Karnataka High CourtC Ramesh vs The Bangalore Development Authority on 25 January, 2011Author:B.V.NagarathnaBench:B.V.NagarathnaEN T11 E E["IIC§H' CGURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATEI) "IT.--115 'I'Iri¥'-I 25'?" EEAY OF JAE'€E_,EA.R'Y'} QC! E. .1

{'3 BEFORE

"mg: E--iON'BII.E MRSJUSTECEE £3.V«NAGAI%AfFZA£'gE$§§§:_'_ ~  " 

WRI'I'PETI'{'ION NO_59.1.8/2010{BpA;k   L" %

BETWTEEN:

SR1 CRAEVIESH, V
AGED 44 YEARS,    V =_
S/O CHIKKANNAGOWDA, R/O"--v.NO., 826, . 
mrr, 1ST MAIN ROAE1 EST}-I BLOCK,  "
KORAMANGALA,    --    
BANGALOREWSESO 095.'   --_  PETETIONER
{By Sri: s.N.AswATH_A;1\:A'RAyA'%\I~;.ADV.3'

1. THE BANGAIQQREVD}§V"E_LOPME1\E'I'AUTPIORITY?
SANKEY ROAD" K.P;.___W'ES'f,
I3ANGALOREm.56o_ 
R9313. BY ITS 'COMMISSIONER.

" V'    SRI>K.1'«l..A KRI$ﬁ NA MURTHY,

= --. _ AGEDABQUT 53 YEARS,

" . "s,(O._K;N1~..NARASENGHA RAO,

.  --._R/"O 63.0.;;;3R1) CROSS, 3RD BLOCK.
'  3RI).P'Ii£_ASE, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE),
" BANGALQRIMSO 083.

h   :5; :  S1:i1"sR1vATsAN RANGACHARI,

._ "AGr3:'D ABOUT 4:2, YEARS'
' 'S/e:> SR, CHAR},
R/O (L21. DIAMOND DISTRICT.
A1I5{PORT ROAD,
E3ANGAI,OR£«3w56O U08.

4" TI--EE £3 EPUTY SES-CE{E'I.}%{RY W '1 5
%§ANGX%.iJ@£Q£i D}}§'V'E§lJOPM EN'? 27'aUTHORE'1."x',
S.r'XE\E'KE'{ RG:'4'xD, 'E:5ANGALGE4i£:Z~5f§0 €323' 



F'§§§

"1'E'-IE2 AI')[}L, DIS"E"RICT REGIS'i'E%2,A'R,
BANGALORIE; EDEZV. AUTHORITY [PLOL
£1,139 WIBST' I:'3AN'GALORI*1v560 020',

ME

6, SMT.R.C1r'IANCHAL,

AGED 60 YEARS,

W / O . R1 KHABCHAN D JAIN 9

R/O 401, H] FLOOR, HI CROSS.
PANCHASHEEL APAR'I."ME1NTS. _. ~ -~ .. ._ 
GANDIriI1\fAGAR, BANGAE.OREf;é'56O SO09.  O

5}

SRI.N.DEVARAJ{}.

AGED 36 YEARS. V
S/OKNNARASARAJUE

R/O.42'1,1S'i' CROSS, _ _  « '
NEW 'FH1PPA.SANDRA, I-{AL _ "R1'J--»S':_'AO  
GANDHINAGAR, ' §3ANOALORF:----._5s30~-- Q75,

 SENIOR SOS REGjiS'vT'RAi§,OV   " '
BOMMAN..aH.A1.1,1:;' "  

BANOA:;Oi2;: O.1'S'1*R1t:'f,
EDA COjMPfQ:EX, KOE?AMAN(}ALA.
13ANGAmRF,."«,%  . ;

9. 'I'HE.'_ AODL,c:O.MM'i-SSIONER,
BANG-.ALOR]3_ MFPLWAO-ARA PALEKE.
. « BANGALQRESOUTH,
» JAYANAGARV Iv BLOCK,

BANGALORE.  RESPONDENTSfay"Sm;:§.O.L.JAOAOFFSH, ADV. FOR R1 AND R4,
'S'RI.;D.N'.E¥;'iAN;JUNATH. ADV. FOR R2,6 & *7. SR1.JAYANTH

PAj'*rA:>:S1%1_I;"FF1, ADV. FOR R3]

$**$**

'O THIS Xkflijﬂ IS E*'ILED UNDER ARTiCLEZS 226 AND 227

'?§}F THE CONSTiTUT1ON OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
O ENTERE RECORDS QUSH {1} IMPUGNEI3 ORDER DTD

E O1.2.2{)§Q "VHDE ANE\?I§X--R {2}CANCEL.LAT§O'N DEE-ESE) DTD
103,0"? \='EE}E AI.'€NZ€X--L AND [3]".I.'§-"iii? COE'~éESEQUEN'I'EAL SALE

EEEEEEEIE §.}'I"E} 28.8.0?' IX"? AE\EF'éfEf3}£~3\r'E, ﬁg? 3



t.hei'eafte'r. that they could have their say in the m21t';i::':1" and
that the eriq_t.1i:'y Shouid be edmgiieted withiri 21 §.)€1."i.()d. of four
months from the date of receipt of the said order. In t_ti'e.esaid

writ, petition? the ea11eeE1at.i0ii of the sale deed n1_ad_e *iIii'EtX§'F)££f

of the petitioner dated 10/7/2007 was not set.""a1.ei<:1ei,".Ev:'1 fri'e*.ir_ V' 

of the Said direction isssued by t1i.is:"Cei1':ri*esp;e-nd'e§i!,sVi\t0s,:;i

and 5 - BDA have coiidueted an eﬁqiiiry a1"1Cifpé1.F;'S'€Ci2.O1'~(i<Ef1'.u

denied 1 1 /2 /2010, which is  in vt£iisVm7it_;3. It is the cage..§{f«»i-,he'_V_pejziifiogei-'that he is the lawful
owner of BDA site   at 41?' Bioek,

Koramaiigslet'jLa'3}'6fz;;ﬁ3. B-afrgai0§'e;"i1éi\Iin.g purchased the same
for a7yaE--:,1:;1b1e'VxC'eiisideratien from the original ailottee of
Baiigaloie iDeve'E.0p:{1'et1ii'~--.Adtliority namely, Sri Srivatsan

Raxigavehari" fhi1'C§.V..'R{3S'».p()'i"1..C1€§I'}i'. herein, by a registered sale

  deefi.  6/4"/'2e.05; which was registered in the office of

.the_ SeniL>:v;S'ub--~Regis1.rar, Bangalore South Taluk and

 t'.;7!._\';'.'!,"€VATc'1i.vﬁ'€5~7..4;bV7{,h*'i§V.:}°§E31.hE1 entry was made in his name as per

ix'r;1_tfha C.€'I"'t'};.filéE1tf3 dated 14/12/2006 and subseq'uentIy, he

has been. payiiig taxes to respenderit No.9 M Bangalore

 AMa_ha191V2é.g21ra Paiike as per the tax reeei_pi.:s which are

[§vi"@"}d;'tl{t€d ed, Aii.I1.e:x;LIi°ee 'C' arid 'DZ Aee0'1'diiig to the

E§":f3§'.iEi(}i'E€'i", ii, e.ppea1'$ that e§'.£giIz.211.Iy the said site Ns:>.818; wee

;-ti.Eei.t,e;":d it} {me -Sri §{,i'x7i'.i4€ri:%;E'::':2i §%§:ii't'.iijgu 'i°£EfE§§){}i'i{§'€£'":§I t\§t>i2



 

Ln

herein. and lease cam sale agreemertt dated 30/ I /  was

also executed by BDA in favour" of the second 

pursuant to the allotment order and therealtexi 

cancelled by executing a cancellation .deed_''da't'ed'.';7/l« '

which is produced at Arlnexure 'E"7--_and" "the sfa,_id~ slitellbeseeaiﬂe

available for allotment by thel_B.D.A. v.al;l3pears{ltlw§at..t:he3Blﬁiali L'

thereafter allotted the "very . aslhpezflvthevﬁiallotment
made at Annexure 'F;   ._a lease (tum sale
agreement da'ted._'7/ 5/   is produced
at Ani1ex'u;je§._EGlEalid  lifploossession was given to
the   per Annexure 'H' and
condit.£idv<)r1;il1""  1990 was also executed by
the BI)l'X,.VV_vG'hicl1V.isl  'J' and subsequently, Katha

Certificate  was issued in favour of the

 peti'ri'ofa.eAr's'l'vendor as per Annexure  Therefore, it is the

  easel petitioner that he has purchased a site from

1-es.;:loncie=t;tt' which was lawfully allotted by the BDA to

 him an;d7~a.fter a lapse of about 10 years 1'.e., after completion
 e.£»ee«nmalienati0n peried, pei;ititmer's vendor had became the

l  absolute and lawful owner of the said site and he sold the

same threugh a regietered sale deed dated 8/AL/2005 as per
annexuee 2%' and tl1er"eaft.e;3 Katha entries have been made

in the name ef the getltiezzer on l4;'12/ EGQ6 which is at

E

in ""£3
Azmexure 'B' :;m,e:§ t.axes hzwe aim been paid by the petiéioner

to the BBMP. which is 21i'.A11I1exL1re 'CC4. It is the fur'ther case of the petitioner,  of

a sudden, on 23/10/2008, in the morning  

persons came to the petiii0:1er's hguse, svi,a1'iv11g'Vvth3t '$on_1e""one had i.r1f01*med them that site  «aVé1iIaV'b1e"through brokers anti the p€'i;i1'.§QnerV"seﬁsEng 

some foul play, first applied for }EhCu1:11brar1C€T Ce'rti}fieaie and
0i')"u':.i'i1ed the same org 'iC--5_;'2{3G:8';;::'it},he was shocked to
fincl from the said Encu.n1h_r--an'c_e Ceftifie-é1£e*'ihat firstly, BDA

had a_:exee1:i{e d_--.V  deed dated 17/ 7/ 2007,
cance1V1'ing§._the .aV}idi,II1enfL'--.pdgde on 7/ 5/ 1990 to his vendor,
resp0I1c'1em_: No.3' gird 'se"(.;0nd]y, BDA had executed ar1othe1*

Can§ie'1Ia£.i0n   Qiated 17/'7/2007. Cancelling the

 cc.n7&1n;:ua.na1A.ga1e"da'te'd 16/55/1990 and thirdly, EDA had
V  deed dated 20/8/2007 in favour of the

H  '1:§SpOﬁd€11E in respect of the very same site N0818.

