Delve into the intricate legal analysis conducted by the court regarding site allotment and pricing by the Bangalore Development Authority. This summary sheds light on the complexities involved in the case, providing valuable insights into the legal principles governing property allocation. A comprehensive examination of the court’s findings awaits in this intriguing read.
Facts
- Respondents gave up their right to be governed by the earlier notification dated 10.03.1988.
- Bangalore Development Authority was not able to allot sites to all applicants registered under the notification dated 10.03.1988.
- Respondents cannot fall back on the notification dated 10.03.1988 once they agreed to the terms of the notification dated 15.10.1988.
- Notification dated 15.10.1988 referred to sites ‘proposed’ at different locations.
- Clause 16 of the notification allowed BDA to allot sites in layouts other than preferred by applicants or in future layouts.
- Authority faced obstacles including litigation in allotting sites mentioned in the notification dated 15.10.1988.
- Respondents opted to be governed by the terms of the notification dated 15.10.1988.
- Division Bench allowed the appeals based on the case of E.R. Manjaiah.
- Review petition by the Authority was dismissed by the High Court.
- Writ petitions were dismissed by a Single Judge in the case of R. Jayakumar & Others v. The Bangalore Development Authority & Others.
- Sites mentioned in the 15.10.1988 Notification were only ‘proposed’ sites
- Allotment letters were issued to the respondents in 1997-1998 for sites in the layout plan they developed
- The sites allotted were not mentioned in the notification dated 15.10.1988
- Refund of amounts for the allotments was stayed upon the filing of Special Leave Petitions
- Allotments were made for the benefit of the respondents as allotment at the sites mentioned in the 15.10.1988 notification was not possible
- Respondents had the choice to withdraw their initial deposit and not accept the allotment
Also Read: Analysis of Bail Conditions in Criminal Appeal No. INSC 48/2024
Arguments
- The Respondent in this case is the Bangalore Development Authority and others.
- The factual matrix of the present case is different from the case of E.R. Manjaiah and others v. Bangalore Development Authority and others.
Also Read: Conviction Upheld for Murder and Concealment of Body
Analysis
- Rule 12 of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 allows for the alteration of the value of a site by the authority
- The case of E.R. Manjaiah had different circumstances compared to the current case
- The order dated 15th July, 2002 stays the refund of any amount by the Bangalore Development Authority to the respondent
- All allottees under the 15.10.1988 Notification have been treated equally in terms of pricing
- The notification dated 15.10.1988 only provided provisional allotment to applicants unlike the 10.03.1988 Notification
- The Secretary of Bangalore Development Authority explained the difficulty in the matter of delivery of possession and execution of the sale deed
- No discrimination has been made against any allottee
- Division Bench in E.R. Manjaiah case held that Authority entitled to charge price prevailing on date of allotment
- No entitlement to relief on plea of parity based on E.R. Manjaiah case
- Authority cannot alter sital value without explanation
- Rule 12 equally applicable to all allottees
- Allottees at new sites should not be discriminated against those at old sites on price grounds
- Allottees of new sites had to pay a higher price despite being similarly positioned to others
- Respondents chose to be governed by notification dated 15.10.1988 and agreed to conditions
- Bangalore Development Authority directed to execute sale deed and deliver possession.
- Respondents prohibited from parting with possession, transferring, or encumbering the site until final decision by the Court.
Also Read: 1991 Decree Invalid: No Determination of Rights in Property Dispute
Decision
- Dispute resolution process regarding the quantum of interest payable by the respondent.
- Authority to notify respondent with calculation of interest payable.
- Respondent to either make payment of interest or file response/objection.
- Writ Appeals by respondents treated as dismissed if dispute not resolved.
- Parties entitled to take recourse to appropriate remedies if dispute persists.
- Present appeals allowed, impugned orders set aside, IA No.16698/2021 allowed with direction to the Bangalore Development Authority.
- Remaining 49 respondents given opportunity to make payment of enhanced amount of the sital value with interest payable as per Rule 13 of the Rules.
- Payment to be self-computed by respondents within eight weeks.
- Undertaking by respondents to make any further payment due to authority within four weeks of demand, with amount becoming a charge on the site.
Case Title: BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. R.JAYAKUMAR . (2022 INSC 282)
Case Number: C.A. No.-003628-003960 / 2004
