Mrs Sindhu Nayak vs The Managing Director on 4 July, 2013

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mrs Sindhu Nayak vs The Managing Director on 4 July, 2013

Bench: A.S. Bopanna

                         1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

        DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2013

                      BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA

       WRIT PETITION NO.18386/2013 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

MRS.SINDHU NAYAK,
W/O.BEERANNA NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
AGGARAGON,
AGGARAGON POST,
ANKOLA TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT,
PIN-581 319.
                                     ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.TIMMANNA BHAT DEVATHE, ADV.)

AND:

1.     THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
       MEGACITY DEVELOPERS &
       BUILDERS LTD.,
       NO.1, MEGA TOWERS,
       CHANDRA LOKA,
       5TH CROSS, GANDHINAGAR,
       BAGNALORE-560 009.

2.     SRI.YOGESHWAR C.P.,
       MANAGING DIRECTOR,
                            2



     MEGACITY DEVELOPERS
     & BUILDERS LTD.,
     NO.120, MEGA TOWERS,
     K.H.ROAD,
     BANGALORE-560 027.

3.   BANGALORE-MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE
     CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY
     (BMICAPA), REPRESENTED BY THE
     MEMBER SECRETARY,
     IN THE PREMISES OF
     DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING,
     M.S.BUILDING,
     POST BAG NO.5257,
     AMBEDKAR STREET,
     BANGALORE-560 001.
                                ... RESPONDENTS

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REGISTER AND
CONVEY THE SCHEDULE SITE BEARING NO.38, IN E-1
BLOCK,    1ST   PHASE,    VAJRAGIRI   TOWNSHIP,
RAMANAGARA TQ. AND DISTRICT IN THE NAME OF
THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH.

    THIS  WRIT   PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

                      ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court praying that a mandamus be issued to the respondents to register and 3 convey the schedule site bearing No.38 in 'E' Block, 1st Phase, Vajragiri Township, Ramanagara Taluk and District.

2. The learned counsel no doubt contends that the petitioner has paid the entire sale consideration and a site has been allotted and possession certificate has been issued by the respondent No.1. It is also contended that the approval of the plan has been obtained from respondent No.3. Even if these averments and contentions are accepted to be true, since the sale deed is required to be executed by the respondent No.1 and since respondent No.1 cannot be considered as an authority as provided under Article 12 of the Constitution, a writ petition seeking for issue of mandamus would not lie before this Court. If at all the petitioner is to seek any relief, it is before an appropriate forum in view of the contractual obligations between the parties.

3. Hence, reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail her remedies in accordance with law, the petition stands disposed of. Registry to return the papers, if any sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Sd/-

JUDGE ST*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court