Statutory allotment powers and registered sale deeds cannot be altered beyond the governing law or cancelled unilaterally.

The Karnataka High Court stated that the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 did not authorise the State Government to direct allotment of sites in the 'G' category to persons in public life under the 6.8.1997 circular, because disposal of sites remained subject to the Act, the rules, and transparent non-arbitrary process. It further reiterated that once registered sale deeds are executed and conveyance is complete, title passes to the purchaser and the vendor cannot unilaterally cancel the deeds; any challenge to a void or voidable conveyance must be taken before the competent civil court under the Specific Relief Act. The impugned cancellation measures were therefore quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State Government had power under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 and the rules framed thereunder to direct allotment of sites under 'G' category to persons in public life pursuant to the 6.8.1997 circular. (ii) Whether the Bangalore Development Authority could cancel or annul registered sale deeds executed by it or execute unilateral deeds of cancellation after conveyance.

Issue (i): Whether the State Government had power under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 and the rules framed thereunder to direct allotment of sites under 'G' category to persons in public life pursuant to the 6.8.1997 circular.

Analysis: The statutory scheme vested the power to dispose of sites in the Authority subject to the Act and the rules. Section 65 empowered the Government only to issue directions necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of the Act, but not directions contrary to the statute or to confer an untrammelled power of allotment. Rule 5 of the 1984 Rules permitted disposal of stray sites only in accordance with Government guidelines, and no provision in the Act authorised the Government to select allottees of its choice under 'G' category. The circular enabling allotment to persons in public life therefore lacked legislative backing and was inconsistent with the statutory framework and the requirement of transparent, non-arbitrary disposal of public property.

Conclusion: The State Government had no power or authority to direct allotment of sites under 'G' category by the BDA.

Issue (ii): Whether the Bangalore Development Authority could cancel or annul registered sale deeds executed by it or execute unilateral deeds of cancellation after conveyance.

Analysis: Once a sale deed executed by the owner is registered, ownership passes to the purchaser and the vendor loses title. Cancellation of a completed conveyance is a judicial function and, where the deed is alleged to be void or voidable, the proper remedy is a suit before the competent civil court under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Authority, after executing and registering sale deeds in favour of allottees, had no power to unilaterally cancel those deeds or to divest title by a cancellation deed. If the conveyance was illegal, the Authority had to seek appropriate relief before the civil court.

Conclusion: The BDA could not unilaterally cancel the registered sale deeds or execute deeds of cancellation.

Final Conclusion: The impugned notices, cancellation orders and cancellation deeds were quashed, the petitions succeeded, and the BDA was left at liberty to seek civil remedies in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory authority can dispose of public property and issue directions only within the limits of the statute and the rules framed under it, and a completed registered sale deed cannot be annulled unilaterally by the vendor but only through proceedings before the competent civil court.

---