 p--et.i£-iUi:ae:' obtaineci Ehe certiﬁed (_'.Op'.i€S3 of the said

 _dT0eum.c:'i11.s. It is the l"urt;her case of the petit.i.0ner that
 '_ x<_:_a.14i'eeE.E.ir1g the £31I]()f{I1("E'l"_1'{. of site N0818. which was in fav0'L1r
10? the peLii:i0:1er7s:» \:"E;*.§}.(f1()I' wEf'I::()L1E, iss1.1;-mes: {sf any notice

either M2 the pe;=:£.§£,i{:r1er or to his; vezzdor zgmii w'it'h<3L.:'i', ggivizlg3.¢



any I"£'.&1:3()}1Elbi€ o;)p<>1"t.tzI1iti}f to have their say in the mattezf
we£"e. iiiegal acts arid. t,here'fo1'e writ petition was ﬂied in

W.P.No.1«*iEO37/2008 seeking quashing of the 

deed dated 10/*7/2007 and  deed ciategi'i---2o[s1/2~oe~7 *
made in favour of respondent I\Eo.2;~ -_If£:petition that the aiorestmed di1;eet.Eo_'1:s;tV \,tfe.1'e' 

issued to the BDA to eohdue_t"a.n eniq-tzizy. _at;id"«vtI0"--V13e1:és an'-V

appropriate order after afford_ih'g__ 27213 o;.)'p'o:'t:uni_t5y to the
petitioner and 1'esp0r1de'h"tsA    21 say in the

mat,te1'    .1'I"iﬁi'.;1t:_¢VV _' to the said direction, 41"respondent" had dated 25/11/2009 calling

upon. the mtmgr to eppear before him on 9/12/2009

V'a,1on§§ vs.-"'ith"t~,a11 thevvofiginztl documents reiating to the site in

§igee'stAio:i;..¢Vj&haﬁd to offer his explanation; that petitioner

ap;;)eared.'Ije.§otre the ease worker who directed him to meet

 the Stzpc'ir111t.ehded who asked the petitioner to produce the

 ifeleifgtizt. doeuments and he also signed the ste.tement and

the ad.dit:iona} sizmenieht. which is produced at AnneX.ure 'P.

'§herea£'te,r. the S1,E1t.€If1{:'I1t of other persons 11a:<11e1y,

respen.dent.s 2 and 3 were aiso iﬂkﬁfil and stibsequentiy.

when no order was passed by the first: yesporﬁeiitg
i,.»«'*""'f "€:%%

R,P.N<>.?8/ 2010 \,vza.:3 féiecf fez' review ef the e:"der __cIai'ed

2"?'/'8/2009 in \-V,P.E\'Iow E-4~03?;'2008 in $0 f:»".2.r ass 1:2. 

non qL1ash1'I1g of the ee11sequen'1,ia1 sale ' V-
17/'?/2007 and the Said review peifitjen v_=.r'a.és' "C1ieSj:mViSVeedV 0-13 
31/8/2010. ;="-x('.€:01"'dir1g§ to the Vpeﬁiiieaeréj».i,k1;e§*e21'i'te'g~_,& 'Elie

received a letter on 1.8/2y*"i20_§O E31-zxle mv.;~1r;ieE1. 

enclosed the order dated 1 1/ ai.JAr1neXm'e
'R' which is assaiied in he petitioner has
ainso contended that  fi::c.31;1»;.spe;1king order,
vfiiiath is b-ai:cVi arbitrary and not

in aec0rdar;cei:__iiagitha' is.W;~:f_' ¢_ my of additional facts,

})etit.i0aer Vs1;f::;11ii.#.ed.VV__that he received a letter on
2/3/20AI'O_s{atihg_{hat ei:«.__2.'3/$2/201.0 respondent N056 and

7 11ad--pL1reHased't.he V-eeryvsanle site N0.818 in question from

'"V--.the*res}:$'e-ntienl, .N0.2Wand sale documents are produced at

  iihereafter, the Kaiha Cert1'ficat.e has been

issued in. ih.-e'iTr names as per Annexure 'Z'. Under the

"-.,ctircL111i:3Vta;1ees, the petiiiioner While once again aesailing the
"'--"«;:a.:f:c:e}'..Ee1£:1'or1 order dated AIIEICXLEYB 'LS has alse ehalienged

  ihﬁe 01°C}-er ciaied 1 1/2/2010'

8, The E"irs{, and {email :z'espor1den.ts - EDA have ﬂied
sﬁaaemezei {>5 a>b}'eetic;z1s stag-u.iz":;;§ mat. the _;;e1.itio1"1e;";3L::*aj%if12.::-;i.n§§ é':%";e ezziti semi: §'é°<>z:': hie zré:'::.':.:;§{:§" is; rm? Wi£4E'*2:';.:': ':,h<3:£~;'

éi



%

kmnwledge. mat pe1.ii.i.o»:1e1"s veiidor -- .r'espo£1dent No.3 was
not the (J1figiIizil ::1l.Ioi.tee of Site i.\lo.E3l8 and that. respondent

No.3 had fabricated, forged and eo:(1Coet.eC1 dootiiiieriis and

had obtained a sale deed and when the same the

knowledge to the respondent: ~ authorities. it   

after eoiadt1(tE,i.11.g proper enquiiy. I*E'is211so ',st.at.ed'i.h.at the 

called cancellation deed was eXel{:{ut.e.dA' in fevspevei. 

No,8l8 on 9/5/1990. But leas_e¥'e_u.n1«sa§e agi;eeiii~eﬁ"i"Was by"then executed in faxrouzf of res--p9:rideiii;A N0..'2l'o1:1. 31:/8/1.988.
That the documents relief ,LE§'J'L1_£_1i'l)':f  'peE;itiox1er have come

into existence with_ the'eoVlliisioi'i«,olfVaii- eiiifiloyee of the BDA

with iv:respon'tivej:j.i;.eVNo.3_'anjic1.the documents registered in
fE1VO11I"',Of«.I'€SpOi}CiE§1lt<.._'NO'.{§ are illegal and fraudulent."i'hei'ei'orel,Wi._he. 1'€S-i)0Ai1(?lf:I]-{S ~ authorities resolved to Cancel

the5;lease--cum¥sale_____ag1'eeme11t. and Conditional sale deed

V' -.«:1.llegedl3?« inad_e in favour of respoiideni No.3 as no allotment

    in his favour. Siibsequemly, the authority

 sale deed to the origiiial allottee A respondent
N02 zO.ii'v2.{)'l/8/2007. They have also stated that as per the

 iriirfectiioiis issued by this Court in W.P.No.'l«4l~O37/2008, an
 e:;_q_iiiiy was held to i.mIest,iga£.e iriio the mai.i.ei' and it has
eciiiie to the eciimliisioii t.hai;. the pei.ii.ioner's vendor ~

""i"esp<3ii.dei'ii, i\ie,E-E was imi. at 21% 2-1;': aiiai.i.ee of the B[)A iii





reaspeet of the $;'.i,e Ne.8'I8 and tha':. respenderli. No.2; was the
ailotiee and in f,er.me of the said aiiolmezizi, an 21bs01u.E..e Sale

deed dated 20/8/2007 has been issued and the  in

order and the e.anc:e11at.ion of sale deed on 10/7,/;i200}'~  5é,§.se«

in 2-ufteordarice with law and 1,h.erefo1'e, S{)LI,ghI'._:"dj$i1ﬁSS&1§ t5£'._ 

the writ. petition.7'. Respondent No.2 hVa's,_fi1edV'e1V2i[eme1;»Ei"V'A'Qf .evt.)jee;tiens_ Ve.

by stating thai when responde'i:3; FJo.3 e.ppeAared Vbefore the
authority at the  <3Anq:1ji §y!V_»e1'e.r;un1entsV were not
produced by the 1"espQ_1vid_.er1i'V__VVN0.--3~.V.'Wi1;h.--V"' regard to the

a110t:mer1t- .1,¢1'1'?;.e1'  is--C~1,1\aI1ce""'evf--"f)OSsessior1 eert'i.ﬁca.te or
e0ndi{Epnai* savleaiieed »Tr:33:de..i.1'1 -favour in his favour and that
the see0nVd"respe_r1d--ei:tvépxjddticed all the relevant documents

in supp0rt 0.f' }'1is_e~asev_tifestablish that he was the original

 a11.C:)':t.:'ﬁ~E€§:.,,Té)fIhfi  and on the basis of the aliotmeni:'sLi'b&_ieqL.1ent absolute sale deed and the other

i z'; sL1pp0rt of the ailotmerzt, the enquiring

211.1fh0ri"{y fies righily Come to the emzclusion that there was

  3730 a1i0"1':Iie:1t made by the EDA in f21VOE£..I" of respeandent No.3
" ~._8 f1..(i'A£1I"1C}€}" {he eireumstzmees, BDA 'was; right in Inakingthe

vé  .e _.V_{:5a11ceiiaii(}11 deed dateci 10;'?,f2007.It is also stateci that :'espendei1t N0.2 liad scmght.

permissien to put up a residentml preper1},r and i'?2Ve."'sar:1e

was grani.ed by resp<rr1<:leni No.8 and i1h.e1'ea.i'€e1",_..he 

said property to respondeiits 6 and 7. who joirili:-lg}  it

the same by 3 registered sale deetltld-sted--.¢ 

subseqtzently, Katha eert.ifi(:ate l1éis_ beer: isvsiie<:l'~h3;l't.l1e~.VV

B.B.i\/i.Pi in their name; "having it

come to the coricluséori t1:ia't~.'t.here,_ was  iraudulerit

transaction between 'resf)Or1dei3te'ViNe.3withthe eonnivanee of

the ei'1ipi0yee gig' ilie  \vasVt'-.jV_us'ilii7ieei in making the

cancellation--Vrle<e<iILr£sted_:  end on that basis, the

e11dorsen1ent"s3._--vAr1r:exure~ has been issued. which is after
holding' a 4' prO'p.er  and after referring to the

statements  suivml-ssivon of parties concerned. pursuarit5.._Cl'§1"€'('I,l0I1  by this Court and hence, he has

  sea.-;g1:fvV tiislrni'ssail.. of the writ: petition.9., ~F:{(fi€~J{}:30l'1d€I1l, No.3 in his Sl.&}l.EtII}E3}.'1l. of objections,

Hhas stéitecl that he is the predeeess0i"~iri~title having sold the
V"-"_prQ;.j'e'1"ty bearing Site No.8l8 in favour of the petitioner by 21

  registered sale deed cfateci 6/4/2005 1.hal. he was allotted the

said site by aiietraient. letter dated 5/:"5/ E990 and t.here:«,1ft:er,
er: ?/;''3/' .E9QGl 21 Ee2ise~e1im~sa.le 2i5_.§1'eer3;1er":t, wzis executed in

§iessessie:'i <:ertii°i<;ta:i.e (fates?his E751'-i;*c'2i.::' mail f,:,<}:u£<§xFj,${'.&€~'..§t,l.§:-xi-'Bg.§§--ER3
5g;;«m



