Karnataka High Court
Vijayreddy S/O Basangouda Karkalli vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 6 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:870
WP No. 200722 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.200722 OF 2021 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
VIJAYREDDY
S/O BASANGOUDA KARKALLI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. SHAHAPUR,
TQ. SHAHAPUR, DIST. YADGIR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D. P. AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU.
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
Location: High 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Court Of KALABURAGI.
Karnataka
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
YADGIR.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
YADGIR.
5. THE CHIEF OFFICER
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SHAHAPUR,
TQ. SHAHAPUR, DIST. YADGIR.
6. THE PRESIDENT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:870
WP No. 200722 of 2021
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SHAHAPUR,
TQ. SHAHAPUR, DIST. YADGIR.
7. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR
DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL,
YADGIR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4 AND R7
SRI. CHAITANYAKUMAR C . M., ADVOCATE FOR R5;
R-6 IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.5 TO CONSIDER THE
ANNEXURE-T, VIZ THE REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER
VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 19.06.2020 TO THE RESPONDENT
NO.5 AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER
THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER TO SAID PLOT NO. 6
MEASURING 2283 SQUARE FEET OF SHAHAPUR, TQ-
SHAHAPUR, DISTRICT-YADGIRI, AS PER CLAUSE 7 OF THE
CONDITIONS IN ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.5 to consider the request made by him vide letter dated 19.06.2020 and direct it to accept his claim in respect of plot No.6, measuring 2283 sq. ft. situated at Shahapur Taluka, Yadgir District.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:870 WP No. 200722 of 2021
2. The respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 issued an auction notice inviting bids from interested persons for auction of plots on 06.07.2006. The petitioner was the second highest bidder. As per condition No.7 attached to the auction notice, the highest bidder had to deposit the balance amount within seven days from the date of the auction process being approved by the Deputy Commissioner/respondent No.3. It is also mentioned that in case the highest bidder does not deposit the balance amount as stated above, the site would be allotted to the second highest bidder after obtaining approval from the respondent No.3. The petitioner contends that he deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 05.07.2006 and obtained a receipt from the respondent No.5. He claims that the highest bidder did not deposit the balance amount and therefore, the respondent No.5 issued a notice dated 18.10.2006 demanding the highest bidder to deposit the said sum. However, the highest bidder did not deposit the amount. The respondent No.5 thereafter issued a final notice dated 18.01.2007 and called upon the highest bidder to deposit the amount. However, the highest bidder did not show any interest to deposit the money. The petitioner therefore submitted representations dated 25.04.2012 before the respondent Nos.3 and 4 requesting them to consider his bid in view of the fact that the highest bidder did not come forward to deposit the amount. This was followed by another representation dated 26.12.2012 before the -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:870 WP No. 200722 of 2021 respondent No.5. In turn, the respondent No.5 addressed a communication dated 29.07.2013 to the respondent No.7 to take necessary action in the matter.
3. The petitioner then filed representations dated 09.10.2015 before the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5. The petitioner contends that further representations were submitted on 02.01.2018 before the respondent Nos.3 and 4. The respondent No.7 then addressed a communication dated 03.07.2018 to the respondent No.5 to look into the matter and do the needful. Following this, the petitioner submitted representations with the respondent Nos.3 and 7 to finalize the bid and permit him to deposit the balance price. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.5 instead of following it up and finalizing the bid, had returned the amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited by the petitioner on 15.06.2020. The petitioner by a letter dated 19.06.2020 returned the cheque back to the respondent No.1 and requested him to allot the site. The petitioner contends that nothing was heard from the respondents and therefore, the petitioner is before this court seeking for a direction to the respondent No.5 to consider his representation and allot the site to him.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and contended that the respondents did not take any steps as per the auction notification to accept the second highest -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:870 WP No. 200722 of 2021 bid of the petitioner. He contends that the respondents, who slept over the matter, finally woke up in the year 2020 by returning the sum of Rs.50,000/- deposited by the petitioner. He contends that there was no mistake on the part of the petitioner as he was always ready and willing to pay the balance price quoted by him at the auction.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submits that as per condition No.7, the highest bidder was expected to deposit the balance price only after the Deputy Commissioner approved the auction bids as well as the process adopted. He submits that the Deputy Commissioner did not approve the auction and therefore, the bid of the highest bidder was not accepted. He does not dispute the fact that the highest bidder did not deposit the amount. He however, contended that the petitioner, who was the second highest bidder did not derive any right to claim the allotment of the plot, as even the second highest bid also had to be approved by the Deputy Commissioner. He therefore, submits that the petitioner cannot compel the respondents to allot the site on the premise that he was the second highest bidder as the whole process is not approved by the Deputy Commissioner, who is the competent authority. He further contends that the petitioner submitted his bid in the year 2006 but has approached this Court in the year 2021 and hence, the writ petition is also belated.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:870 WP No. 200722 of 2021
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the property of the municipal council cannot be disposed off without the approval of the State Government or an officer duly authorized by the Government, which in the present case, is the Deputy Commissioner. She therefore, contends that unless that the auction pre-condition is complied, the petitioner does not get any right.
