IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28™ DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 15963 OF 2010(BDA)
BETWEEN:
S VENKOJI RAQ
S/O. LATE G Ki SHANKAR NARAYANA RAO.
AGE 64 YEARS
R/AT NO.99, 28D BLOCK
2NP STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM,
BAGNALORE ~ 86. PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R S HEGDE, ADV)
AND:
THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
1 CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA FARK WEST
BANGALORE - 20
R#P.BY ITS COMMISSIONER. .. RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M N RAMANJANEYA GOWDA, ADV)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.4,2010 VIDE ANN-N
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT
AUTHORITY OF LAW; AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRL.HEARING IN ‘B’
GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:ORDER
Industrial Site No.80/E, Industriai. Suburb I
Stage in the layout formed by the Bangalore
Development Authority (for short “BDA), was allotted to
one Kulle Gowda, S/o. Yalakki Gowda and put in
jon under Possessicn Certificate dated
poss
25.02.1981 Annexure:
" ona lease for 10 years. It
appears that the respondent ~ BDA executed and lodged
for registration a conditional deed of sale dated 6.2.1987
Annexure-“B” conveying the property in question to the
allottee, for a valuable consideration including the lease
reatals for the period 12.01.1981 to 11.01.1991,
entitling the allottee to exercise absolute and full
ownership rights over the property conveyed, however,
with 2 condition to put up construction within the
period specified under the lease-cum-sale agreement or
such further period as may be allowed by the BDA in
terms of the lease-cum-sale agreement dated
12.01.1981. Thereafterwards, one K.T. Gowda, claiming
beto be the son of the allottec, executed a sale deed dated
12.02.1987 conveying the property in favour of the
petitioner for a valuable consideration: The BDA having
accepted the sale deed conveying the preperty in favour
of the petitioner, issued a Katha certificate dated
16.03.1991 Annexure-"D" certifying that the katha of
the property was changed te the name of the petitioner
and thereafterwards issued property tax challans in the
name of the petitioner, who paid the taxes. The site
having fallen within the territorial jurisdiction of the
BBMP, tre petitioner paid taxes as acknowledged by the
BBMP. Years rolled by but the industrial building was
not erected though a condition in the allotment of the
site. The BDA, by show cause notice dated 7.1.2010
Annexure-“M”, proposed cancellation of the site for
violation of the condition in not erecting the building
within the time stipulated in the lease-cum-sale
agreement and sought an explanation within seven days
which was promptly responded to by reply dated
ba11.01.2010 Annexure-“M1” of the petitioner iieratia
contending that though the plan was approved. fer
construction of the building, nevertheless, due to
inadequate financial support fron: Banks arid ill health,
the petitioner again made an unsuccessful attempt in
the year 2001 since there was recession and his
children were unabie to assist. him as they were
pursuing studies, was unable to put up the
construction. Jn addition, it was stated that a borewell
was installed anda compound wall erected and that
Kulle Gowda to whem the notice was addressed, was
not the owner. It is also stated that the petitioner's son
is returning after having studied abroad and intends to
start a design and consultancy business and that a
portion of that site is intended to be gifted to a
charitable institution for construction of a Prarthana
Mandir as the petitioner has promised his Guru and
therefore, there is no violation of the conditions of
allotment. Lastly it is stated that he has filed an
bd5
application for change of land use by which a portion
will be put to use for public purpose and the remaining
for construction of an office. The BDA did not take
kindly to the explanation offered and by order dated
28.04.2010, Annexure-“N", cancelled. the allotment.
Hence, this writ petition.
2. Petition is opposed by filing Statement of
objections inigratia acinitting the fact of allotment of the
sale and that the original allottee Kulle Gowda having
violated the conditions of allotment, the notices issued
on 21.04.1988 and 20.06.2000 whence no reply was
received and therefore, the Commissioner, by order
dated 2:1.2010, directed issue of yet another show
cause notice to the petitioner on 7.1.2010 for violating
the condition of allotment. The failure to put up
construction of an industrial building in the industrial
suburb is the cause for the cancellation.3, Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the pleadings, the following two questions
arise for decision making:
(i)
(ii)
{iii}
Whether in the facts ‘ond circumstances,
respondent ~ BDA has complied with sub-
rule (7) of Ruie 12 of the Bangalore
Development Authority (Allotment of Sites)
Rules, 1984 in the matter of cancellation of
the aliotment?
