BENGALURU: In a significant relief for BDA, the high court not only admitted a review petition filed after a delay of more than 12 years but also stayed a 2012 order on a five-acre property in Kengeri, Bengaluru South taluk.
While directing BDA to pay Rs 25,000 in cost, Justice ES Indiresh has now scheduled the review petition for Nov 25 for further consideration. The cost is payable to R Arunachalam, the original petitioner.
Senior advocate GS Kannur, appearing for BDA, contended that the original petitioner misrepresented himself as the absolute owner of the property. The statement made in the writ petition was false, as the petitioner sold 4 acres and 20 guntas out of the 5 acres, even before filing the petition in 2011.
The land’s alienation was suppressed before the court to gain unjust enrichment in the form of compensation, thereby committing fraud while securing the order, Kannur said.
The court was also informed that upon an inspection as per the July 26, 2012 order, BDA noticed that only 2 acres and 30 guntas of land was utilised for the formation of a 100-foot road. In 2014-15, land to the extent of 46,709 square feet was allotted to Arunachalam, and he failed to produce the title deeds for the property for which he was seeking compensation.
On the other hand, Arunachalam’s counsel argued that there is an inordinate delay of more than 4,398 days in filing the BDA review petition, and hence the same is barred by the Limitation Act.
He claimed that the single bench’s 2012 order became final as there was no writ appeal filed against it and added that even in the contempt proceedings, the Supreme Court rejected BDA’s special leave petition.
Justice Indiresh noted that BDA is an instrumentality of the state, and the review petition must be considered in the public interest.
The judge also pointed out that in another similar matter where the 2012 order was relied upon, the High Court specified that it is the duty of the writ petitioner to produce the relevant title deeds to establish their right over the land.
“I am of the view that the review petitioner (BDA) came to know about it (alienation of a part of the land) by conducting a roving inquiry into the title deeds of the respondent (Arunachalam) and further, issued notices to him to produce the same. However, the respondent, without providing necessary title documents to BDA, approached this court in 2022, and the writ petition is pending consideration. The aspect of the matter, prima facie, makes it clear that the respondent does not intend to provide any clarification or documents to explain how he claimed ownership of the land in question as of the date of filing the writ petition in 2011. As such, the lack of diligence or inaction on the part of the review petitioner to file the instant review petition requires a liberal approach, and the same is required to be condoned,” the judge said.
BDA produced various sale deeds from 2004 to 2006 executed by Arunachalam in favour of various purchasers, wherein the land is carved out of the property bearing Survey no. 212 of Kengeri.
These sale deeds were executed much before the filing of the original petition in 2011, Justice Indiresh added while allowing the interlocutory application filed by BDA.