15/5/1990 was; issued and eondit'io'nai sale deed dated
16,15/1990 was executed in his favour and rsubseqe-ent to

the execution of the sale deed by the 1"irst, 1'es;3onclen§.;"he_ha.s

obtained Katha ee1'ti1'ieate from respondent No.3': 'in v1.'.e;s'pe'c:t 'er 
the said site. That: initially, si1.e'":"~@.<8ﬁE.8 xvause--VI,a31oi.ted 'i:r,V1 V
favour of respondem No.2 by 1ease¢(%'L'iI1I§s.€{1e..»2:gree'o1.erii;

daatecl 30/ 1/ 1998. I"'ioureve}.,_v'"zjespodfldemg_  not!'

interested in the above said Vs_.iie'~:-1_r1d._V he:oee',-a request was
made to the first respor1»de11t.ji'o?1f:;1Ho1;me'1';i of an alterrlative
siie and t}ie:*ea%7:ei". i1e1;:""f'i'r5:'.~='§f":é.=es;:wo.:1de:f1tVhi"eéineeiied the said

allotment by;-.exe:ei1__t1z1g'.aireg1st'e-red eai1.V'ce11atior1 deed dated

'7/5/ :'._V99O;_' dAi;nz_1i  No.3 being a member in the
seniority dlistwof éiifoifLee$°;nei.ntained by respondent. No.1 got
the above egiiclv sife_  No.818 and possession certificate

u*as;;iss.11ed §m.,':1'5/5} 1990 and that he was in peacefuk

 .poséeé:-egiofi and enjojznient of the said site till he executed a
  's;--;Ee -5n_:6,.(4/2005 in favour of the petitioner when he

"h.a"nded'o§ijL%;{§§ossessio11 to the petitioner. He has reiie1'at.ed

théii, 91:9; {he basis of his S€I1iOl'iE.}f in the list. of allotteee

 A.n3e1inté1ihed by respondent: No.1' he has got allotment: of the

   site and that". 'the un3'3a':,e1'a} r;:aneei1ai.ion made on
"€10/?/200? by the BDA ie wholly illegai and also it has been

 done af'::e'2* 2»: lapse; of 1'? yearss \>.---*iEhom. §.seL12mee of am}; notice

e V.



to him. tinder the CZiI"(','Ui'E"1S§'212}{?€fS., he has ei.at.ed that the
€3£§.C_1tI.iI'y' proeeedirig has to be set aside and the writ 1*-rititioii

has to be allotted in favour of the petit.ioner. it10. I have heard the learned counsel f_of-rt"petit-£._o§o:erL _3.€€t}'H€d ctourisei for respondents 1 to 4 and ~v1-ea_r:n.ed~eotirisei~« ..

for respondents 2, 6 and 7. Thereizis no rargoerzie_rzi:~.addvreseed

on behalf of respondent No.3.*th_ough."served ant"!Arepi-eSeIited."<

by counsel.1}. Learned co:1_r§*5e1'tor;peti*ii'ovn'er_whi1e drawing my
attention to the vari_oi.1S_ *,doeu..rr1ef1tsV"'*r--t2;rEi'ieh have been

annexed "-torthefj-».3}§r1::i"wge'tit1on has eubrnitted that the
unilateral'.__eariee'i}.otior1._'Aof the sale deed made by the

reegiorident  or1 10/7/2007 is in not accordance

.A with  ,ei'r1(:i that; there can never be any unilateral

 .Céiriee'i'1.2:§iori 'oliithe atlotroerit of site which has been made by

t;Ide'--B.E)..A;v  an allottee and therefore, the petitioner, who is

V the ptirehaser from respondent: No.3, who is the atiottee of
"'._S%;'ter'No.818 had assaiied the said CEii"iC€H&ﬁZiO1'i to writ petition

~--No<14037/2008;. wherein E1 direction was issued by

:*es§:ioz1de'r1ts E and 4? to hoid an eriqtiiry arid. t.h.e'rea.ft,er,
em;t:i.ry tEridi.tige .'o21Ve been i5:='.sS{i€d to the petitiorier 3.55 per'

5%.z§:tex't,i.:"e *E€I 1-*£'§2it'*§f2 to gieezaiitéré in thte: writ. ;:}_:titioi'i. "1?£'h§.i.§%



I"ei'er1'ing to various; i'r2111e2:1c:'ii():'1§3 which {he E3.£j)'A« has; had in
respect of the site in <in:est:ic>:nse he E1215 s1.41bmi1.ted that the

ea'~1nc:e1}at:ion of allotmem. of site in favour of pet'ii,.i'one'1"e

vendor is contrary to the prineipies or T1'a11s£e}5""of_[Pxioféerigr

AC1. and aiso theRegistratioll Actand 1-,h;;"'~1;r2u1§;§s _n1eJ:ie_ 

E"hereu_nde:r' and hence. the said :eanee'11a,t.i'on'1wihthiout

authorii'y of law has to be q1:ashed<."..ff"he pe1.i:§:;:ie':' ACon1e'r1.dVsp

that he has obtained a vaIid"'é;é.'L?ie. by  deedh

dated 6/4/2005, by whieh the"'fee.:p;onEient', M3' sold the site
"bearing No.818 to the ;.)e{iiio1'%en' ;ﬁs_o stated that the

enquiry cond;y.3tAedbyi;1:he  a.1V1A"c'£.'"g~£J_1V1 :'ee3oo11dent.s pursuant

to the direetiofn _jssued 't3y_ totals Court is not in accordance
with law' and ":.he"'given in the said enquiry are

arbi_tra1~y and_:vtt1efet'oi"e,«Ehe said enquiry report which is at

  Anin'ex2.::e1¢e '~-R' hae«'Lo'"b'e quashed. He therefore, stated that if

 _ g-xn_nex'u<;e 'L' .§uﬁ';1 Annexure 'R' are quashed, eorasequerltiaﬁy,

SLg}:§Vseq1v{:en{:«.V. 'gale deed made by the B.D.A. if favour of

 respenelelﬁ. No.2 dated 20/8/200'? and the sale deeds

" executed by respondent No.2 in favour of respondents 6 and

:3' would also have to be quashed and under the

C:ireu.1n~:--3ta11eess. he sizxtecf t4ha1,Annexu1'e 'M' e 'U' and 'X' have

also to be quasshed. In support. of his subnnesicm, he has;

reiiecl upon. <:e:"E'.2:ir: deeiei.(3r1s; of this Cioz,2r€". zmd 221530 of



E\»'12:.dr.:ts~3 §*£ig11 Court to eent;en.<:1 that the if-,3.f).A, E1315»; no
2:uE:h0}:".i1..y te '£,1I"JiiE1i,(:?'F2}11}--' ea..ne.e1 the sale (feed which has; been

exec:ut.eé by it in favour' of 2:11 zﬁlettee and the only m:;u;:'_1h;er in

which a Cancellation can take place is by s;ee§;<;i;<1.g'VV'.z1__h'rli:;§_ie£71.

before the app:'01.)r'iat'e Civil Court by i11v()ki_t;g ';':%.ee;pif)r1<_:31 'OH x 

the Speciﬁc Relief Act. xts.-'h.e1"eE:);t,  '":=gaI'eA 

7/E3/1990 could be Cancelieci, He 4the1'*efere, e£..;.bhr¥1i.tete(3. 

the eanceiiation order at Anneixghte 'L' mu.s_t"beV--1qtﬂ1gshed and

also the findings of the'"E;1qui.:jf'}Xu.t.h0Vi31ty mL1'st'beV set aside.12. Per contra, ee_1h1_se?'V_t'0§f re's,.;.)'01<:V1.e't;vtei1t N031 and 4 _

B.D.A..'s'uvhthitt:eet*:t;.hat'*.t»13.'D'.A'."-etzétde the ear1ce.11at.i0n deed
dated7..'1(3','*7 consideration the fact that
respondehfﬁ'  who_  petitioner's vendor is not the

e1*i;§;§j§:pe1IL'21110tt.e'e' "efVt_1}'e'.site; that the ailegecl sale in favour of

. 1fespon_.t1et1t.<:Ne,_8 dated 5/5/1990 and Iease--cum~sa1e deed

'détted   and the issuamre of the _p<3ssess1'011

c:e;'§:t1iJ'i_caVt<.;~ 'oi :5/5/1990 and the ('.Of1CiiU.OE.'18.]..SE1}€ deed dated

  3,6/5/1990 and also the deed of cancellation made between
'the "t3,I3LA. anti respoiaderit. No.2 darted 7'/5/1990 are all

h " ""fKI"E1L1dLIE€1'1i..; concocted and fabrictated d0<:L1men.t:s. Aithough

they have been I"€§iSi'.8l"fE'.d, they have me» 'v'aEidit.y in the eye of
law and t.herefez;et in t:em'1s of the e;:ig;i11a.E e.I1et.n;eE1é, dated

29;' It 5  E}?_é"ti§é", in iE"av<:s:z:" ef '£'{?'i-.%§.}€}3'3{.§EEi§'§'. 3\§e,2 'G3; the E?%§l}.;%.,





the absoiute sale deed dated. 20/8/2007' has been f?X(E'.L',¥.§.'[€d

eubeequem, to the etaiieeﬂation maid:-3 on 20/ "(/2007 and that

the said czmeeiiation deed is in order and 21cco1'din'gg1jk=,. the

findirigs given by the Enquiry Authority   _,:v'i.h

accordance with Eaw and the relief sought. by  :f.§.etit1oh'e3'__ 

in this; writ petition (:a:o..r.1ot be gr3.;£t,ed."' ' ..13. Counsel for respcmdent. i"€oS:2, E3 e;1'rid,7 drew V1"'.t'.}f_"'~

attention to the various do'cti:1:e_nts it 'V-..rhic'h have been
annexed by the petitiiofnei' e;i"ad_ :aiso,the documents which
they produced to contend" t_,}12itVthe ."1tes;--.:io31dent No.2 is the

origi-I123} i--«z111'j<AV5'ttee.':'"ei?. '"*1\§o."§8I8 and that the said
a}1otzh'e11t'*   the Iease~c:u.m-saie deed dated
29/ 1/ 1988'  " ~~S:ﬁibS€qL1€I1t1y', there has been no

eaneetlatioh oi"'t:}1e' aitotnient of the sai_d site made by the

.A    __ favour and s'ubseqt/teritly, on 20/8/2007,

H ~¥3V§'D_.tz'~X.VV"e§ée»c:_u'te'd an absolute sale deed in his favour and in

terhis  the said two documents, he became the €.I)\VI1€!' in

  pegsession of the said site; that all other documents which
t'1:us-edeome in to e><i.:-steiiee are concocted documents and not

 " ~v-'iii aceo1'daI1ce with law and thezfefore, B.D.A' has rig}1tiy' not

taken the same into consideration and on the other hgrmd,
has expreeeiy executed 21 tTz3.r1(,'e'.§i£1i.§()}:1 deed dated 10;"7,/2007'

