Karnataka High Court
Sri Venkatesh vs Mysore Urban Development Authority on 20 April, 2018
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S.Sujatha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION No.16953/2018 (LB - RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI VENKATESH
S/O RANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT No.42, KESARE
O.D. BLOCK, N.R. MOHALLA
MYSURU-570001. ... PETITIONER
[BY SRI K.R.LINGARAJU, ADV.]
AND:
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
J.L.B. ROAD, MYSURU-570003. ...RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
CANCELLATION ORDER DATED 02.06.2004 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT MUDA VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioner has challenged the cancellation order dated 02.06.2004 passed by the respondent - MUDA at Annexure-A to the writ petition, inter alia seeking for a -2- direction to the respondent - MUDA to allot an alternative site measuring "20 x 30" feet in layout known as Vijayanagar 4th Stage, 2nd Phase, Mysuru and to execute registered sale deed of the anticipated site by collecting balance allotment consideration as per Rule 18 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Allotment of Site Rules, 1991 ['Rules' for short].
2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the cancellation orders passed by the respondent at Annexure-A is illegal, mainly for the reasons, the allotment price has not been fixed in terms of Rule 18 of the Rules; Rule 19 of the Rules has not been followed i.e., three years time not provided from the date of receipt of the allotment notice, to remit the balance amount in installments without interest. To the primary question in as much as the reasons for delay and latches in filing the writ petition challenging the -3- cancellation order dated 02.06.2004, now, reference is made to para 7 of the writ petition which reads thus:
"7. The petitioner is an innocent and belongs to Schedule Tribe category with income less than Rs.12,000/- per annum, the petitioner submitted application before MUDA for allotment of site to own his own shelter. But the MUDA contrary to its own rules has cancelled he site in question behind back of the petitioner and before cancellation the MUDA has not taken into consideration of the representations of the petitioner dated 18.01.2003 and 04.03.2004 had cancelled the site in question and after cancellation the petitioner came to know the fact that the MUDA way back in the year 1994 itself the site in question was allotted to one 'Dwarakanath.C' and subsequently sale deed has been executed in favour of 'Dwarakanath.C', that after knowledge of the same the petitioner by making representation dated 15.12.2004 had requested the MUDA to allot alternative site in the very same layout, but till today the MUDA has not taken any -4- steps on such representation. Moreover the cancellation order passed by the MUDA is hit by rule 18 and 19(1) of KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ALLOTMENT OF SITE RULES 1991. That only because of error on part of MUDA and non-consideration of the representation dated 15.12.2004 the petitioner was not able to approach this Hon'ble Court till date. That with advice of the well-wishers and legal practitioners the petitioner secured the documents pertains to 'Dwarakanath.C' to prefer the case against the MUDA. That on such advice of the counsel the petitioner submitted an application before MUDA under R.T.I., seeking entire documents pertains to the site in question, on such request of the petitioner the MUDA has issued the allotment letter subsequent documents which was allotted in favour of 'Dwarakanath.C' and other supporting documents to the petitioner along with endorsement dated 24.04.2017. That on receipt of said documents from the MUDA, the petitioner without doing any delay has preferred the present writ petition before this -5- Hon'ble Court. That if any delay arises in filing the present writ petition is only because of error on part of MUDA in not considering the representation dated 15.12.2004. Hence, it is just and necessary to condone the delay if any arises, the petitioner has got good case on merits."
3. Reiterating the same, learned counsel would submit that the representation dated 15.12.2004 submitted by the petitioner as per Annexure-K has not been considered by the respondent-Authority.
4. It is well settled legal principle that the Court can come to the rescue of the litigant who is vigilant about his rights. A person/litigant cannot sleep over the matter for decades and raise like phoenix at his convenient time to challenge the order by which a right has been accrued to a third party. The reasons assigned by the petitioner are all related to the efforts/attempts made by him during the period 2004. Nothing is forthcoming subsequent to 2004, the steps initiated to -6- challenge the order impugned herein except seeking the documents in the year 2017.
5. Learned counsel vehemently argued that the price fixation of the site allotted in the year 2000 is not in conformity with the Rule 18 of the Rules. It is significant to note that no challenge was made by the petitioner when the site was allotted to him on 29.08.2000, fixing the sital value at Rs.20,000/- as illegal or not in conformity with the Rules. It is after about 18 years, the petitioner has raised this ground for the first time in this writ petition. A person who has accepted the allotment order and paid the initial deposit cannot revert and challenge the fixation of the price of the allotted site after 14 years of the cancellation of the same. Even if any challenge has to be made to the cancellation order, the same has to be within a reasonable time, 14 years period cannot be construed as a reasonable time at any stretch of imagination. It is -7- well settled that though there is no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto. The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a non-challant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters [vide judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in ESHA BHATTACHARJEE V/S. MANAGING COMMITTEE OF RAGHUNATHPUR NAFAR ACADEMY AND OTHERS, reported in [2013] 12 SCC 649]. The contention of the learned counsel that 3 years period to pay the balance amount of sital value in installments without interest was not provided in terms of Rule 19 of the Rules and reference made to the judgment of this court in the case of SAIBANNA TAKALI V/S. THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BANGALORE -8- AND ANOTHER, reported in 2010 (13) KAR. L.J 42 cannot be countenanced for the following reasons:
Firstly, no satisfactory explanation of the inordinate delay and latches of 14 years is offered and secondly this Court while considering Rule 13 of the Bangalore Development Authority [Allotment of Site] Rules, 1984 and the proviso thereof held that a proviso has been added to sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 of the Rules, whereby three years time has been granted to the allottees for payment of sital value without interest, if they belong to SC, ST or BT and who has been allotted a site of 6 x 9 meters, 9 x 12 meters or 12 x 18 meters dimensions.
The second proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 of the Rules states that in case of allotment made till the date of publication of the said Rules, the balance of the value of the site required to be paid under the Rule shall be paid by the allottees within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the notice.-9-
6. In the said case, the petitioner therein had paid the balance of sital value in accordance with the notice issued by the BDA in terms of the second proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 of the BDA Rules. In such circumstances, the endorsement issued by the Bangalore Development Authority rejecting the report on the ground that the petitioner therein has failed to pay the sital value within a prescribed period was quashed and the Bangalore Development Authority was directed to execute and register a lease cum sale deed in respect of site in favour of the petitioner therein in accordance with the relevant Rules. However, in the present set of facts, indisputably, the petitioner has not paid the balance amount within a period of 3 years, even assuming Rule 19 is applicable to the facts of the present case. It is the contention of the petitioner that the site allotted to the petitioner was not in existence and the same was allotted to some other person and the same has come to his notice in the year 2004 and
- 10 -
accordingly representations were made but the same has not been considered. Even this submission of the learned counsel cannot be appreciated at this stage, more particularly, no challenge being made to the allotment letter dated 29.08.2000 on the ground of allotment of non-existing site or arbitrary fixation of allotment price at the earliest point of time.
7. The writ petition is wholly misconceived. Viewed from any angle, the petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NC.