Earlier Site Allotment Cannot Bar Bagalkot Man’s Claim For A Site After His Mother’s Separate Property Was Acquired: Karnataka HC

The petitioner’s mother’s property, CTS No. 364/1, was acquired in 1995–96, following which sites were allotted to her and the petitioner.

A separate site, BTDA No. 190, owned by the mother, was later acquired pursuant to a notification dated 7 January 2008.

The petitioner applied for an ‘E’ category site in lieu of that later acquisition.

After the petitioner obtained an earlier direction requiring consideration of his representation, the Authority rejected the request on the ground that a site had already been allotted in connection with the 1995–96 acquisition.

The petitioner challenged that endorsement in this writ petition.

The Court applied the Bagalkot Town Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1993, including Rule 4(4) and the explanation to Rule 4, which govern, respectively, category preference and claims based on major children being treated as separate families.

It also relied on Article 300A of the Constitution, under which deprivation of property must be in accordance with law, and referred to acquisitions under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.

The Court’s governing principle was that an allotment made for one acquisition cannot, without a legal basis under the applicable scheme, be treated as compensation for a distinct subsequent acquisition.

The Authority’s refusal rested on the petitioner’s prior allotment following the 1995–96 acquisition.

The Court found that the later acquisition of BTDA No. 190 arose from a separate notification and concerned a distinct property.

Treating the earlier allotment as satisfying the claim arising from the later acquisition would conflate the two acquisitions and was not justified under the Rules; the later acquisition also involved a separate deprivation of property.

The Court therefore set aside the endorsement but left entitlement and allocation matters to be determined by the Authority under the 1993 Rules, including the petitioner’s requests concerning separate-family status and category change.

It also directed the Authority to consider the petitioner’s representations regarding deemed or construed separate-family status and any change of site category.

The Authority was directed to pass an order within eight weeks of receiving the certified copy of the judgment.