:a=%:e:°eh§?.: the :>%;e :%2'2.1ies:i ;»i_.E.Eoi:'i*:eii;'é. of ihe  ifzia-zde by the

ix:A 'petifioﬁ;B,D.A. in fan.-*o111" E}? the 1"es3§.)or1.dem N03 has been cancelled
and Sz,zb$eq11e'mIy§ The sale deed has been (':XEfCL.E'i'.f§d on

20/8/2007 and ihe1*eaft.e1x kathzi eertifieateew};*:§Ve"o:'*§ee11

issued in i}.1voLu- of the second a*esponder1t:.é1r:d-V he":3L2bseqL:en't1y, Sold the property toire's_po&11d--ent_e"Gene? ?:".W}1.<) V
are the title holders in respect o£%Iih.e'.'_'ésé{Id 

also Su.bmitt.ed that when t',he;9e~V..was ﬁo_app1V1{t_aVtioh" what; so"ever made by respomgiem NVo..3eWfe-r'"aaK1A1ot1;1ie111._oE_.eite. there
was no occasion for    in favour
of respoildeni   O1"?  in qti(";SiiOI'"1E5
has beer}-  'V   No.2. under the
 teat the ﬁndings given by the
Enquiey  at Annexure  are just and

progsex, xvhieh C10"no't' C2111 for any interference in this writ

V     heard the counsel on both sides and on

15¢-3.f_usa1"of'ft1I*i.e material on record, the points thai. arise for

 Amy eor1_sideratioI1 are as under»

I} Whether {he cc:mceiiaf:'ion deed Ciaiied

10/ 7/2007 hag any uaiidiiy in the eye of law'?2} WI1eI'her zihe fmdings giaaen by i:h<.>
reepondenz'. -- cu.;I.f1<}rz'{.y l.i}§1fC.'?7i are at Armexure 'RI

o;re;':.,:.s::: oznof. prepez'?15. E23 order 1.0 a:nswe'r the s:~2:zid q_:,1e:=~:.tiens, it is
r1ecess21.1"y to (.fC}3'}Si(i(-ff' at the i"irs31i insstarme that the petitioner
in this VV"I"i.I. petiiion had eazrlier filed W.P.N0. E4037/260-8 and

in the said writ petition. the deed of C€11'1£?€f1V1.§;1'{ii'i1.V1V;V1"ﬂdiﬁvﬁd

107.2007 was challenged. A learned sing1e7«j__L1.c1ge..x(3i"'hthis V'

ceurt while seaing aside deed 01;'. _x(:v;§,;1ee}1A£»:ieii5:1

    

nevertheless directed the   '~€r1«q1ﬁ1gF\*

. .2

accordance with law and pasLe§"~~_an approp1fiat.eV"~«0'£~t1'erV after"affording an 0pp0r'tL1n1i;y to ihe----pet11,i'O--n_er and in r.€:§»p0nden1.s
2 arlci  ii. is in "Limi    was C01e1i'e1'1"'e::i
the _fL1}'iSdiCUO1_'1V' ._t_O hC51€i":i:1(1   Sought by the

petitinner. _ATA'l"£*:e A1:i1:h(}fvii3'..vvhElS.'f3OI1dL1Ci.E.'C1 the enquiry as per
the st.ai.te;ne11t Cesf and respondenug 2 and 3 and

thereafter, has given '}1;svﬁr1ding. in order to give an answer

  C?) 3-.Whe*.e1«1er thewsaid findings are c0r1'eC"L 01' not it is

 i'0._é§na1yze the sequence of events, which have

i:1"g1ns'pE1'eEie' i:!1K'[1}.'}iS ease...  §.n{'aei, when the peiiuionezc eiaims that the

Af,fazj«1sfe1* between the BDA to his vendor M respondent No.3 is
fa bona tide and genuine t.rar1sae1.i0ne then Ehe burden lies on

 'L§."1€';', ;.>€;=si;,ﬁi.i{>ne:' in _pr<>ve the s_~;a.£.d £.r2mS21C,tie.n and it is; only

iihere21f§;e.:'. 'ihaé. £23.€;% c>i.§2er et;:1t.esi,ing; £"€'.§:§p{}£}.{}€I1i1E3 {fem

wk": v

 v}'1'}_9dislodge such proof zmci prove Ehaé. the i;ram.saetie:)1is are
sham and fi(,fE..i-t.f..(}Ll\8'e

ET. By an order dated 29/ 1/1988, 2: site b'ea1*ing

No.818 was aklotted by the BDA, to respoxidergi

t:herea£'ier, ii": is only on 20/8/2007 that an  

deed has been made in favour of-~r'esp0r1d'er1i,.No.2, byfihe

B.D.A.. Between the two dates, speiixhiiég"sbeiii_i*we 

there are severai other transaeiiieris wh1*e_h'huav.e Vi1aVke1"i splaeed"in respect of the very same site«.--- V:A.1i.--is"--1,1_eeessé>.*ry.tevﬂnote that
according to the peT.'i'i';i0ﬁr1er',_  .1990, a letter of

ai£et111eni;rix.Va;si.issiiied in1'avour"'e§--iesponderai. No.8. which is
produeed at Ah':-=c2§'i:i<e"i?fV.9and thereafter on 7/ 5 / 1990, deed
of eaneeiigition. wa.s'--regis*iered between respondent No.2 and

the .B»,.}3.A..9ARV'-'1fi'ereii--1.A'Lhe":site is said to have vested with

   E_._f:O'n.VA_t.he A{?e1'y------san1e day that is on 7/5/1990 21 1ease~
'eti1'n¢sa.1ve'~deeEivhas been executed in favour of respondent

Vgﬁvrodueed at Annexure 'GE and on 15/5/1990

possess-.ibr1'Certificate as per Annexure 'H' has been issued

Warifl £)h_i;i':$/Ea/ £990 i.e., the Very next date, a e0I1diti0i':aE sale

 Anriexure 'J has been issued and on 25/5/ 3990

iéaiha eeri.ii";¥ea1::e .in respect 0%" 1"€ESf)OI1CE.€I'1f No.3 has been

9 missued and ii. is en. I0/?'/E990 ihai. the seid site Ne.8i8

xi




which. is said {.0 have been alloiied in lax-*oiir sf respondeni.

l\Eo.3 was earicelled by the B.f,).Ai

E8. In order to appreciate the said Cl()Cl_1,l731fT3"I1l'/S."'l:VY_i its

proper _13e1-speet-ive. ii. is neeessaiy io eorzsider'-..iheV"sah:1e"iii 

the baekdi-op of the Bangaloie ml)evelo_pa1eni: " »«.z3.i;ivtE'iori.t3r

{Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 

the Rules'). Rule 3 of i;l1e"vsjaid RLi.les.llaki:r.1glV

possession of land, while Rule"  thai"allVoltee to be
lessee. Rule 8 deals urilhj "Rule 9 pertains to
application to   of Rule 11 deals
with  lofalavflplieants for allotment of
sites Valid 4' and Rule 13 deals with
condi.iionl"foi*l  gilﬁwvdlsale of sites. Rule 14 deals with

1-esiijieiions, c'o'i:.d1iVi_ioris on sale of sites and Rule 15 deals

. wi1'1_3 \;o£u1i.iai--"y_ surrender.'  conspectus reading of the aforesaid Rules, it

beelomevs olear that the BDA has to give due publicity in

2 'ies--pec:1;"oi' alloi.mer1i'. of sites by indieaiing last daiie for
"'.'%V11'l3'iI1lSSiOf1 of application and other pa'rijou_1ars and the

V "  p2.1':olieit'y would have to be given 1191 only by aflixirig the

same on the iioi.iee board of the Aui.horii.y izhai is EDA but

aise by publie::ai,i<}1"i in not less iimri. i,hi*ee daily News Papezrs

E

W_,,.,«-":'_"-e



,3 .4. 41.hm-'trig wide Ci.I'CfLt1&1T.i€)i'l in the city, Theri the applieairits

have to 1.'€3,t{iSt€I' their names for sites on §>z2ymeti.t, of

regtst.1-ation. if it is stated in Rule 8 that if a person

Withclraws., the responclent - Atithority has to 1'eVftti1§Zt.tjhe

entire registration fee, after deducting 1.0% of t.h_e;"'fegist-r_a'ila:-til _

fee. towards service ehargesi A person so re-g.iste1'e{l L1fld«§3l"'~.Section 8has to apply in the fii"eselribecl'--oo>E'{ofm 

allotment of site along with trh_e eost".ot"*'E2% 

cost of the site and the said apgolicatioiill i.s'&to'V':be:'presented
before the att'ihC}l'"i'ty within the  dat.e'AAfi;§;Veel for the
reason that such app1ieatiAot';3S"ate _-thefe_a_tt_et* taken up for

serutiiiy.  ,. it is stated that the authority
has to e'c13s'titutoeV_a  eallecl "Allotment Committee",

consisting of..,i1'm?ee*offieial members and nonwoffieial

V.""Amemhe5r's;   (ihlaiieniail of the Authority would be the

   Al1ot:ment Committee and that subject to

t1aAe._44approtral.«  the Authority, the clecision oi' the allotment

eom.ri1it:tee is final as envisaged under Rule 11(4). Rule l3

7"_speai_<s of the conditions of allotment; and sale of site, which

  it is extracted as t1}I1d€I'Iw

"13. Conditions of allotment and sale of site:The altotment of CE, site under these rules shatt be

stttgfeet to {j§t€'_f€)t5€>{,t.>ift§j €ortdi.I.iorts:-- g



%%l<*

[{1} '1"l'2.e al.loi:'I.ee shall, aiiiliizi a period of sixty
daysfrom the date qfreceipil Q/' notice ofalloi.men-i___
pay to the Ai1.il1orii.g, the balance siial 
dea'z..icl.ing the in.i.i:1'al deposit. if the balarioes';si'(a.l__j:  » A'
value is nol. paid within a period. Qf Sz'.)(.''v'.'.'':'_.-'1_':'di::~'I.:£{Ix.c;VV,k- '
the Auihoriizy may on applicaliozi' of 
extend the timefor paymeru::Jor;_-afLlfi;l1er.';5eiiofiil..__  A'
not exceeding sixty days as a~--4A/lineal cl1Tafice:'a:ad°':the alloliee shall pay Vil'l,:'C.lClgCli£f().I"1 viia.lezje5=_g ';:;--;*"'ihe
rate of eighteen per cer1i_ol1~v lll1'e_V_Vsaicl' amoilrili for
t,hej"irsi' thirty claAg,_rs'jqf  .per'I'od and at

the rate Q['1'LUe'TT.l,y4Ol71'€:  ihiriy
clays of  e.icl.eifitlea'f' ll1e;aii'1oiini' is not
paid  '__.si1ol1  Loeriod also, lhe
 shall.l3e li'aE>l--e'V§iojo{[eil'iire and the

v'allo.;frneVri:"'zganeellede lI5if.Il'i0i1.i' prior intimation.

