 WP No. 7592 of 2021 BDA submits that subsequent to the order dated 23.09.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.27431/2018, the explanation furnished by the petitioner has been considered even as found in the impugned endorsement. The Endorsement indeed refers to the explanation given by the petitioner, it is only on the consideration of the said explanation and in the light of the report issued by the Committee, impugned endorsement was issued. Hence, he submits no fault or irregularities can be found in the impugned endorsement and the petition requires to be rejected. 5. Heard and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute of the fact that the petitioner and his wife had indeed owned and possessed certain sites as on the date when the petitioner made an application seeking allotment of site from the respondent-BDA under "G'' Category. As seen in the report of the Committee, the petitioner himself had disclosed the facts of he and his wife owning and possessing sites. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4521 WP No. 7592 of 2021 7. It is relevant at this juncture to refer to Rule 2(e) of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984, which reads as under: ''2(e)''Family'' in relation to a person means such person, the wife or husband, as the case may be, of such person and the children, grand children, parents, sisters brothers of such person and wholly dependent on him;'' 8. It is also relevant at this juncture, to refer to the Sub- Rule (3) of the Rule 10 of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984, which is indeed referred to in the Committee Report: ''10. Eligibility- No Person- (1) xxx (2) xxx (3) Who or any dependent member of whose family, owns a site or a house or has been allotted a site or a house by the Bangalore Development Authority or a Co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Society Act, 1959 (Karnataka Act 11 of 1959) or any such other Authority within the Bangalore Metropolitan Area or has been allotted a site or a house in any part in the State by any other Urban Development Authority or the Karnataka Housing Board or such other agency of the Government; shall be eligible to apply for allotment of a site.'' 9. Aforesaid provisions read in the light of the admitted facts the petitioner could not have made an application without disclosing the fact of he and his wife owning and possessing the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:4521 WP No. 7592 of 2021 sites. Had that been the case, he would not have been entitled for allotment of a site. Be that as it is. The contention urged by the petitioner herein is that the respondent-BDA has not considered his representation despite there being a specific direction by this Court in its order dated 23.09.2019 that was passed subsequent to the report of the Committee in the W.P.No.27431/2018. The said order extracted hereunder: '' In the instant petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: a) Quash the document at Annexure-L titled as show cause notice as issued by the 2nd respondent in No.BEM.Aa.Pra./Uu.Ka.- 2/BTM/4/2/949/C/2018-19 dated 11.05.2018, in the ends of justice; b) Direct the respondents to hear the petitioner before accepting the Enquiry Report submitted by the Enquiry Committee, which is produced as Annexure-L; c) To pass such other suitable order or orders thereof as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Undisputedly, petition is a premature litigation. Instead of filing explanation to show cause notice, petitioner has rushed to this Court. He is hereby directed to furnish his explanation to the show cause notice and so also finding on the enquiry report, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter, the concerned respondent is hereby directed to pass final order after due consideration of the petitioner's explanation. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of petitioner's explanation. Till then, respondents are hereby directed not to precipitate the matter. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:4521 WP No. 7592 of 2021 Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of.'' 10. Insistence of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent-BDA ought to have considered the representation in a manner calling upon the petitioner to pay additional cost, if any, cannot be countenanced, inasmuch as there is no such positive directions issued by this Court. 11. Further perusal of the explanation submitted by the petitioner as per Annexure-N pursuant to the said order would only indicate that the petitioner at paragraph No.4 of the said explanation has sought for not to cancel the allotment of "G'' Category site. Except this there is no other explanation provided. 12. Annexure-P is the Endorsement dated 02.02.2021 that was issued by the respondent-BDA, which is under challenge. At paragraph No.2, it refers to explanation submitted by the petitioner and the reasons assigned. The endorsement further refers to the report of the Committee and in the light of the facts found by the Committee and the explanation subsequently furnished by the petitioner, the respondent-BDA has issued the impugned endorsement - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:4521 WP No. 7592 of 2021 disagreeing to the same and consequently has called upon the petitioner to come forward for cancellation of the document as mentioned therein. 13. Necessary to note that at the first instance, there is a clear violation of provisions of Rules, inasmuch as admittedly petitioner as well as his wife owned sites in their individual names, as on the date when the application was made, which fact has not been disclosed while seeking allotment of site. Such an act cannot be condoned in the light of provisions referred to above. The fact finding committee has found this error on the part of the petitioner only based on his voluntary statement even as stated in the present petition. 14. In the light of these admitted facts and the reasons assigned in the impugned endorsement, this Court do not see any error or irregularities in the said endorsement. Petition lacks merits and same is dismissed. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25