Whether the power to cancel the conditional
sale deed Annexure-“B” vests with the Court
or with the BDA?
Whetiver the initiation of suo-moto power to
cancel the allotment is within reasonable
time?
Reg. Point No.1:
In the admitted facts the allotment of an industrial
site in an industrial suburb, a layout formed by the
respondent - BDA, cannot but be for establishing an
industry, by industrious entrepreneurs in the State of
IshKarnataka. There can be no dispute that the allotment
was on the condition that the allettee put up
construction of an industrial building within a period of
two years, in terms of the lease-cum-sale agreement
dated 12.01.1981. So also, it is not in dispute that the
allotment was subjected to the City of Bangalore
Improvement (Restrictions, Conditions and Limitations
as sales of sites} Rules, 1968 as set out in the
convenants. in the conditional deed of sale Annexure-
“B", although by 6.2,1987, the date of Annexure-“B"
conditional saie deed, there was in force the BDA
(Allotment of Sites), Rules, 1984 repealing the Bangalore
Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1982.
The reiévant rule under the City of Bangalore
Improvement (Restrictions, Conditions and Limitations
as Sales of Sites) Rules, 1968 is not made available to
the Court nor is it relied upon by the respondent in the
matter of cancellation of the allotment except to contend
that the conditional sale deed imposed a condition of
bkconstruction of the building within the time stipulated
under the lease-cum-sale agreement dated 12.01.1981.
4, In the light of the admitted facts, the allottee
having not put up the construction of the building
during the period of 10 years iease, the BDA took no
action at the earliest over the violation/breach of
condition of allotment or terms of the lease-cum-sale
agreement. In addition though there was a specific bar
not to alienate the industrial site during the lease
period, the BDA, for reasons not known, executed a
conditional saie deed on 6.2.1987 Annexure-"B”, much
after the expiry of the period during which the
industrial building had to be constructed. There is no
explanation of the BDA as to why such a course of
action was taken and why the allotment was not
cancelled for violation/breach of the terms of the lease-
cum-sale agreement. After the execution of the
conditional sale deed, the allottee did not put up
baconstruction and the BDA, did not take actior: against
the allottee. Significantly, the BDA accepted
conveyance of the site under the sale deed dated
12.02.1987 Annexure ~ ‘C’ in favour of the petitioner by
the person claiming to be the son of the allottee, as is
animated from the Katha Certificate dated 16.03.1991
Annexure-"D". Yet again, the BDA fafied to take action
against cither the allottes or the petitioner for
violation/kreach of the terms and conditions of the
lease-cum-sai# agreement as well as the conditional sale
deed. ‘the BDA in fact acquiesced in the right of the
petitioner by receiving from him the taxes on the
property.
5. When things stood thus, the BDA, without an
explanation, issued the show cause notice in the year
2010 alleging violation of terms and conditions of the
lease-cum-sale agreement and the condition of sale
deed followed by the cancellation of the site by the order
I10.
impugned. Apparently. as can be gathered from the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
BDA, what was invoked for the cancellation of. the
allotment was sub-rule (7) of Rule 15 of the BDA
{Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 which reads thus:
“13(7) The allotiee shai! construct a
building within a period of five years from
the sate of execution cf the agreement or
such extended period as the Authority may
in any specified case by written order permit.
If the building is not constructed within the
said period the allotment may after
reasonable notice to the alllottee be
cancelled, the agreement revoked, the lease
determined and the allottee evicted from the
site by the authority and after forfeiting
twelve and half per cent of the value of the
site paid by the allottee the authority shall
refund the balance to the allottee.”
