Karnataka High Court
Penchalamma vs State Of Karnataka on 19 June, 2023
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:21038
WP No. 2341 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.2341 OF 2020 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
PENCHALAMMA
W/O LATE G P VENKATRAMU,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/O NO 1324, 29TH MAIN,
J P NAGARA 2ND STAGE,
MYSURU 570008
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.R.LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
by JUANITA
THEJESWINI URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF VIKASA SOUDHA,
KARNATAKA DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU 560001.
2. MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD,
MYSURU 570005.
3. THE ZONAL OFFICER
ZONAL OFFICER 6,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:21038
WP No. 2341 of 2020
MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD,
MYSURU 570005
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NITHYANANDA K.R., AGA FOR R1
SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
GOVERNMENT ORDER/LETTER DATED 14.09.2010 ISSUED BY
R-1 VIDE ANNX-A, ENDORSEMENT DATED 20.12.2010 ISSUED
BY R-3 VIDE ANNX-B AND CANCELLATION ORDER DATED
04.01.2003 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-C AND DIRECT
THE R-2 TO ALLOT AN ALTERNATIVE SITE MEASURING 20 X 30
FEET IN LAYOUT KNOWN AS HANCHYA AND SATHAGALLY B
ZONE, MYSURU AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner was allotted a site measuring 20' X 30' feet in the layout known as Hanchya- Sathagally 'B' Zone, Mysuru. The sital value was fixed at Rs.22,000/-. The petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.3,300/- as a first installment within 60 days from the date of receipt of allotment letter and the balance consideration of Rs.18,520/- within 90 days from the date of receipt of -3- NC: 2023:KHC:21038 WP No. 2341 of 2020 allotment letter. The petitioner had paid the entire consideration along with interest on 05.02.2003.
2. On the other hand, it appears that pursuant to directions issued by the State Government, the respondent-MUDA took action to cancel the allotments made in favour of the persons like the petitioner who had delayed the payment or did not pay the balance consideration within the prescribed period.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that various writ petitions were filed before this Court venting out similar grievances and the issue is now settled by a series of judgments of this Court, including the case of Pankaja N Vs. State of Karnataka and others, in W.P.No.10077/2021 dated 16.07.2021.
4. It is noticeable that in the said case, the co- ordinate Bench noticed the decision rendered by this Court in various cases including W.P.No.34613/2010 and -4- NC: 2023:KHC:21038 WP No. 2341 of 2020 connected matters, wherein at paragraph No.10, it was held as follows:
"10. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the full amount of sital value has been paid along with interest as back as in the year 2003 by the petitioners. The fact that the respondent has not only accepted the said amount but has later on acted on the strength of the allotment letter or at any rate has not acted pursuant to the order of cancellation to re-allot the same in favour of any third party ins undeniable. Therefore, no third party interests have set in. In almost all cases except in the case of four writ petitioners, the Commissioner has at an undisputed point of time permitted the receipt of the balance amount and pursuant to such permission granted, their petitioners have paid the amount during 2003. Therefore, it will be unjust and harsh to deny the relief as sought by the petitioners, having regard to the circumstances narrated by the petitioners and adverted to by me hereinabove. It is also relevant to notice here that the State Government has indeed informed the MUDA to consider the cases of such of the petitioners who had paid the balance amount prior to the cut off date as is clear from the affidavit filed before the Division Bench. Hence, in my considered view, the action now taken by the MUDA, based on the communication addressed by the State Government cannot be sustained. The petitioners are entitled for the relief's sought in these writ petitions. Therefore, the impugned order of cancellation of sited challenged in these writ petitions are set aside."
5. Consequent to the earlier decision, the co- ordinate Bench allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order passed by the respondent-MUDA which -5- NC: 2023:KHC:21038 WP No. 2341 of 2020 had cancelled the allotments and further directed the MUDA to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner and issue Possession Certificate and put the petitioner in possession of the allotted site. Learned Counsel prays for similar orders.
6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondent - MUDA submits that in the present case, the site allotted to the petitioner has been re-allotted to some other person after cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that the respondent - MUDA will not be in a position to allot the same site to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in such a scenario, the respondent
- MUDA may be directed to allot an alternative site in the same layout or a layout subsequently formed by MUDA.
7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the benefit given to similarly -6- NC: 2023:KHC:21038 WP No. 2341 of 2020 placed petitioner in the decision cited by the learned Counsel is also to be given to the petitioner.
8. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement dated 20.12.2010 issued by the respondent-MUDA is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent-MUDA is hereby directed to allot an alternative site in the same layout or a layout subsequently formed by MUDA and execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner, issue Possession Certificate measuring 20 x 30 feet at Hanchya-Satagalli B-Zone Layout, Mysuru.
The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly.
Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE KLY/-