Seciiori 14,' whichispeaks of res'a'ic:t'ions, conditions on

saieiof sites, is é3><l.;._é,_1_(;1;¢:d as followssw

 1  éxﬁeétrictions, conditions on sales of
A sifeii} J The alloiigee shall not alienate the site
lJ:;ll'l'l'l.Z'Il the lease period. of ten years except
lmolrigagirig the siiie in javour of Government' of
H India or {he Slate Goverrm1enl' or any financial
insliilmioris for ihe purpose of securing loan for

me Consim.cl'ion of building.{2} {f the stile is alienated iisi.l'l'iiri {he lease period
exeeplgjer lhe purpose specified in subrale fl},
Elie a::i.liari2'_ig aflier a due aoliee la the lessee'



shall z:?c:z,r'1eel the alloimenl; resimie the site and

joyfeii, and amouni: paid by ihe lessee,

{3} J\loi'zm'.i'I1si;a:2dir1g arzyimrig coniained  
rules if the lessee applies for reasons  
control or by reasons of ...his 
impeeuniosiiies to sell the  :lLll"l,l'l Ville .1§t:.-ildiiig.  Al
conslrueied thereupon, the azulgliorily  "u}ii'l*l*. l.

the revious a roval o'",tlz':e_ Goverxmieni:'"eii:l:elf;4" S
39 PP J _ .  _. V

{a} require him to slmfendefllthel ;sife.,._&whefei1por1 no
building is consii*i'Leliedl*  a'iilhofi'iy after such
surrender. . shall , flol i-ll'? €1ffl1e allotted
value C:3]r'l".:'rf,f3:-.Silégi-,f'O_C§€f'll€f"'1lélll*l,"{J§l€.:lf£l.€f€Sl' ai the

ratzegafl l2%"pe;f CU'?-l":c€.Lvfll-If_h:&;?_7"tl':l'£):I1S,. '

{lajlwlierevi:'liel:lbi;illdiag.__ eonsiriictiecl on ihe site so
alloliied' the Auili;or'liy"'"..i:shall permit him to sell the
building jarrwided the lessee pays to the aui"hor1'.ly an

..':a°r:1(gzini.._calculaled« 'at. 12% per annum on the allotted

' * --. eal:,ie«of'« site. "Secillioxael' 15, whicth deals with volumary surrendea" is

 6Xl;I°€zl3l,l'3£_i as follows»

"15. Voluntary surrender.- An, alloiriee
may at any time after allotment, surrender the
sile allotted to him to the Authority. On such
Surrencler the Ai.l.tl1oriiy shall refund all
amoimis paid by the allofiee is the Autiliarity

Q

ire. respeei: of iilfze said size,  ,»w_,s.»»»;20. On 3: reading of the aiforesaid three SEECUOIISG it
bectomes clear ihet the ziilotment. of sit:e is magte szibjeet: te
{2€1'l.£1l£1 terms and eonciitions and that the allotitee Vwithin a

period. of 60 days from the date of allotmertt; has

balance sital value after dedtletiing the initial .«g:lepo,eit';:'

balance sital Value is not paid \}l7ilhi1.1_El pe-rioCl"e;.lfVsi§{ty*days.l'

the Authority may on applieatioiiaoi" "allo~tt:ee:,l the

time for payment for a 1'L11'"l'_l'J'6~IT. period not e.Xeeedin..g--' sixty. '

days as a final. chance and theH_éﬁ-i.ot"t:ee shall «play, 1131 addition,
interest at the rat.e of "eigl'it';eer1 :'per the said amount'

for the first thirty dayset   and at the rate

of t.v.rer1i.y¢oTn7e_..V pxeélllx-.VVee¢1:fit:«.VV_Io1' the next" thirty days of the
extended' "periodtl  tl1el."'ar11ou11t is riot paid within such

extended   registration fee shall be liable to

 ';'o;~.:?é1:u;e and  allotment cancelled without prior

  "io_tilm;iti.onv. ll  l

 }\j't',er the payment: is made  per Rule 13(1) of

the Rules." the sale agreeme'r1t has to be executed in favour of

h   tithe a_1.lo"t't,ee and if the allottee fails to execute the 1ease--eume

2:greemem':: withirt 80 days after the authority has called-"upon him io execute the said atgreemerit. the regisi'.rat'io11 fee

paid by the alloi.f;:ee Imty be ferfett.ed arid 'the aéiaitmeriii of the






site stands eanceiled and the 2-tmcitiitt. paid 13;? t,1."i.e aliottee is
i'€".fLJ.1l(.'l€d by the A_t.:t.herii:'}; a.ft,er dedtzetitig St.I.{3h. expendttzgre
as is incrur-red. The Atithoi-ity can also impose ac_Id__i1.1'0r1ai

conditions in the iease~et1m~sa1e deed if it: thirxks 

Until 3 site is conveyed by the Authority, the 

site is held by the Authority for the. due ;a'ei9t"(>t'*htva.hee'_'ef 

terms and Condit;ions of the :'Ee2tse~te1m3}sa'}e"agreerfite1f1t

entered into between the  ttie'e.1_Io--tttee--f 

allottee has to comply with {,h't:?VVV'CQI1£i_'itiOl'.}.$ «--<)f_thevf?agreement
exeettted by him with  the...eor'poration as the
case may be {torn ti.me+t'0~time  allottee has to

eonstrtict ej'b~ttiid3ing*Wtthin _'a specified period of time as
stated "itaéthet »agi*eert1ent"'i..e., within five years or such

extended ;$e:i,od-ets the Authority may in any specified case

'~   ..erdei;«v;f§e'i?it1it'. If the building is not constructed
   five years or the extended period, the tease
 beV.detie:£:t1ii1ed and the allottee is evicted from the site by
 the A-dti1ori.ty and after forfeiting twelve and haiff percent of
"it AA.the"fra1tie 01' the site paid by the allottee the Atith0i"ity' has te

'jrefumd the balartce to the allottee.22;, Uiider Sf:{?'t'ii()1'.1. .£3{8), it is stated that on the expiry
of 21. peried ef ten years {mm the date of the Ie2tse~et1.m--sa.ie

 if the e.t.§<;;t,z':'2e::t: has est been tiethtteétett er the

_¢,,w"'?"-lease has not been dete:'n:i.ined in atteorciatiute with the Rules
or the terms of the e1g_;rc%e:nc%ni.. the mttihotity sh.a.1.1 by-..not:ie§3

call upon the allottee to get the sale deed of the si

at his own eosi. within the time specified in  sai.d"'n'oti_e'e."~t

Under Section l3{10). it is si'.ated' 't~h;--3.E'. iii' '}_:af't,'i.e?tiléofs 

furnished by the applicant. in the 

for a1l_ot.inen.t of site are fOtl}'}d".1:.0 be"i.n_co1jree_'t' the

sital value deposited shall be_..foi*ieit'ed andlthe site shall be

resumed by the authoi*it,j/t.. _ V b   .. _23. Under Section' :14, V__it;is"'state'd.. that the allottee

shalljnot adlidelnate  ~sVi.iTe_Vvith'§n the lease period of ten years
except--nio1'tgaging_i'the<site in favour of Government of Indi.a
or the  GoVernn1'en.t.'i' or any financial institution for the

ptlijaosee of seetuivng loan for the construction of building. If

   is"o.lienated within the lease period except for the
   above, the Authority after a due notice to

 lessee,'I__sshaii Cancel t.he ailotment, resume the site and

fo1;feitV"'V.i.he" amount paid by the lessee. Notwithstanding

";tny'thii1g contained in these Rules if the lessee applies for

 reasons beyond his control or by reasons of his insolveitey or

.~~:iIE1p€CtlZ1i{)S'lti€S to set} the site or the site w.it.h the building

eonsu:u.e;:t;ed ti"ie;reupo:1,, the ftut.hoz'ii,y wit,h the previous--: 2"! :-appreval of the Gevt" either require him to surrender the
site, whereupon me buiiding is e0net.r*uet,eeL The ;%e';:€:he§ity

after such surrender shall have to pay to the 

allotted value of the site together with the in'te}?e'stVatV:ti5;e  .

of 12% per annumg Apart from that,'~the   einy '

time after alletment surrender the'.sit:e t3;if10tted_: te._i:.§ﬂ:t_t:tQ.tAv:t1§e

Authority and on such surfemder,  'the'eAu%:hVt}z:i1tyVv'ﬁas to

refund the amount paid by the. Qlottae in 'resp.eet_.'§of the said

site. T  _ é, __ _ _24. T;l'1ere_f0re,  reacii_rr.g bf   14 and 15 of

the Rules,..  tfiattt is only on certain terms
and e0n€iiti0ne';§;ég* thhe said Rules that there can be
3 eancelietztelzv of thVe._s'ite"..'ta11otted by the B.D.A. in respect of

anﬁllettee of ti::e;je___e;1n be {:1 resumption of the site by the

» :8-;D.A,v 'or'«1;hd_er certain situations, a person can voluntarily

 ~.ei§r1*efide.f'~a  allotted to him by the Authority" Apart from

these fgxrevisionsg there are no other contingencies which

V nhaye Vvbeen envisaged uneer law, with regard to the
'._eé1:};eeiiat1"or1 of sites, resumption of sites from the allettee-'end eviction of an aliottee from the EDA. ané also veluntary

surrender ef eitee. Thus, the eaneellatien er surrender can

take place eithei" frem the aide of the B.D.A. er {mm the eide

ef the aiiettee, /?*'25. Fram the ma1'.eria1 on record anti on taking itlte
e()nsidera1:.E0.11s ifihe t'1'2mF;a.eé;i(ms wlaieéz hzwe §§%§€{?§3 ;:=1.z-see 

respect of the site in questions, it becomes eE.eavrV Vt1i1é'ﬂ,':_ the

eaneeiiation 01' the allotmeni'. of site made to E'6Sp'(')13{5{t3--I.]:.E':.:"§.O;'2

is not on 21eeaL1m: of any of the e0nting_er1,c;i_'esVVnien_tiaI1edx 

under the Rules or that. there1;.'.had; t;Veea '1

sajrrender on the part of the alEatte.'e .i'1":= favoxgﬁé.  B.'

by invokingSection 15of Ehe' Rules' i1_a w'}iici£';:event only

cancellation of an aEl0i)1n_e11t C aI1'i€?.f};s:€V ﬁace. Nadbubt, in the
irisiané. case, it is before 111ai«:ii11;sj;1of'_:hVeV2igbse«1'uEe sale deed in

favour of Res_p<::u:(i:er1t  _:t'hat.Vfhefsiohelairxieni of cancellation

has (:0n1e_ii*1:i1!i:Ve;§iste1iaee.,V_in. the year 1990 1.63., 7/5/1990,
which i'::-_ p;'Qd9ue_eVd«..a*; Ani'ie§(u1'e  the relevant portion oi}

xvhiech ljeade  uﬁdeftm

V _v  his Deed Qf Cfancellation made on the 7!"-1 Q,5:'%fay 1990 between K.N.Kra'sIma ﬂ/Iurihy,
39:1: ASri.K.M.Naras1'ngha Rao, hereinafter called

..  First Party. and the Bangalore Development
V;/hztahority, represented by the Chairman
herein.afEi'er caiied the second pariy wziness as

jbliawsh

Whereas the Site 360.818, IV B'loc:k,
Karamangala fjxtensian, n1(>:*ejizilg deezrribed in
the schedule had been allotted. by {he second
}:}€:§'i§; z'.s':';'?:z::az.s.r Q55" E%eze_,?%'.rs;§. pa:':g:; :.§4r'ade:' {fie {?z°.£g,:' Q5'

3,.-,w'"'f'x



Bangalore improvement. (Allotment ofsittes} Rules?

