After BDA Allotted Him an Alternative Plot, Senior Journalist Cannot Block Auction of Preferred HSR Site: Karnataka HC

The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) had allotted the appellant, under the “G” category, Site No. 1017 in HSR Layout.

He could not take possession because the site was subject to litigation.

He later asked the BDA to allot Site No. 304/A in HSR Layout as an alternative.

After the BDA included that site in an auction notification, the appellant challenged the notification by writ petition.

The Single Judge declined to interfere, noting that the appellant had no right to a site of his choice and that the BDA had allotted him another site of similar dimensions in Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout.

The appellant appealed.

The Court applied the principle that a person who is eligible for an alternative allotment cannot, merely by identifying and requesting a particular site, claim an enforceable right to that site.

The identification and allotment of an alternative site are matters for the BDA, subject to applicable statutory provisions and rules.

The judgment cited no specific statutory provision or precedent as the basis for this principle.

The appellant’s original allotment could not be enjoyed because of pending litigation, but the BDA had subsequently allotted him a similar-sized alternative site in Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout.

His request for Site No. 304/A did not confer a right to that particular property.

The Court therefore found no basis to prevent the BDA from auctioning it or to disturb the Single Judge’s decision.

The interlocutory application was disposed of.