Transfer power under development law upheld where no applicable restriction existed and the industrial allotment was not bulk allotment.

Section 38 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act permits the Authority to lease, sell or otherwise transfer its property subject only to prescribed restrictions, conditions and limitations; where no applicable restriction is prescribed for the transaction, the general allotment rules do not curtail that power. An allotment of 1 acre 20 guntas for an industrial undertaking was not treated as a bulk allotment under Section 38-B, which operates in a different field and did not govern the transaction. A public interest challenge filed about three years after the allotment and sale deed was also held to suffer from delay and laches, and the sale in favour of the appellant was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Bangalore Development Authority could transfer the land under Section 38 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act without the statutory rules governing the allotment being applicable; (ii) whether the allotment of 1 acre 20 guntas for an industrial undertaking amounted to a bulk allotment governed by Section 38-B of the Bangalore Development Authority Act; (iii) whether the writ petition in public interest should have been entertained despite the delay in challenging the sale deed.

Issue (i): Whether the Bangalore Development Authority could transfer the land under Section 38 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act without the statutory rules governing the allotment being applicable.

Analysis: Section 38 confers power on the Authority to lease, sell or otherwise transfer property belonging to it, subject only to such restrictions, conditions and limitations as may be prescribed. The rules framed under the Act were found not to govern the impugned allotment. Where no applicable restriction, condition or limitation has been prescribed for the transaction in question, the statutory power under Section 38 is not curtailed merely because general rules exist under the Act.

Conclusion: The transfer was valid under Section 38 and the High Court was wrong in holding otherwise.

Issue (ii): Whether the allotment of 1 acre 20 guntas for an industrial undertaking amounted to a bulk allotment governed by Section 38-B of the Bangalore Development Authority Act.

Analysis: Section 38-B deals with bulk allotment to specified governmental, corporate, cooperative, society, or charitable bodies. The provision operates in a different field from Section 38. An allotment of 1 acre 20 guntas for setting up an industry was not treated as a bulk allotment within the meaning of Section 38-B, and that provision did not govern the transaction.

Conclusion: Section 38-B had no application, and the allotment could not be invalidated on that basis.

Issue (iii): Whether the writ petition in public interest should have been entertained despite the delay in challenging the sale deed.

Analysis: The challenge was brought about three years after the allotment and execution of the sale deed. In the circumstances, the writ petition suffered from delay and laches. The Court also noted that the plea that the writ petitioner had been set up by interested persons should have been examined in a public interest litigation.

Conclusion: The writ petition ought not to have been entertained on the ground of delay and laches.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was unsustainable, the allotment and sale in favour of the appellant were upheld, and the writ petition stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute confers a transfer power subject to prescribed restrictions, the power remains effective unless applicable restrictions are actually prescribed for the transaction, and a transaction outside the scope of the specific allotment rules cannot be invalidated by importing those rules or by mischaracterising it as a bulk allotment.

---