1972, and tease cum sale Agreement 
.30/I/1988, had been entered into bet:'tt:eel:2'_¢'t!ieif' 
parties and registered as docttrnent. No,9;?§5  
No.1 in Voiume 2175 pages  to I 

in the volume 2.175 pages 1555 {oi  AA

of the si.tb~registr*ar. T. Bangaiona. Sotttﬁj .TT(1:Ltk!,:'. .

Bangatore.Now on ..req.itVes.itA first party the
second party hasoattotitegi _.on.AA_':ait§?rnate site
bearing  I 8. i;iV"B'ie§I«:,"Korarnanaala Extension
to H  s}2a:;'i§.;=q.'}'mé;hfﬁa_  ;.  Etta';-tity, S/o

 in the view of the

.»stte.h,_ ajl£otifries'1t'."'--ih*e 'burn sale Agreement

:7__CiCLI;ed:t ..a'i9ove entered into between

the   schedule site is hereby

_ caneelled... _ 

 "'Jfhe terms first party and second party

 .Vi':i'ti.T'll"L(7t€::~.EI'_'7;<3t'I" heirs, assigns etc., and successor in

 pectiuely.In witnesses whereof the parties has

aﬂixed their hands on the day month and year

first" above written.SCHEDULE

Site No.8] 8, IV Btoek, Korarnangala Ext:er1.5z'.oiL

3%Eﬁozttrtdartes on: East by: Site No.8} 9Wes! by: Sire No.81 :7
North by: Road _'  _'
Souih by: BI)/A1 properly   _._ A'26. The reason for CE111C6ll'c1l,l0E'i of*'i,;1efsbai*d 'si1e__ isx 

stated in Para.3 of the said ClOC'L1l}"1(311lC.-.-,Vill1lCl"i' state'sl"til_1__at;von

account of ihe allotment o£f.al£er11aliLi.Vve"site  N_o.818_{

1:11 Block, Koramangala, to   i.e..,
respondent No.2 he1'ei£i1. 'is  cancelled.From the said ooe11n1epi'.'l'3ylii\\jjb  is that Site
No.8l8 is the"Veifylsi1,e:iwhijc.*l;i:  to respondeni No.2
by virtue    29/1 /1988. It is un-
undersltaf1dalo'le,lll:  l:'&{ll.€I'l'lELl,lV€ site" bearing
identieal site ..-~sii.uai:eC1 at Very same location

that is 4'?!LBloelgVfioiezzmaiigala, could allotted to respon<:1er}.t

    f;lherefore';--the site allotted was being surrendered,

 ' wll*1iVel1''v.is"f1'otVie*--.other than the very same site which was

'a11d::ted i:{;9i'j;?«¥sponden_t. No.2 by order dated 29/1/1988.

 E<'1/::":tl1.eviit_ rio altemative site can be allotted, unless the
2  lA:}I;igl.'.'flEtl allotment is cancelled. it is also necessary to note
 two days prior to 7'/5/1990,  on 5/5/1990 the Very

V mlsame site No.8.i8 is alloitecfi to respondent No.3 and the said

alloi.memi. letter dated 5/5/1990 though speaks of sixiy days

ijime period 'Lo p21'v the 'oalzmce ('.()§}SiCl€?i'£i':.lC}}"}. and ilhereafter." 2?&



to obtain the lease--eu1'n~sale deed. no such p1'oeex:iure has
been. followed purs1,1a.m. the so~ealled a.lloéme.;i,i:. :11.ade"i_n izlrie

ease of resporiclent No.3 as on 5/ 5/ 1990. Al1"e.r.__'ii3.e

allotment is made in favour of 1*espoz'1deni: No.3gfLwo days 

later ie, on 7/ 5/ 1.990 the lease'éeLi'1*:1=sa'l.e deeld«_i1as*eon;e

into existence and eight" days t.he1;eal'iei:, i.e.;' Q11" E :3!

possession certificate has bee.1i"'~i.ssued V1:olRes_polI--idef1t; No.3.ll

When the lease-eu1":1--s,a.le dee.d"'is..  period of ten
years, as envisaged 5/ 1990, that is,
ihe  i"l€?§l.::'L?:§Cly    is issued,
eor1ditior1a.l~saleValleaedly made in favour

of1*esponde1iii'._No.3..V 'Ui'ii:le__r the Rules, there is no concept of
c:ond1tiorial % sale' €3eed"-..___v0'hleh can be executed by the

Bangalore Authority, strangely the CITB

  . &{Al3o'im'ent'l*of Siieslllllléiiles, .1972 has been .invoker:l whereas,

   e1at.ed 5/5/1990 made to respondent No.3 is

  'l984: Rules of the Bangalore Development

 Aui.ho'rilIy. No iime--frame as emrisaged with regard to
 payinenil of balance sale eoiisideraiion or with .regarc:l to

l%ease~eim1«sale deed. the conditions regardiiig puttirig up

eonsi.:mei.i.o.r1l have been followed witli regard to allotments of
siite in i'avoL1z* of Respondem. No.3 and witliiii ten clays from

i:l'ie claie of aiioi.t1"1eiii., a eo11<'lii'.io:1al. sale deed has been





%%

issued, Ii.  under these. eireumss1am::es, that the

ea11(:t3}.1ai,f.0n order dated 10! 7/200?' was gjzzassezd by me
B.D.A. taking 1,111.0 consideration the manner in w1'ﬁeh the

(:leeu.menis have come 11110 €XiS?'.Ei}"}C€. When t,}.1e..sI£;e'I"Ee;8'iV8

stood allotted to respondem. No.2, the same e:u;1]djV'e::eie

been the subject. manner of a}}oi:r1j¢e'f1Mt."a::ad ';saEe« "resg)Oﬁ*dei'1t.

No.3. Under the eireun':sta:;1ees. "resporidelim 2 }.'V,»_.'BD2'~\,

Cancelled the deed made i1V1'-.if§";'i*'<.:r€_)b1,11" 'Ne.3 

eanee113.i:1'0n deed dated  SuBs'e--quent}.y, BDA

executed a'i3ss0iui'.e E§2';1i€"€'i(:"¢:Ci" iii';/8/2007 in i"avou.r of

respondent No'  afte:'I§;D'.§\; ;te1'ﬁi'fr:.,g te aeonelusion that the

so (tailed de'c;i:_--'n1efit;s  _a1_'-3 said to have been exeeuied
by  in' fgﬁrdu-rV4'e.f'."re.sp011dent No.3 are fraudulent.

concocted  Coiftrﬁiy  the Rules of allotment.27.  Nevertilaeiess. learned Counsel for petitioner has

  ?vehemen..E;1y% iee.ht.ended that B.D.A. cannot unilateraﬁy

ea2f;ee1_.2L}3_of;1ier1t: of a site which has been made in favour of

 Athe ;3..e!';i{1011er' vendor and that the only the manner in which
 ';1.,_(:eer1ee11aii.0rz of 2-1 sale deed. dated 16/ 5/ 1990 could have

__been done @3318 by app:'oei-zehing the eonapetent Court so as to

obtain a reiief of deC§a1'ai':i011 under i,h.e p1"()ViSiOI1S of the
Specific Reiief A::*;.. Ii. is necéeeeary to <>F:>s5;erve that

£3:-2z'2.:3:2;<:ii:>:'2sé; '%'3s=:é,%.x;tée?:'3 §7::":*é:aﬁ;.%;% §}2,a:'§..§z:'::5; Eifﬁf <;::§%i;e d.§.§}e,:"e2'2%, ikrem



%313the nature of the i:r3..r1sacrt.ic>ns made by the piannirzg

aL:i:h01'it.ies in 1'es;)e(:E. ef the (:it..i2:e:'1s in Coniiexiﬁof an

aﬂotment of 21 site. As between private persons, e9;11»£:e.I_iE1fL°1v0r1

0i.'a.11y iiistrumeni. which is void or voidable. caii   

getting the same adﬁldged, s0,.<l3jy~-filing;  Vi
eompeiient. Court of law, by i1iv"okiiﬁ g"Specific Relief Act. Under Seeiipri  oi" it is-'

provided that an instijirnent"be"pe1I'ti.s1iy.vearieeiieci also.
Relying on the   Counsel for the
peiiiioxiex" has ii-iri§*n'v"1'1,I'iiy'    decisions to
eonterid   1/1..'X"iiI:'El,1". C'1":a1"I"3V¢; cancel a sale deed
macie i'ri"'i;;iAxEoi.u:j  said decisions shall be
adverte(1_1;C)._ T V

 .28. ii':  :Binny Mill Labour Welfare House

     Ceieéfiéféttive Society Limited --vs.-Aradhya (2008-KCCR-3-1692). it is
  the owner of a property sells or conveys the
 pro;ae::e;:§;2 io the purchaser under a written document and
  the same registered, {he right and the title to the said

}pr0pe2'ty is transferred from the owner to the purchaser en

reggisimtien ef the said dO(',tEi'T1€1'1L and afi',e1* registration. ihe
evaner of the p:*epe.rty ceases to have emy intezresi. arid all his

