Read Time: 07 minutes

The Supreme Court last week held that Karnataka High Court was not justified in directing to issue letter of allotment in lieu of a site which was allotted way back in 2003 and when the writ petitioner had not offered his acceptance or deposited the sital value of the allotted price in terms of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984.

Bangalore Development Authority approached the top court in appeal against one Gundappa R who had file a writ petition before the High Court, 13 years later challenging the cancellation order issued by the Authority.

In 1984, Gundappa approached the Authority seeking allotment of a site measuring 40 feet x 60 feet. He was not successful in number of attempts to seek allotment of a site, but a site was allotted to him in 2003. He had initially paid a part of the sital value, however, the remaining sital value was not deposited.

A letter of allotment was issued to him stating certain conditions and was addressed to Gundappa on the address mentioned by him in the application form.

The Court found that Gundappa did not deposit the amount within the initial time nor addressed any communication to seek extension of time to deposit the balance amount.

He was then served with a show cause notice which stated that stipulated period of 120 days was over and that there was no provision to accept the balance amount now. Therefore, the allotment was liable to be cancelled within the stipulated time period. Gundappa did not reply to the said show cause notice and ultimately a letter for cancellation of the site was passed and sent to the address mentioned by him.

The Authority relied on Rule 13 of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 which provided conditions of allotment and sale of site.

It was thus contended that the writ petitioner cannot claim alternative site on payment of balance allotment price along with interest @ 24% per annum, as ordered by the High Court as the time fixed in the Rules had come to an end many years ago.

Gundappa argued that at the time of filing the application for allotment of site, he was residing in Bangalore and had given that address, however, he was transferred from one place to another as he was a Central Government employee which is why the allotment letter was sent to his Bangalore address though at that time he was transferred to Mysore. 

To this, a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramaniam said,

"If the writ petitioner was being transferred from place to place, it was his duty to keep the appellant informed about his change of address on which he could be communicated. The appellant had no duty to find out the address of the writ petitioner. The sole duty to communicate the address, his place of posting etc. was on the writ petitioner alone. In the absence of any proof of change of address, the writ petitioner has lost his right of allotment of the said site and also to claim any alternative site."

Adding that identification of alternative site was in compliance of High Court's order, which would not confer any legal or equitable right as the writ petitioner has lost his right to claim site on the basis of allotment in the year 2003, the could allowed the appeal.

Case Title: THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. GUNDAPPA R.