1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO.46614/2013(BDA)

BETWEEN:

SMT. N.KAVERI,
W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/O RAYASANDRA VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
…PETITIONER

(BY SRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY, ADV.,)

AND:

THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,

T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU – 560 020
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI A.LOKANATH, ADV.,)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER /CANCELLATION
ENDORSEMENT DTD.17/21.05.2013 IN CANCELING THE
SITE BEARING NO.666 SITUATED IN BLOCK-X, ARKAVATHI
LAYOUT, BENGALURU MEASURING 6 X 9 METERS
ALLOTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNX-M.
 2

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

According to respondent/Bangalore Development

Authority (for short ‘BDA’), when petitioner was allotted

site No.666 measuring 6 mtr x 9 mtr in Arkavathy

Layout, on the basis of petitioner’s representation in

response to the invitation for allotment. Allotment on

the basis of the compliance with required qualification,

it appears ‘BDA’ made some enquiry and found that

petitioner had made two attempts and not four and

there was no material to establish that she was born

prior to 10.12.1959 and therefore, cancelled the

allotment, which was subject matter of

W.P.No.35705/2009, whence, by order dated 03rd

September 2010, Annexure-L, was set-aside and the

proceeding remitted for consideration afresh after

extending reasonable opportunity of hearing. On

remand after notice which was responded to by the

petitioner, ‘BDA’ again re-asserted its decision by order

 3

dated 17/21.05.2013, Annexure-M, canceling the

allotment of site in favour of petitioner. Hence this

petition.

2. If according to ‘BDA’ the officer concerned at the

time of allotment of the site found petitioner to have

complied with all requirements for allotment, then,

mistake if any, cannot but be remedied by the ‘BDA’

taking action against its employee and not cancel the

allotment of site to the petitioner. It is not the case of

the ‘BDA’ that petitioner was responsible for the mistake

in allotment. If no malafides are attributable to the

petitioner in the matter of allotment of the site, then

‘BDA’ is not justified in canceling the allotment. If the

officer concerned had brazenly committed a mistake, it

is for him to answer the ‘BDA’ in an administrative

proceeding. In any event, it is not an eminently fit case

to cancel the allotment of site in favour of the petitioner.

 4

3. In that view of the matter, petition is allowed.

Order dated 17/21.05.2013, Annexure-M, is quashed

and allotment restored.

Sd/-
JUDGE

kcm