§'§§_§§'Z§'.E:1. ef ééze g>:"€>g.se:°'E.;: geés s::><;i§:2gi,2isi":e{i, if SE:l'é.E{.'.§E 2:: §3ez;§§}:'2 
Eff'



to eXee'L1.te one xriore. sale deed mad get it 3:eg;ist;ered in respect
of the said prepertzyt the said sale deed  no va1L1e-=._i_n the

eye of law, as on the date of second sale deed, he is.iio.'E"e_1€ger

the owner of the pyoperty. Similarly , if after e;-<ettuvt,id'r1e-dddf
regist:ra,tie1'1 ef the sale deed, the 0wr1er<wauf1t,s   the V
property, it has to be done by ca1.i13eei:.1_:dt'i'en 

on any one of the g1*0u11d Vvhiéeh areevaiéabdie t'e_h11--im 'imder. '

the provisions of the Ihdian  execute
a deed of cancellatioh"hecatzsedies"bfi: date of execution
and 1"egist:"a'tie_r;-QHE  0%" the said perseh
has no rig_h.1:.ﬁdplhinciples to the present case, it
is eentei*1d_'ed.Vth3t',l'tthe  could not have executed the

ca;:i«gé11a1_.:on '"c1eec1_____gn 10/7/2007. What requires to be

.A  the fact that accordlng to B.D.A., the deed of

H ~.eanee11a;t;ivo_:1';;.'between it and the second respondent on

775/   the subsequent letter of aliotment: and lease

 A.cu_'r11wsaie deed and conditional} sale deed issued to the
"'._V:'es'f)or1de11t, N03 were all fraud'uie'r1t documents and

":£11thOL1gh the deed of ce.r1ce1.1ation. was registered, the same

was 93. void insi.r"ts.ment. and 1"urt.he1: it was met. aet.ed upon by
the E%.,E')A. in as much as .s:.tbsequent.1y. £1 valid sale deed
'i='i72iE% i;'-::x;e<:*:.'§t.e{§. by :,h.e: §3.E.',}..5%;.,, :12: {;'.e--.reu:' sf" :es§'}e":'1de§ﬁ: E'*-12:32 €}.I:'.§

5?:W

20/8/200?'. T1r1erefore, when the e2mee1.1ati<)r1 deed elated
7/5/1990 and the eubsequer11. deeu.menE'.s which haVe.._e0me

into existence in favour of the pe'{itiener's vendor 

as illegal documents and net acted upon by--'i;He 
was not even necessary for the B.'}Z').'A..& i:0  u
<:anee11at.i0n deed on 10/7/2OO'F\';,,4Heﬁ3Vevef;'--einee

documents had come into ex-.1Si:e}1ee .1"1:Vt£:he_ f1e.n'ie 'e;i1}3:.D.A.','V V

the cancellation deedA_.c.1ated   executed.It is necessary to note   had executed
as. deed of 1 reependem on
7/5/ 1990:.    a sale deed on
20/"    not have arisen at all.".f'here;0.=fe," the'  decision is not applicable to
the f23.et'.s  'p.riese'nt eese..  151 the  of G.D.Subramaniam -vs.-- The Sub-:  bﬁice of Konur Sub~Registrar, Sidco Nagar,

C-hengu-.«:.V%'Aﬁd Others [2009 (1) ctc 7091, :2, has been held

 n that.'  wrii. petition ehalienging the reg1's1.rati0r1 of
"  "ez1_1:ie.e112zieie:3 et" eaie deed wit,houi. obtaining consent 0;' the

Signature Of 51 pL1reha.se.r: is maimzainabie end. that the

3:egis£e::i.I1g 0E'i'iee:"  obliged legaiiy to reject and to :'efuee to
reg§iei,e'17 21 deed <31" eamee1Iatic:sn of a Sale L1niEat.e;'a§.}.y eXeeu':,ed

wii.%:z<i::.:'£. ééze ';<;:':{;§1?»s§e{.§g;§e% zzmei e:':.{ms,ee;':E'. ea? siz'fa.Ir":.e1" §}a:"t'.%e,e {,0 éghe



saie deed and without eemplying wzithSection 32%': of the

R€3ff.iS1.I"£"-tU()El Act. But the deed of <:a.nee.iiai:i0r1 

executed by mutual consent. by 2131 parties to theWS':~:1--1e'V-d._¢tti_,_"if

_preser1ted for registmtion, the Registering Offie.ei'~'_is"~h0:._;'1"1d_teu V V

register the same provicted  other} req.L1ii'e.njeiit_s 

Section 324% of the Regist'ratie_if1 Aet.'h_ats'* been»eem'r;1.iedT;xxrit.i1.:i" ;31. In the said :d'(;?CI'SiIf):i1,  stinso. stated that there is
no specific provision for eaneelleitiortei'fs51].e in the Transfer
 4Lf'"15f v §ii"e.V_i_eie1'1s of the inéiari

ef Qrepertiy gs-'-353:.  fa11C}i=_'

Contract   mad in the context of

rmvatgion,  a1terat.ior; of contract and that
there eta} be no_eatieeli'ati0r1" of a sale deed by 21 party to the

contract.aforementioned two decisions are rendered in

  Contfext o.i_'vt'r21I1tsacti.011s between private persons and not

inithe eeiiatext of a1].0tmei1t'. of sites by a p1am1.i.r1g authority to

  citizzens under specific rules enaetied for that purpose.

33» The general Iaw with regard to Cancellation of

iZ1SU"LH"I1€3l"lL'5 whicth have been €I1L'tI1(Zi€itCCi in the decisions

relied tipen by the pe:titiet>iier do net': apply te eetiieeiiatieri to

be metezite under the EQ84 Rules referred to etiprei, ttrhitigiizxtre



been adve,z"t.e,:i to in detaii. As aiieady eE'ated, eaiieeliatioii,

;'esumpt'.io11 or volt1ni'ary' su1'rer1.cier of sites is oniy iI1VtZ.€'31>"{31S of

and under the CiI'Ct1I'£1Sl21I1C€S emmeiateci. in the s2{id'"i~3ti1.es-..34. In this Context, it is relevant. to 1*eie;:9._to 

of this Court: in the case of C.Sure§h Bab.u"4va:.% Eimgaioré". 

Development Authority ..:'  '<1;_.u'1

W.P.No. 1 61 74/201 0 disposedof ori A17'/9 /ztivgilqi -111 _ti§_:e said: =

case, one Smt.11'1drar1i, had tzieeii _al_lotted._la site by letter
dated. :4/-iigies?  e_.o,A,"a.;ie"s;;p.ce the sea. was

unable to giveVpossessi_o1':.,V  w'a~s'Vall_ot'ted another site

bea1'i:Vtig  art-.al'teV1fn_atiVe site under a registered sale
deed dated "<'1'he petitioner had purchased the

said. site  deedlvoi' conveyance dated 5/4/2006. it

   the "a»1iegatio'i51""of the petitioner that the B.D.A. by
  dated 10/ 6/ 2005 addressed to Smt.Ind1"a1'1i,
llciaideellved allotment of altemative site and the same was
 ealledifi question in the said writ petition. While adverting
 'Peale 1LA of the Act, dealing Wii.h aliotrneiit, of altemative

leite, this court. held that the B.D.A. had committed a mistake

in allotting an alteniaiive site. That it was the matter of
negligemtte and mistake made by the offitteie of the B.D.At

and l".i'"i£--l§,. the allottee was not bla2i'iewo:fti.iy and the E3.{)._A'





3 8
instead of taking action ag21i1'1si, the officers i"::>r i§'1'€gL1.1EiI'
allotment. had cancelled the allotment. which was aiflisitisry.

'1' hat the B.E).A.  unable to support its action

gyrovisions of the Act and Rules to cancel 'l.hr:5:alternative sites and also the .<s'a.i~e.'deed,'"'c~lI%leneef_ the

cancellation of the sale deed by (:ance1:i.z_1t.ion eieed..t11l1ileieré;ily

was without jtiriscliction, andyﬁas a nuliii.y_aVmVd  and V

that the cancellation of the Adeuejddceztiid  only by

recourse toSection 31'left Act and since the

tien deed

 
 

same was net felloweyi""bf,{'the..B_.E).i9.. csmee

was d€C]E1Iff3ffl'~.VOiil:ll 
 * it""1s'=._:ieees.s.é;:*y to observe that the facts and
circ'umsta11c:esin"the'."afo1'ementio11ed decision are quite

di>S"§:,l1lCl.Ir1"OI"HV.'ﬂlt§f$E1C[.:3 in the present case. it is also to be

A  "if_vi"raud'u£ent. documents between the B.D.A. and

 ..tfes;ejo*iicleI1i'; had not come into existence, then there

wk:-uld..__'notfhave been any occasion for the B.D.A. to issue

 .AC:'_E11'l{T€V§i;1.'Ell.iO'I7l deed dated "E0/7/2007. The said cance11a.tiozr1

 deed is only 21 forrmal requirement which has been complied

Jlwith so as to proclaim the {act that the docur1'ient.s which

came iillﬁ} eXist:ence between the l3.D.A. and 'respor3der1t No.3
are fi*st1d'uIent. and heiicte vitiat.ec§ befere maki.ng em absolute

*3
§«::deed in f3.\J€'.}'L1I" of respondent. N042' As has aireztdy been
stated' £3..D.A. does lieu»-'e the power of eaneeEing;§ an a1'§1'{4:tn1:%11t;

if the terms and eor1ditions of allotment are "by

an aliottee by passing an order of cancellation"b_ei'ore..rimking ' 

an absolute sale deed in f2:woLuj"oAf"an&a1&1otteeL'<_1t 'is' not.

necessary for the B.D.A. to approetsh  Civt1_-(.3ot.:rt:' 

decree of eanceliation of 2t11o.t:z"I*:e»nt.  On'   of the

present: case also as the docVL:n'1-ants uinefavoufe-f Respondent:
No.3 had come into existeneet__if1}_a £i*atJ'dVu1ent. way. with the
eelhzsien ef t.he_e:'{§_£?ia%:s'Vef'   d0€:u;1'1e1'1€.s have

been d1.sreg.at~r£'e<5ij:ugts t'.hjey!hg1ve..";;ovalidtty In the eye of law.

As  conhseogtzeneet  'allotment: of site made to
Respondent "sale deed was executed in his
favomj.petitioner in fact Could have sought:the absolute sale deed made by the 13.D.A. in

 favourof the second respondent dated 20/8/2007 by filing a

" SLtit''~«_beI'ore the competent Cit-*1} Court on the strength of the

doeumems he had but the same has not been done and

instead; 8. deeiaration has been sought. in this writ petitio:1

that the abselute sale deed dated 20/8/'ZOO7 made in {even}:

of Respendent N«s.2 is 13.111} and void, The said prayer is



therefore considered in the bac1«:drop of the enqtrizy
proréeedings which have taken place pL1i'Su'c1.11t. to t:}"{e.»orcte1'
passed by this Court; in the earlier writ. petttior;..fiEed--bythe

petiiti 0116!'.becomes clear that cancellation 'of a.-1*;,a]]ot..merit o'f:'stt:e:iVt';)y

37'. On an anatysis of the alI.o'tme.r:1't»b V1'?tt11es..t_ it".

