9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Authority of the State Government to direct the BDA to allot sites under 'G' category. 2. Power of the BDA to cancel sale deeds executed in favor of the petitioners or their vendors. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Re. Point No. (i): Authority of the State Government to direct the BDA to allot sites under 'G' category: The key contention was whether the State Government has the power to direct the BDA to allot sites to persons in public life under the 'G' category as per the circular dated 6.8.1997. The petitioners argued that the State Government lacks such authority, while the respondents contended that such directions are within the Government's powers to further the Act's purpose. The court examined the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, and related rules, noting that the BDA is a statutory body created for the development of Bangalore Metropolitan Area. The Act does not expressly or impliedly authorize the State Government to direct the BDA to allot sites. Rule 5 of the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984, states that stray sites should be disposed of according to government guidelines, but this does not equate to the government having the power to direct specific allotments. The court highlighted that the legislative intent and policy must be clear and cannot be delegated without adequate guidelines. The 1997 circular allowing the government to allot 30% of stray sites to persons in public life was found to be inconsistent with the Act's provisions. The court cited precedents emphasizing that public bodies must act within their statutory limits and maintain transparency and fairness in distributing public assets. The court concluded that the State Government does not have the authority to direct the BDA to allot sites under 'G' category as per the circular dated 6.8.1997. The BDA must dispose of stray sites based on guidelines that ensure transparency and public interest. Re. Point No. (ii): Power of the BDA to cancel sale deeds executed in favor of the petitioners or their vendors: The court addressed whether the BDA could cancel sale deeds it had executed. It was established that once the BDA executes and registers a sale deed, it transfers ownership to the purchaser, who becomes the absolute owner. The BDA cannot unilaterally cancel such deeds, as this power rests solely with the courts under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The court referred to the Transfer of Property Act, which defines a sale as a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price. Once a sale deed is executed and registered, the original owner loses all rights to the property. The BDA's unilateral cancellation of sale deeds was deemed illegal. If the BDA believes a sale deed is void or voidable, it must seek judicial intervention for cancellation. The court quashed the BDA's orders and notices canceling the sale deeds in question, emphasizing that the BDA must approach the civil courts for any such cancellations. Order: 1. Declared that the State Government has no power to direct the BDA to allot sites under 'G' category as per the circular dated 6.8.1997. 2. Declared that the conditions in Rules 7 and 13 of the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984, apply to all sites allotted under Rule 5. 3. Directed the BDA Commissioner to take action against officers responsible for the illegal bifurcation of civic amenity site No. 12. 4. Quashed the BDA's notice and order in W.P. No. 11102/2008. 5. Quashed the BDA's order, notice, and deed of cancellation in W.P. No. 16954/2009. 6. Quashed the BDA's order in W.P. No. 16147/2009. 7. Reserved liberty for the BDA to seek cancellation of the sale deeds through civil suits. 8. Disposed of the writ petitions without costs.
|
