1. In this intra Court appeal, Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority' for short) has assailed the order dated 29.01.2020 by which a writ petition preferred by the respondent has been disposed of with a direction to the Authority to allot him a site measuring 40 x 60 feet in Sir M.Vishveswaraiah Layout or any other nearby layouts in Bangalore.

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that M/s. Surabhi Seva Sangha (hereinafter referred to as 'the Sangha' for short) had allotted a site bearing No.86 measuring 40 x 60 feet to the wife of respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner’ for short). The Authority issued a preliminary notification dated 14.12.2001 under Section 17(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ' the' for short) for acquisition of lands including the aforesaid plot in question. Thereafter, a final notification dated 30.10.2002 under Section 19 of thewas issued and subsequently an award was passed on 28.11.2002. The possession of the land was taken on 26.12.2002 and a notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 20.12.2003.

3. The Authority sent a recommendation on 21.04.2008 to the State Government for deletion of plot in question as well as other lands from the acquisition. However, no action was taken on the said recommendation. Thereupon, some Sangha and 2 others filed a writ petition namely W.P.No.18424/2011 which was disposed of by an order dated 14.02.2012 with a direction to the State Government to consider the recommendation submitted by the Authority. The State Government, by an order dated 28.05.2013, rejected the recommendation made by the Authority inter alia on the ground that the possession of the land was already taken and therefore, the land in question cannot be released from acquisition.

4. The aforesaid order passed by the State Government dated 28.05.2013 was challenged by the petitioner in a writ petition which was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to register herself as an applicant for allotment under Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 within a period of two months which was extendable by another one month by the Authority provided sufficient cause is shown. The petitioner was also directed to pay only the registration fee and the Authority was directed to allot a site to the petitioner measuring 40 x 60 feet in Sir M.Vishveshwariah Layout or in any other nearby layouts in Bangalore at the prevailing allotment prices. The order passed by the learned Single Judge has been impugned by the appellant in this appeal.

5. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the petitioner had challenged the order dated 28.05.2013 passed by the State Government by which it had refused to accede to the recommendation made by the State Government for de-notification of the land in question from acquisition. However, the learned Single Judge has found fault with the order dated 28.05.2013 on the ground that Section 5A of thehas not been complied with. However, the order passed by the State Government has not been quashed. It is also pointed out that no factual foundation has been laid in the pleadings with regard to entitlement of the petitioner to seek allotment of a site measuring 40 x 60 feet and the impugned directions have been issued. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that challenge to the validity of the land acquisition proceedings had attained finality and the petitioner had not filed any application for allotment of the plot.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Single Judge has followed the decision in ‘JUNJAMMA AND OTHERS Vs. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE AND OTHERS’ ILR 2005 KAR 608. Alternatively, it is submitted that the petitioner be granted the liberty to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to her in law for redressal of her grievance.

7. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. We are conscious of the well settled legal position that strict rules of pleading do not apply to a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 can mould the relief. However, factual foundation has to be laid in the writ petition. In the instant case, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

"(a) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash Government Order in No.NA.A.E 178 BEMBHUSVA 2013 Bangalore dated 28.5.2013 passed by the respondent No.1 vide AnnexureA.

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice and equity."

8. From careful perusal of the averments made in the writ petition as well as the prayer clause which has been extracted above, it is evident that the petitioner has not laid out any factual foundation in the writ petition about her entitlement to make an application for allotment under the 1984 Rules or her entitlement to seek allotment of a plot measuring 40 x 60 feet. The petitioner has also not averred anywhere in the petition that she is entitled to seek the benefit of the decision of this Court in ‘G.R.JAYAMMA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS’ IN W.P.NOS.20875-938/2001 DECIDED ON 20.07.2001, JUNJAMMA AND OTHERS, supra and ‘CHANDRU AND OTHERS Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY’ IN W.P.NO.31750- 85/2000 DECIDED ON 2.11.2000.

9. In the absence of any averments, the learned Single Judge has transgressed beyond the scope of the writ petition and has granted the relief to the petitioner which was even not sought for by the petitioner. In any case, learned Single Judge in the absence of any averment, could not have adjudicated the entitlement of the petitioner for allotment of a land and could not have recorded a finding that the case of the petitioner is similar to that of JUNJAMMA AND JAYAMMA’S case. The Authority was not put to notice by the learned Single Judge with regard to the reliefs granted in the writ petition.

10. In view of preceding analysis, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is accordingly set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to her in law with regard to her grievance. All contentions are kept open which are available to the parties in law to be raised.

11. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.