EDA. prior to execution ot'.»an__ absolute sa1e"deed_ ts_§t,1nCie.1f;

various circumstances which have been 'adxfe:"ted}t.o. There
is no power or attt11ot'tit3}'«-it";   pass a eaI1(:e1ia'ti.or1
order when once the absoiut:e._szt1e"deedf§s*"executed. If the

said  terms of the Rules, then the
qt£€SUzO'11'i.S,'E18VtdVA:iVh€ih€,f:'V.'DY1 the facts of the present case
ca11ce1latto.rr that',._\-Vast' roade after the alleged absolute sale

dee§d 'VWBS issttedotitn fatour of the third respondent is just and

 ' orogvettt }I':t'f'e'}'_(;1',, having "regard to the facts of the present case.

   analysed in the aforesaid paragraphs,

pe1_rtiC11Vl23tQ1*1§{. 'taking itato consideration that even before the

allegedrteed of Caneettation was regist1ered betweezt the

ht nF3,D.AV.V"'and resportdent No.2, 21 letter of aftotmentz of the very

 sarrie site has been i.SSU.€.d in tavou.r of respondent. No.3'; and

__tvit.horrt. eomp1yir1g with the Rates ;3er'tat.I1ir1g to the payment

of balance sate etmside1'at,ic)t1, a §€'E*tS€-(ftt.t}1~S&11€ deed gwas





Q?23 W
'*3 ,L

executed within {X-1-'() dz-1y..s_. i'.he1*eafte1* on '?/5/ 1990 and
possession c:er1:i.fEe.ai.e was issued on 15/5/' 1990 E},1'lCiV.'¢'.ZT'§j[.}'iO1l'£

the term of conditional 1ease~eun1»sa1e ag.1'ee.m'erit.."L"being

expired for 21 period of ten years, 2-1 c:ondii',ion--:ii" salted is":executed on 16/5] £990 and t.her'ea££er,   eerti:£ieé.=1.edV '

had been issued in favoiir of 1-espo'i1de:§§i."1§?o.3.on,25/

would iead to the irresisLi_hie.. eene!t1.s.io_n,th'a,t'"=the: said'

allotment of site Iiiade in  0fVLres.po:1den'Atf%No.3 was
totally in violation of  in a hurried and
i'rauciuier:at  :E'i"i'   of the deed of
eanee1iai.iQI3.   No.2 is under
::'._{)£ij;l.'twfI'O111 being contrary to the
Aiiotrndéflf "R_u1ee,_"'  cancellation of allotment on

*7/51] 990"4ﬁ1a:ideeVih mgr of Respondent No.2 by the BDA

it  - 'a.1'ee:'it?--by  registereddinstrument has no validity in the eye of

= dvtheifsefore apparent that only with the eormivanee

dofdthev.ofiirtiels of the B.D.A. with respondent No.3, the

doeu'rne'fnt.s in favour of Respondent: No.3 have come into

".eXis?;er1ee. it is only on aeeount of CC:HL1Si0I"l., that

Vdjeaneeiiattion deed dated 7/5/1990 has been executed by

E'».D.A. it is also necessary to observe that since the
ea§:2ee1_121t.ie.r1 deed between EDA and Respondent No.2 had no

veiEidii.y in the eye at law. 9:13}. ether da:3euments execruted in

ex



2:fa voor of Respcmdent No.3 are also illegal. The validity o1'the
cancellation deed dated 10 / 7 / 2007 vis~a~«vis Resp':3;'1dent

No.33 is the only argurnent raised by the petitioner  'eo'ntend

that there can be no nnilaterai e2inee11ati.on ofthe.odio't};oei'1t"'»
made by the B.D.A. As already   'bed'
Ltnélateral <::an(:eI.1at.ion of the £14110-ikgieht :'i3}_;.  

provided it is done before absolute so;}.e 1e._dVeed"'..eXeou't,ed in V

favour of an aiiottee _1'_n tern1s..of..t;he Rules.?1I1Cifconditions
and circurnstanoes stéite'd..ther?ei11.indeed, the so Called
doenntents. wne}: te-d;fir'1 re':'31;:e<":t of site No.8i.8, in

favour of 1je..<§;)ong1dent~.Nof.'§5- vedidity in the eye of law,

in tnat   _would not have executed an
abso1u.te"s'_a1e dee'¢iA-t';1g1t,eVde.._2C_h/ 8/ 200'? in favour of respondent,
No.2 ptdfrstiantddd totA.a'n.:_"..'ear1ier order of ailotznent dated

314,-:1/1.990 ntadein. favour of Respondent No.2. If the said

 d'<;s:t1rn'Cnts. which dddd "have come in to existence in the
' _int.erre_gneu':n"were indeed valid then. respondent No.2 had no

 ._ri:§_{1:t Vtto:"'a.n zjbaéolute sale deed. Therefore by iesuing a sale

deed  ,tE'x}oL11* of Respondent No.2 by the B.D.A. on

 20/8/2:907' it would imply that B.D.A. has not executed any

 .oI;"'the dO('.LI§'IT}€1'}[S which have come into exieterftctegin the
"vg:»:::'-izsn between 5/5; 2990 and 25/5/1990. 



~§\\'38. It is alse rxeeessary to refer 'L0 Azznexure "'R--2".,
w1f1i(:h is 1'e1at'ing 1.0 the gareeeeditlgs w'i.1:h 1'e=;;arcig'-L0 the

afietmem of sites in Various layouts of 

Development Authority in response to the n0*;i_I'icat.i§3§:heiathedex

29/12/1986 and 9/1,' 3 987 (:aIIing;"fe~1-. .;;pp11c:g1[i_::;é;;s, "A.I1;st'v9:""
47 allottees is annexed ts the 

seecand respondents name  S"1'.N0.2_7V~a1*1=cl""the'° t111'1'CiV'

respondenfs name dges notV_..a_V'{.A'~aII<.ﬁgure" said list.infact, as against, t}'1~ee'.seeLo1'é.d:V f*es"pph--dent's name, the

appiieatiori mm1--heI*, Ije§5"is't,=.T}ai.i(3';:1&'ii'u:111ibe:;"anti the nu1'11ber of

attempts he also establishes
the feet tE1_AéLAt'TvLi,'espLimC£e1V.1't~«is a genuine applicant. as well
as an e.1}_o{'tee.' V .39. "II; View of the sequence of events which have

 Eal<er1:,."'p1a'ee in thi's"ease, it is necessary to hold that the
:V(;&QIu}Vi:{%;fi"iiV(51'iVirffifiﬁ iearned counsel for petﬂioner on Point No. 1

is__with0v.t' sLibst.a11ee.V40." As far as Point, No.2 is eorleemed, rega1"di'11g

*Vef;i_;1]'(§i'£Vy' of the enquiry has been challenged, if is necessary to
ebserve that %.he enqu.i13-' was heid pLIf'S{i{:1IﬁL 1-D the direeiiorl

'givez: by this Ceurt in the eariier writ peéiiien filed by the

§§(?§.i'§§{EE3;€é'E', {:E';a:E§s;?3.':;§'§h;s.§ {he  ss:2::e €32-3:E":iftE§§£§_§.§{}E"i s:.':e,e<§ deﬁes?

R s



@-35110}?/200?, The proeeecirings of the eilqtiiry is })I"0dtiC€d at
Annexure 'RA '1" W'i1et'eir:. the statemems made  the

pet.itio11er, resp0I1derats 2 and 3 11ave been rec:or:1eLi;."L"--VCir1 a

eonsidelatiion of the said statements, 
issued ciated 1 1 / 2/ 2010 wi1ereir1.;'i't»has he'idxVt.h_at theu'
canceﬂation deed (fated 10/7/2(i)O7::'_i:S"h1 

law and ii: is also stated ti1atf"~t,11ere"'isV r1o_a.l1.0tnﬁe'nt"bf site'

made by the B.D.A. tathe t1V1i.t¢t»:"i:A'resp.9Andeﬁ't'.--_Sinee the said
enquiry has been 1'1ve"1gt' .the_Vdirectien of this
Ceurt, it eamf:';:'t    hat} no
authority  :(5i5t.hat it had to only
appraaeh   _fQ-;mg;et.ting a deciaration. by a.competeht:  Under the circumstances, the

C011'.-,eI1ti0n""  iearhed counsel for petitioner that the

 evnqtuiw 1330* Vivﬁmthaccordance with law cannot also be
, '*';»:Ieh.ce, Point No.2 is also answered against the

§;etit.i0ner;'  '

'  The Apex Ceurt. has time and again has

" 5b.se1*Ved that no person can rely upon frauduielrtt
 i:i'ai1sa{:t'i011s which are newest. in the eye of law for seeking

"any relief before a Cetxri, of law: since tkaud affects the

5e1e'11:::"iit'.y; reg_§'ai;1;°'it.y and <>1'der§i§1ess of t1E1i1"1§_§s; be be dame in

%»



thereby, Cause harrii moi'. (31133; to the Aiiiho'r"ii.y bui; also to the
pubiie at". iaijge, It is hoped {hat the legs} and vigiian_e_e cells

of the B.D.A. would wake up to SL1€'.h i.r"ansaetio'3*is'*v:iiL1d"'riip

then in the bud so as to save ;oerso'r'1s iike the--j:$'etiiio1";--eii' gif;d*.

ihe respondeiii. No.2 {mm Eegak iSSi;1€SE1i1=f1 haifassrrxieniw. End

this case the pei.iiii.oner is a vietiiriilsf  'iji*a1nsa'C:t'.io;i I1ié£dé::'by

him in respect of the site wIiii_eE1..xhas been .E1'§§:(ii1.1iE3::'1:'iL;O.?U3lO3{,h€31". L'

genuine aliottee and not to respoilckijii. N03 his vendor, who

is not at ali an aH0ttee"*oi';' em,-_ siie not an appiieant

in the first p£s.ce..  eircumsi.'s_rie'es, while dismissing

the writ pei.ii.io-iigili,is.,o'bseIfi}ed  i;He"ﬁaetitiioi1er is at liberty

to seek any 's;j;_).propria:e'iteiie£' as against respondent No.8.
44, Aeeordifigiy,'ihe"u?i*it petition is dismissed. Parties
to host their own eosts.2,/1'3.V".After tidiemdismissal of the writ petition, learned

  :Veoi,insei--«._ford p-3i_1~i.ioner has fiied an application seeking stay of

the o1"c1e.r:p.assed by this Court; today and akso for exteiision

 of t:1i£=.Vi_nt.e:'in1 order gmgiiied on 31/ 3/ 2010. it is to be noted
  when once the writ petition is disrnissed, ihere can be

$10 exiension of iiiierim order as the same would. merge with

the final}: osdeix Siiiee the Writ petition is dismissed, the3i:1ter'i.m order ctazzzaot: be axiendcsci in {his Case. 'fhere{0:'€ the

application fer 55£.ay of the order is rejecicci.  
 H.
"F.   é."'m.vs