7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader.
8. The auction notification dated 24.06.2006 was subject to the following condition:
"7. ºÀgÁf£À°è ºÉa£ Ñ À ¨ÉÆð ªÀiÁrzÀªj À UÉ ºÀAaPÉAiÀiÁzÀgÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè¢Pü ÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, UÀÄ®âUÁð EªÀjAzÀ °Ã¯ÁªÀÅ ¥ÀæQA æ iÉÄUÉ M¦àUÉ ¥ÀqzÉ À £ÀAvÀgÀ vÀªÀÄUÉ £ÉÆÃn¸ÀÄ ªÀÄÄnÖzÀ 7 ¢£ÀU¼ À ÉƼÀUÁV G½zÀ ºÀt vÀÄA§vÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É ªÉÆzÀ¯É ¨ÉÆðzÁgÀgÀÄ vÀÄA©zÀ°è CªÀgÀ oÉêÀt ºÀtªÀ£ÄÀ ß »A¢gÀÄV¸ÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸Àzj À ¤ªÉñÀ£À JgÀq£ À ÃÉ ¨ÉÆð ªÀiÁrzÀªj À UÉ ¤ªÉñÀ£À PÉÆqÀ®Ä ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, UÀÄ®âUð À EªÀjAzÀ C£ÀĪÀÄwUÁV ¸À°¸è ¯ À ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C£ÀĪÀÄw ¤ÃrzÀgÉ CAvÀªj À UÉ ¤ªÉñÀ£À PÉÆqÀ¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ."
9. Though the petitioner was the second highest bidder and was entitled to allotment of the site in the event of the highest bidder not depositing the auction price yet, the whole process was subject to the approval by the Deputy Commissioner. The respondent No.5 after having taken out steps to auction the property belonging to it, must have taken proper and immediate steps for finalizing the process. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:870 WP No. 200722 of 2021 However, the respondent No.5 has not done so and has not made any communication seeking approval of the auction from the Deputy Commissioner. Nonetheless, it was pursuing the highest bidder to deposit the balance price. It is not known whether the respondent No.5 was pursuing the highest bidder to deposit the price after obtaining approval from the Deputy Commissioner. Even if it is assumed that the respondent No.5 had obtained such an approval, even for the purpose of accepting the second highest bid, the proposal had to be placed before the Deputy Commissioner. However, there is nothing to show that the proposal of the petitioner was placed before the Deputy Commissioner for approval. Consequently, the petitioner cannot compel the respondent No.5 to allot the site to him on the ground that he is the second highest bidder.
10. Nonetheless, the respondent No.5, who was in receipt of a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the year 2006 could not have retained the money for nearly 14 years. If the auction process was not to be given effect to then, the respondent No.5 was bound to return the amount to the petitioner without loss of time. In view of the fact that the amount of Rs.50,000/- was refunded to the petitioner only in the year 2020, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the loss of opportunity that said sum of Rs.50,000/- would have generated. Under the circumstances, the petition deserves to be allowed in part. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:870 WP No. 200722 of 2021
11. In view of the above, the petition is allowed in part. The request of the petitioner for allotment of the plot bearing No.6 at Shahapur is not maintainable and the same is rejected. The respondent No.5 is directed to forthwith return the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment. This shall be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order, failing which, the respondent No.5 shall recover the excess interest payable from the concerned person.
Sd/-
(R.NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32