Excerpt
Bulk allotment of land to an extent of 33.2 acres situated at Doddakallasandra village, Bangalore South Taluka made by the Bangalore Development Authority (for short ‘the BDA’) which was established under section 3 of the BDA Act, 1976 for the Bangalore Development Authority Employees’ Welfare Association (4th respondent) and now has been questioned on various grounds by the Public Interest Litigation. Shri B.V. Shivaswamy is the Petitioner, and the Respondents are Government of Karnataka represented by its Principal Secretary, (Respondent 1), BDA, represented by its Commissioner (Respondent 2), the Deputy Secretary of BDA (Respondent 3), BDA’s Employee Welfare Association, represented by its President (Respondent 4) and the Additional District Registrar of the BDA complex (Respondent 5) were the parties before the court.
Facts of the Case
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the India Constitution to call for entire records from the Commissioner (2nd Respondent) for the sale of 33.2 acres of Agricultural land at the village conveyed to the President of BDA Employee Welfare Association (4th Respondent) on 9th of November, 2006 for the sum of around eighty-eight lakhs and the petition was heard and reserved for the order to be made. When this petition came up for hearing before the first Court on 16th January 2019, it was noticed that the Advocate for the petitioner is no more therefore the Court by Order dated 3rd June 2019 appointed Shri. B. N. Harish, Advocate as amicus curiae to assist the Court from the petitioner’s side.
Petitioner’s Argument
Shri B. N. Harish, the learned counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae firstly submitted that the Schedule Land allotted to the 4th respondent is a Gomal land. He submitted that the allotment has been made in gross violation of Section 71 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the KLR Act’) and the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (for short, ‘KLR Rules) and relied upon Rule 97 of the KLR Rules and submitted that due to violation of the said provision, the allotment made in favour of the 4th respondent is illegal and brought up various rules and provisions of Bulk Allotment.
Respondent’s Argument
Shri. M. N. Ramanjaneya Gowda, the learned counsel appearing for the second and third respondents submitted that there is an order made by the State Government in terms of proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bulk Allotment Rules and the State Government is not expected to record the detailed reasons for approval for the bulk allotment and invited bench’s attention to the fact that the Schedule Land has already been converted into sites and various sites were allotted to various persons who are not made as parties to the writ petition and therefore the allottees of the sites being necessary parties, were required to be made parties but they were not being made so hence the writ petition is liable to be rejected for non-joinder of necessary parties.
Shri K. Sachindrakaranth, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent pleaded that has a huge amount spent on the development of the Schedule Land. It is stated that for the development of the property, the 4th respondent had so far spent more than eight crores rupees and a sum of rupees two crores have been paid to the authorities such as BDA, BESCOM etc.
Court’s Observation
The court observed that thirteen years have passed after the sites were allotted to the members of the 4th respondent. The allottees that are in large numbers around 759 members will be directly affected by the orders that may be passed in this petition. Over time, some of them might have constructed houses on the sites allotted to them and some of them must have created third parties interests over the sites allotted to them. Therefore, even assuming that there is illegality associated with the bulk allotment made to the 4th respondent, no effective relief can be granted in this petition, in the absence of the allottees. However, the court held to examine the legal contentions rose in this petition.
Court’s Decision
On the ground of non-joinder of 759 members (allottees of the sites), the Court held that the bench cannot grant any reliefs sought in this petition and hence the writ petition is rejected only on the ground of non-joinder of more than 759 members of the BDA Employees’ Welfare Association (4th respondent) who are allottees of the sites formed out of the Schedule Land.
Click here to view the judgement
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
