Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. N. Dhakshayini, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondent, the Commissioner of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), to allot and sell one of the vacant sites bearing Nos. 50A, 50B, or 50C in Nandini Layout, Bangalore, as per the coloured plan at Annexure F, and to recover any difference in price between the site taken from the petitioner and the alternate site. The petitioner's vendor-in-title, M. Devaraju, was originally allotted site No. S61 in Nandini SFHS Layout, Bangalore, measuring 119.73 square meters, by the BDA. A deed of conveyance was executed by the BDA in favor of Devaraju on 25.06.2004, and he was put in possession. Subsequently, Devaraju conveyed the site to the petitioner under a deed of conveyance dated 24.08.2005 for valuable consideration. It was not in dispute that the BDA, without notice to the petitioner or following any procedure, took over the site for the purpose of road widening. The petitioner contended that the BDA's action was arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. The BDA argued that the site was required for public purpose and that the petitioner had no right to claim an alternate site. The court held that the BDA's action of taking over the site without notice to the petitioner was arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. The court directed the BDA to allot one of the vacant sites bearing Nos. 50A, 50B, or 50C in Nandini Layout to the petitioner, and to recover any difference in price between the original site and the alternate site from the petitioner. The writ petition was allowed with costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Legitimate Expectation - Alternate Site - BDA's Obligation - The petitioner, a purchaser of a site from the original allottee, had a legitimate expectation that the BDA would not deprive her of the site without notice or compensation. The BDA, having acquired the site for road widening without notice, was directed to allot an alternate site from available vacant sites and recover any price difference. (Paras 1-4) B) Property Law - Conveyance - Rights of Purchaser - The petitioner, having purchased the site for valuable consideration from the original allottee who held a deed of conveyance from BDA, acquired valid title. The BDA's action of taking over the site for road widening without notice to the petitioner was arbitrary. (Paras 1-3) C) Constitutional Law - Articles 226 and 227 - Writ Jurisdiction - The High Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to direct BDA to allot an alternate site, as the petitioner had no other efficacious remedy and the BDA's action was violative of principles of natural justice. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) is obligated to allot an alternate site to a purchaser who bought a site from the original allottee, when the original site was subsequently acquired for road widening without notice to the purchaser.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. BDA directed to allot one of the vacant sites bearing Nos. 50A, 50B, or 50C in Nandini Layout to the petitioner, and to recover any difference in price between the original site and the alternate site from the petitioner. Costs awarded.
Law Points
- Doctrine of legitimate expectation
- Right to fair hearing
- Principle of restitution
- BDA's obligation to provide alternate site when original site is acquired for public purpose
