COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus S. VASUDEVA AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 275 · Decided: 18-01-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. KIRPAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

r 
COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT 
AUTHORITY 
v. 
S. VASUDEVA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 18, 2000 
[B.N. KIRPAL AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.) 
Urban Development : 
Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 : 
Sections 39 and 38-B (inserted in 1993 w.e.f 20-12- 1975)-Allotment 
A 
B 
c 
of land-By Development Authority-Bulk allotment of land made to 
registered housing cooperative society for further allotment to its mem-
ber.1-Validity of-Held : In the absence of any averment to indicate that 
allotment of land was denied to any society, organisation or person registered D 
with the Development Authority prior to the registration of the said society, 
such allotment valid-Cooperative Societies. 
Section 65-Government's power-To give direction to Development 
Authority-S.:ope of-Held : Government has no power to issue direction 
contrary to the provision of the Act or Rules framed under it--R. 14(2) (as it 
then stood) did not permit sale of vacant site even with Development 
Authority's permission, there/ ore Government cannot direct the Authority to 
pennit such sales-Hence, such sales invalid-However, with the insertion of 
R. 14(2) such alienation can be regularised only under the circumstances 
provided by R. 14(3). 
Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984. 
Rule 14(3)-Sale of sites-By allottees-Grounds for-Held: Not only 
E 
F 
the insolvency of the a/lottee but also his inability to reside in the city and 
their impecuniosity are also valid grounds. Allotment of land-Transfer of G 
site~y a/lottees-Development Authority permitted transfer of sites by al-
lottees in contravention of Rule:.-Subsequently, Rules were amended permit-
ting such transfer subject to the purchases paying 25% of sital value as 
determined by Government:--Held : Development Authority directed to give 
an opportunity to the purchasers to get the transfer regularised on payment of H 
275 
276 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 1 S.C.R. 
A 25% of sital value 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
A1ticle 226--·Wlit petition- !nte1ference undei--Scope of-Writ petition 
challenged only out-of-tum allotment of sites to some members of Coopera-
B tive Housing Society and the Transfers made by some allottees-However, 
High Court not only held the bulk allotment of land to the society invalid but 
also directed the Development Authority to constitute a committee to go into 
all the allotments made by it--Co"ectness of-Held : High Court, by issuing 
the impugned directions, travelled way beyond the scope of the writ peti-
C tion-Hence, High Court not justified in fasuing such directions. 
The Legislator's Housing Cooperative Society 1ms a registered 
society under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1 %0. Bolk allot· 
ment of land was made to the said Society by the appellant-Development 
Authority, which in turn, allotted plots of land to its members. Respondent 
D No. 1 filed a writ petition before the High Court challengi113 not only the 
said allotment but also the transfers of land by allottee in violatio::i of 
Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984, it was 
also averred in tine writ petition that out-of-turn allotment hnd been given 
to certain persons. 
E 
The High Court held that the allotment of land was not validly made 
to the Society. It also held that at that belated stage tht violation com-
mitted would not render the allotment invalid. However, tile High Court 
allowed the writ petitions and directed that the appellant-Development 
Authority to constitute a committee t~ go into all the allotments made by 
F it. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the allotment was 
made to the Society under Section 38-B of the Bangalore Dtvelopment 
Authority, 1976 (which was inserted in the Act on 20.12.1975), and that the 
appellant had pt:rmitted transfers of land pursuant to a direction issued 
G by the State Gonrnment under Section 65 of the Act. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. Section 38 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 
1976 gives power to the Authority to lease, sell or transfer property, inter 
H alia, for building purposes or for the purposes of any development scheme. 
r 
COMMR. BANGALORE DEVELUPMENf ALTHURJTY v. S. V ASUDEVA 277 
The High Court had in an earlier decision interpreted this Act to mean that A 
the Bangalore Development Authority (BOA) could not make bulk allot-
ment. This resulted in the passing of the Bangalore Development Authority 
(Third Amendment) Act,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.