6. The rule is para materia with sub-rule (6) of
Rule 13 as it existed prior to the amendment to the
pARules, and interpreted by a learned Singic Judge in
SMT. B.K. PARVATHAMMA vs. BANGALORE
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BANGALORE!. In the
said decision, the very question as to whether the
cancellation of the allotment by the BDA was in
accordance with Rute 13(6) of tne Rules, was answered
thus:
“A perusal of this rule and the term of
the agreement per s¢ reveal that cancellation
of allotment is not in itself sufficient to
deprive the allottee of his right over the
property, subject-matter of an agreement of
Jease-cum-sale or lease-cum-sale agreement,
really, that agreement has to be revoked, the
jease had to be determined in accordance
with law, terms and conditions of the
agreement and possession could only be
taken after having paid the balance of
amount deposited by the lessee or purchaser
to him not in full, but after deduction of 12
and 4%. The remainder of the amount
“998 LIST ne42
deposited after deduction of the 12 and 72%,
has to be refunded by the authority. to the
allottee, then and then only the cancellation
could be said to have been effectively done.”
7. In my opinion, applying the eaid observation to
the facts of this case, the procedure followed by the
respondent - BDA not being consistent with the view
taken by this Court, the order dated 28.04.2010
Annexure-"N” must fail. ‘fhe first point is answered
accordingly.
Reg, Point No.
The power to cancel the conditional sale deed
Annexure-"B" undoubtedly vests with the Court and
cannot be exercised by the BDA in the light of Section
31 of the Specific Relief Act. This Court, claborately
considered the applicability of Sec.31, in BINNY MILL
LABOUR WELFARE HOUSE BUILDING CO-
hu
uNOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED vs.
MRUTHYUNJAYA ARADHYA?, and obser ed thus:
“37, A reading of the aforesaid
provision makes it clear that both void and
voidable instruments ean be cancelled by the
Court. The cause of action for such an
action is an apprehension, i such an
instrument is left outstanding may cause
serious iajury to the person against whom
the written instrument 's void or voidable.
Such a person has the discretion to
approach a competent Civil Court for
adjudging the. said instrument to be
delivered up and cancelled. Even though in
law a void instrument is unenforceable, has
no value in the eye of law, void ab initio, the
very physical existence of such a document
may cause a cloud on the title of the party or
cause injury or one can play mischief.
Therefore, the law provides for cancellation
of such instruments which are also non est.
but which are in existence as a fact
physically to get over the effect of such
TLR 2008 KAR 2245 dwtinstrument. Once such an instrument is
registered, the said registration has the effect
of informing and giving notice to the World
at large that such a document has been
executed. Registration of a docuraent is a
notice to all the subsequent purci:asers or
encumbrances of the same property. The
doctrine of construciive notice is attracted
Therefore, the effect of registration of an
rights of the
Parties to the instrument but also affects
instrument not only affects it
parties. who may clam under them.
Therefore, once such an instrument. is
ordered to be delivered up and cancelled an
obligation is cast upon the Court to send a
copy of its decree to the officer in whose
office the instrument was registered, so that
such an officer shall note on the copy of the
instrument contained in his books the fact of
its cancellation. Once such an entry is made
in the books of the Sub-Registrar about the
cancellation of the registered instrument, it
also acts as a notice of cancellation to the
whole World and it is also a constructive
notice of cancellation of the said instrument.
Jakds
38. Part X of the Indian Registration
Act, 1908 deals with effect of registration
and non-registration of an instrument. A
combined reading of Sections 47, 48 and 49
makes it clear that an instrumeat which
purports to transfer iitle to the property
requires to be registered, the title does not
pass until registration has been affected.
The registration by itself does not create a
new title. It only affirms a titie that has been
created by the deed. The title is complete
and the effect of registration is to make it
unquestionable and absolute. Section 47 of
the Act makes it clear that a registered
document shell operate from the time from
which it would have commenced to operate if
no registration thereof had been required or
made and not from the time of its
registration. The Section however does not
say when a sale would be deemed to be
complete. However, Section 47 of the
Registration Act makes it clear that, though
a document is registered on a_ particular
date, the effective date would be the date on
which the said document was executed and
J16
not from the date of registration. if the
document is not registered but — is
compulsorily registerable, though — the
document is duly executed, it as no iegai
effect and it does not affect the iramevable
property comprised in the said document in
view of Section 49 of tke Act. The
registration of such a duly executed
document comes inte operation, the moment
is duly registered, not from the date of
registration put frem the date of execution of
the said document. Section 54 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which deals
with sales of immovable property mandates
emphatically the transfer of _ tangible
immovable property of the value of one
hundred rupees and upwards, can be made
only by a registered instrument. Thus,
without registration there is no transfer of
ownership of the property. Therefore, it is
clear that the act of registration in the
scheme of things is not a mere instance of
the State collecting some registration fee and
providing authenticity to a written
instrument. It is by the act of registration,
Inkat
the title in the property passes to the
transferor, from the date of execution of the
deed of transfer. Once such sale takes
place, transfer is complete, the vendor of the
Property ceases to be the owner of the
Property. Thereafter if ne executes one more
sale deed in respect of tie same property or
a cancellation deed in respect of the property
already sold, in faw it has no value, and it in
no way affects the sale deed already
executed. It is invalid, void, and non-est.”
