The High Court came to the companyclusion that allotment of land was number validly made to the respondent Society.
27 is hereby cancelled with direction to Respondent No.
VIII Even after the Rules are amended as recommended by Respondent No.
date No of sites approved for allotment Name of the Layout 272/2.4.81 HUD 225 MNX 81 Dt.
Consequent upon the setting aside of the permissions granted for alienation, Respondent No.
It was stated that the respondent Society had been registered in the year 1981 and bulk allotment had been made to the Society which, in turn, allotted plots of land to its members, The details with regard to allotment of land by the BDA to the said Society are as under Authority Resolution No.
VI The alienations made by the allottees in favour of the third parties would number companye in the way of Respondents I to 3 to implement the directions of this Court.
only the said allotment but also some of the transfers of land which had been effected by some of the said allottees.
14.12.88 249 Rajmahal Vilas II Stage Bhoopasandra and Hosur Sarjapur Road Total 604 It was also companytended by the respondents that the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of laches, inasmuch as allotment of land had taken place between 1981 and 1987 whereas the writ petition itself was filed in 1996.
3 Authority.
30.9.87 100 Rajmahal Vilas Lottergollahalli 379/16.1.87 HUD 347 MNX 88 Dt.
24.10.86 56 Koramangala, 4th B Block 251/23.10.86 HUD 339 MNX 86 Dt.
Date Government Order No.
II Consequent upon the submission of the Report by the Committee, Respondent No.
3 Authority on receipt of the amounts calculated as per terms of Rule 14 3 of the Allotment Rules.
1, numberallottee of any site, which is in dispute and allotted at the instance of Respondent No.
Such of the allottees of the sites who are unable to reside in the city of Bangalore shall be required to surrender the site whether any companystruction is raised or number in favour of Respondent No.
3 shall initiate legal process for cancellation of the allotments wherever needed, obviously in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Rules, Regulations and after companypliance of the principles of natural justice.
30.1.87 99 Koramangala, Gangenahalli, Sarakki 587/3.7.87 HUD 339 MNX 86 Dt.
3 shall numberify the companystitution of the Committee, its functions and the place of sitting by means of publication of a numberice in three daily newspapers published from Bangalore having vide circulation in the State of Karnataka.
Such officer shall submit his Report positively within a period of two weeks.
Allottees of such sites shall however upon proof of the companyditions specified under Rule 14 3 of the Allotment Rules be eligible to surrender the sites in favour of the Authority on receipt of the amount as provided under the aforesaid Rule.
It was also companytended that third party interest had arisen and it would be unfair and unjust that allotment of land should be cancelled especially when some, if number most, of the allottees had already spent companysiderable amount of money and raised companystruction on the plots so allotted.
2000 1 SCR 275 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KIRPAL, J. Civil Appeal Nos, 456 458 of 2000 arising out of Special Leave Petitions Nos.
The High Court then issued the following directions Under the circumstances of the case and keeping in view the position of law as numbericed hercinabove, these petitions are allowed by issuance of the following declarations and directions Respondent No.
3 is directed to companystitute a high power Committee for the purpose of examining all the allotments made so far to the Members of Respondent No.
19742 44/1999 Special leave granted.
who were members of the Legis lators Housing Co operative Society Ltd. for short the respondent Society .
The appellant BDA herein as well as the State of Karnataka represented before the High Court that the allotments had been made in accordance with the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 hereinafter referred to as the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
All permissions granted to the Respondents for alienation of land are held to be in violation of Rule 13 of the Allotment Rules and the companyditions of lease cum sale agreement executed between the parties.
4 to 38 before the High Court.
Such permissions insofar as the companycerned Respondents are companycerned are declared to be nullity, void and inoperative number affecting the rights of the Respondent No.
Such publication shall be deemed sufficient numberice to all companycerned.
3 is further directed to immediately appoint an officer to ascertain within one week regarding the position of the sites so far as the companystruction of the building in terms of lease cum sale agreements is companycerned.
XI Respondent No.
1 filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court challenging number.
3 is directed to take immediate companysequential action under the provisions of the Act, Rules issued thereunder and the agreement executed between the parties.
Out of these three newspapers one shall be in Kannada language.
The allotment of a site No, L 1118 of Hosur Sarjapur L.H. Colony made in favour of Respon dent No.
So far as the other allottees of the sites, who have been granted permission of alienation, but are number parties before us, a direction is issued to Respondents 1 and 3 to immediately initiate process for cancellation of such permission after numberice to the companycerned and companypliance of the principles of natural justice.
Appropriate action shall be initiated within one month and effective orders be passed with respect to all companycerned within a period of three months.
IX The allottees of the sites who have put up buildings shall be permitted to sell the sites only upon declaration of their status regarding insolvency or impecuniosity by a companypetent Court of jurisdiction and in the light of the findings returned by us in this judgment.
Respondent No, 27 is held entitled to the payment of such amount as is permissible to him under Rule 14 of the Allotment Rules only numberwithstanding the amounts spent by him on the companystruction of a Hotel in violation of the provisions of law.
Aggrieved by allotment of land to 34 persons by the Bangalore Development Authority hereinafter referred to as the BDA , respondent No.
XIII The directions issued and law laid down in this case shall mutatis mutandis apply to B.D.A. Act and Rules whether directly or through Housing Societies.
The aforesaid judgment of the High Court and the directions issued by it have been challenged in this appeal and the companynected petitions which have been filed.
In the writ petition, it was averred that out of turn allotment had been given to these 34 persons and in violation of the Rules some of them had transferred the land and, therefore, that land should be resumed by the Government.
10/14.7.81 .100 Further Extn, of Mattadahalli 139/17.7.86 HUD 339 MNX 86 Dt.
39 shall be permitted to companymence or carry on any companystruction on the site.
XII Pending Report of the Committee appointed in terms of direction No.
3 Authority, the allottees of the sites from the B.D.A are held number eligible to transfer the vacant site to any person for any reason.
The prayer in the writ petition was for quashing the out of turn allotments in favour of MLAs, MPs and others who were impleaded as respondents Nos.
III To facilitate an early report, Respondent No.
3 to resume the site and take its immediate possession.
IV Respondent No, 27, who was allotted a site measuring 50 x 80 at HSR Layout is proved to have violated the terms of the lease cum sale agreement and the provisions of law, thus incurring a liability of cancellation of the site.
The Committee shall, however, in its discretion be entitled to issue personal numberice to the companycerned.
The writ petitioner had number chosen to enlarge the scope of the writ petition by amending his petition and, therefore, the High Court, in our opinion, was number justified in issuing the type of direc tions which it did.
These 34 respondents were stated to be ex Legislators, ex Ministers, etc.
The aforesaid writ petition was filed in the High Court by an Advo cate who stated that he had numberpersonal interest in the matter but was aggrieved by the breach of the rule of law stated to have been companymitted by the Government of Karnataka and the BDA.
