Keshav Baljee vs Bangalore Devt.Authority

The appellants are real brothers. In 2002, they applied for allotment of residential sites under the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 (for short, "the Rules"). Appellant, Keshav Baljee submitted two applications on 31.5.2002 and 13.12.2002. His brother, Arjun Baljee also submitted applications on 31.2.2002 and 13.12.2002. However, neither of them was successful in getting the allotment. In 2003, they again applied for allotment of residential sites in different areas. Keshav Baljee applied for allotment of site in VIII Block, FE of SMV Nagar and Arjun Baljee applied for allotment of site in BSK IV Stage Layout. Although, copies of the application forms submitted by the appellants in 2002 have not been produced by either party, xerox copies of the application forms submitted in 2003 have been placed on record along with I.A. No. 2/2010 filed in the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 29519/2008. A perusal of the same shows that both the applications were incomplete inasmuch as the appellants did not give the particulars of their date of birth, age and annual income in column Nos. 9, 10 and 14. The Allotment Committee constituted under Rule 11(3) of the Rules should have rejected the applications of the appellants only on 3 the ground that the same were defective, but instead of doing that the concerned officers not only entertained and processed the applications, but also allotted residential sites to both the appellants in 2004.

The appellants challenged the cancellation of allotments in Writ Petition Nos.24100 of 2005 - Keshav Baljee v. Bangalore Development Authority and 21133 of 2005 - Arjun Baljee v. Bangalore Development Authority. The first writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge by a rather cryptic order dated 22.9.2006 but the second writ petition was dismissed by another learned Single Judge vide his order dated 31.7.2007 by relying upon Rule 11 of the Rules. Paragraphs 8, 9, 14 and 15 4 of that order, perusal of which show how the appellants succeeded in getting allotment of residential sites in connivance with the officers of the B.D.A. are extracted below:

(emphasis supplied) Initially, the B.D.A. did not challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge in favour of Keshav Baljee but when the writ petition filed by his brother, Arjun Baljee was dismissed, the concerned officers woke up from slumber and filed Writ Appeal No.1435/2005 along with an application for 7 condonation of 289 days' delay. Arjun Baljee also challenged the dismissal of his writ petition in Writ Appeal No.1797/2007. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench condoned the delay in filing of Writ Appeal No.1435/2005, finally allowed that appeal and dismissed the one filed by Arjun Baljee by recording the following reasons:

We are in complete agreement with the Division Bench of the High Court that the appellants were not eligible to be allotted residential sites and the B.D.A. officers had entertained and accepted their applications in complete disregard of the mandate of Rules 10(3) and 11(2) of the Rules. As a corollary, we hold that there is no valid ground much less justification to nullify the orders passed by the Commissioner, B.D.A. for cancellation of the allotments made in favour of the appellants.

In the result, the appeals are dismissed with cost of Rs.1,00,000/-, which the appellants shall deposit with the State Legal Services Authority, Karnataka within a period of four weeks. The B.D.A. is also saddled with the cost of Rs.2,00,000/- for generating unwarranted litigation. This amount shall also be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority, Karnataka within a period of four weeks. The B.D.A. shall recover the amount from the officers who manipulated allotment of sites to the appellants.

We also direct the Commissioner of Bangalore Development Authority to take action in accordance with the directions given 16 by the Division Bench and submit a report to the High Court within a period of eight weeks from today. The Registry of the High Court shall place the report before the Chief Justice, who may then order consideration thereof by the Division Bench of the High Court. We expect that the High Court will take serious view of the manipulations on the part of the officers of the B.D.A. and ordain appropriate proceedings against them.