8. Having regard to the covenants in the
conditional sale deed Annexure-“B” that Kulle Gowda,
the allottee is entitled to exercise absolute and full
ewnership rights in the property conveyed, the
respondent —- BDA the cancellation of the conditional
sale deed without taking recourse to the provisions of
the Specific Relief Act, is illegal. The second point is
answered accordingly.8
9. All that can be said in this case is that the BDA
instead of initiating action at the earli
st opportunity
against the allottee Kulle Gowda in accordance with the
allotment rules as in force en the date when the Gefault
was committed, for whatsoever reasons. assisted Kulle
Gowda by executing < conditicna! sale deed covenanting
that he was entitled to exercise absolute rights over the
property. ‘The failure on the part of the BDA to ensure
strict cempliarice witit the terms of the allotment to put
up the construction within the time stipulated, is
inaction on the part of the BDA, for various reasons.
The Board of the BDA is instrumental in assisting the
ailottee who had committed breach of the terms of the
agreement, are guilty of mal-administration. The non-
exercise of statutory duty invested in the respondent —
BDA has resulted in the petitioner not otherwise entitled
to the public property in question by purchasing the
same within the period of non-alienation did flout rule
of law. There is an imminent need to take action
btagainst the officers concerned after holding an enquiry
and ensure that such conduct by either the officers or
the Board of the BDA is not repeated in future.
Reg. Point N
10. In the backdrop of admitted facts, the
allotment in the year 198i coupled with delivery of
possession and the execution of the lease-cum-sale
agreemeni, the corditional sale deed, and the sale of the
site by the allottee acqiiesced in by the BDA, the action
of the respondent — BDA proposing cancellation of the
allotment, after expiry of 29 years, smacks of abuse of
power. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY
iTS COMMISSIONER vs. SMT. SUMITRADEVI? while
invalidating an action of cancellation of allotment
initiated after a long gap of 18 years held thus:
“There can be no doubt that where no
power of limitation is prescribed by an Act or
the Rules made thereunder for the exercise
MILR 2004 KAR 1386 It20
of suo moto statutory power, the exercise of
that power cannot be impugned on the
ground that it is barred by limitation. No
period of limitation can be — imposed
otherwise than by statute or the rules made
thereunder. But, nonetheless, the power
vested in an authority to revise the orders of
the subordinate authorities er to take any
adverse action against a person suo moto,
has to be exercised within a reasonable time.
In our view, in cases where no period of
limitation is prescribed under the Statute or
the Ruics made thereunder for exercise of
powers suo moto, the question for
consideration is not whether the exercise of
the power is barred by limitation for in the
absence of a period of limitation prescribed
under the Act, the question of bar of
jimitation cannot arise, but it is a question of
reasonable period within which that power
should be exercised. What is reasonable
period within which the statutory suo moto
power could be exercised would undoubtedly
be dependent upon the facts and
circumstances of each case.”
bh2b
11. In the light of the observations and the fact
that a long period of 29 years having rolled by, it is
needless to state that the initiation of proceeding by the
BDA was unreasonableness, unfairness and arbitrary,
and hence unsustainable. Point No.3 is answered
accordingly,
12. In the result the writ petition is allowed. The
show cause aotice dated 7.1.2010 Annexure-“M" and
the order 28.04.2010 Apnexure-“N" are quashed. The
Commissioner, BDA is directed to hold an enquiry into
the mal-administration noticed supra and to take
action, in accordance with law and submit a report to
the Registrar General within six months.
Sd/-
Judge
KS