BANGALORE: The Karnataka High Court has said the Government cannot give directions to the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to cancel the allotment of a site and re-allot it to another person.

The court said the Government had no powers under Sections 63 and 65 of the BDA Act asking it to allot a site to a particular person.

Taking to task the Government for passing such a direction and the BDA for following it, the court observed that the State could give directions only to carry out the purpose of the Act and not otherwise.

It said that giving a direction to the BDA to cancel the allotment of a site to a person in favour of another could not be said to have been in furtherance of the purpose of the provisions of the BDA Act.

Such a direction, it said, runs contrary to the intention of the Legislature while enacting Section 65 of the BDA Act. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the court said, "Any repository of power, be it the BDA or the Government, must act reasonably, rationally and in accordance with the law and with due regard to the legislative intent."

The court was dealing with a petition by T. Kumar who was allotted a BDA site in Mattadahalli.

He had constructed a four-storeyed house at a cost of Rs. 86 lakh.

In his petition, Mr. Kumar said he was allotted a site in January 1989 and in February 1989 the lease-cum-sale agreement with the BDA was executed. The allotment was challenged in court and both the petition and appeal were dismissed.

On January 3, 2003, the BDA cancelled the allotment of the site and gave Mr. Kumar an alternative site in East of NGEF Layout.

Mr. Kumar had challenged the cancellation, saying that he had constructed the house and availed himself of a lone of Rs. 36 lakh from a bank.

Allowing his petition and quashing the cancellation letter, Justice Mohan Shantangouder said the court was at a loss to know how the Government could issue such a direction to the BDA.

Such a communication made in favour of the second allottee that too without giving notice and without hearing the petitioner was not only illegal but also arbitrary, he said.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail