Karnataka High Court
K.Nanjappa vs State Of Karnataka on 3 August, 2010
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED was THE 3R9 DAY OF' AUGUST, 2011 ~
BEFORE;
THE HUMBLE MR. JUSTECE ASHQKB. V
WRYI' PEZTETION No.14 o§"*20;'éT {i,g;R.1:_;;s3 _
WRIT PETITION No.'i5"€}F 20:9 (:..:3'--xes:s:;w..j""'~
WRIT ?E'F£TION No.1 17:2? £2213' 2010._iLB--RES3
WRIT PETITION No. 11273134' 23010 (L'B.~_RES'§
WRIT PETITION 'No. 1 1:574 0.5' 2010 {LB~RES)
WRIT PETI'1'IO¥\¥ N91 10206' QF'2L01 0% s'LB~RES}
WRIT PE'I'§'I'I{)N No..i(}71--2'0F__2C5--3.Q.{Li3~RES)
WRIT PE'::1TIQN Ne,2'1.83- 0:»? 2(31o"iL;B--REs;
WRIT PE.'-'I"A'I'i~'_i{i)Ni4 No.53} 1. 'O? 120 10* ':'LB~REs)
WRIT PETITION 'No16644 Q_._F' 2010" {LB--RES}
In W.P.No.14t€'§9§ Q;".V. '
BE"E'wE§V£'t_A"'T'--. '*2. "
3:1. K. Na1;;.ia'ppa _
sgo Late Police Nan;u1id'egoix=q1a
Aged 58 years"-«_V = V
Residrixrg No.336, Bi?' Mair: Road
.~ . .431 Croézs, VS}1aV11thifi§;arga.. v
Sidsiafihaiéagaifi
PETITIGNER
Bhat, Ativocaie)
' ANDi
-- State .51" Karnataka
" Repmsefited by its {}11t:ier Secretary
Lirbéit Deveicpment Department
_ 'vikasa Soudha
% " Kfmnataka Government Secretariat
-~--E5anga1c»re--56O 001
2. The Commissioner
Mysore Urban Development Authority
J. L. 8. Road, Mysore RESPONDii'_E_\I'T'S
(By Shri. R. Devdas, AGA for R~1) 2' 'f ~ -.
(Sri,'I' .P.Viveka.;1an<:1a, Advocate for Sri. H.C.Shivar€;§£ii'u.fg:I___R-:3) M
1:17:-it-zirair
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles .an€i"2:2-:3 o'f--,
the Constitution of India, praying {o~{;2_1ashf the " '{?€oveV1nn;ef;:
Order dated 10.12.2009 passed by the R1' eziiie Ann_ox*.u:.ée--A{
so far as the pefitioner is concerned, consequently».
the R2 to execute the sale deed in fa'v.o1,ir_ of thet"_epeii£ioIi--er'vi11'--..
respect of site 1:10.201 formed Vby"-..§11e xespondefgt :f1o«.--.2Wi1:1 the@'
layout called by name Hunohya'=&f'f:'~athaga11i Zozie, Mysore,
measuxing an extent of 40 X 60 by"vao<:epting"t}1e amomnt fixed
by the MUDA at the time ,--of afiotmeng etc;
In W.P.No. 15120 10
BFIFWEEN:
Sn. K. M. Chémdréuah * "
S] 0 Mudala Girlyappa _ *
Hindu, Aeged'o'65A?-: V
Restdmgiat No.L'-3359'-A.A
.3. T. Kop'p.a1,'--2mi stages,
Kuvempunésgaré r
Mysoze--23 % _ '. " PETFHONEJR
(By smi. smvé1~.»::,_;{g;a meat, Advocate)
1. . of
Rep_1esem*e;d'.:hy its Under Secretary
Urban Developmenot Department
Vikasétfivoudha
' 'V V. Kmnataka Government Secretariat
_B.a:1ga1ore~560 001
3
2. The Commissioner
Mysam Urban Development Authority
J. L. 8. Road, Mysore RESPONVDEEISSTVS
(By Shri. R. fievdas, AGA for R-1) e V
1::-2)
(By Sri.'I'.P.V:ivekananda, Advocate for Sri.
This Wm: Petition is filed unde: Atficies 226. 2-e2_7'n;;f
the Constitution of india, praying to'«Vqtia_sh the..VG0verm_Iie;3,t
Order dated 10.12.2099 passed»"t:§f the Vaide :{T§:i11e§§uzejA
so far as the petitioner is concerinefi and £3011-s3eC;;1eI;t1ji"di1'ect'V'
the R2 to execute the sale deed _f.-éuzour of the'p~t3t:§tioner in
respect of site no.6_O52 formeci ¥3y*t.he. iesponde11t..:1.e.1 in the
layout caiied by name' ..V§ay1"..Lagcfaxé1 '«..fifi}"'«Stage, 2"' Phase,
Mysore, measuring an extent of ?%{)_ :50 e:;;:;_ .
In W.P.N0.1 1727lf2G1_Q
Sri. M. Hemziehaia ' V
Aged 48 years' _ _ ' "
S/0 Lam K.
No.2, Via-hweshwaranagar
-- ..Indus=ij*3§a1 Saburb "29§__$ir1ge
1V§§,Isei'e~5'?{) 0'03 PETITIONER
Advocate)
ANS':
. «, _' 1 State Kaxtiataka
- " H Represented by its Under Secietary
Urban Development Department
Souéha
Karnataka Government Secretaxtiat
" ~=E3anga}ore~56(} 001
2. The Commissioner
Mysore Urban Develogment Authority
J. L. 133. Road, Mysore : 4'
(By Shri. R. Devdas, AGA for R1) . H '
{Sri.T.P.Vivekanaz1da, Advocate for Sn'. P.'fQ£_§R-,2)' A'
This Writ Petition is filed [under Axficics 22:;.a:1a 2L2'?N:)f
the Constitution of India, pra3?i_1:ig._ to quasi). £115: G._t>v€mment'v.'
Order dated 10.12.2009 passed 'by 'th<:': R1V'vic1éTA11n.'txure~A in
so far as the pefltlaner is concerned and conscquenifly dimct
the R2 £0 exficute firm S3}€5..d€C(;i"'fi1"f§3;'JOi1I' of the"petitio11er in
Inspect of site no.25221 fo.rn;.e::1«by;-the~--.;re.s13ondcnt no.2 in the
layout called by name Devanur IlI.S1:;1ge, 'My.s~:")r.e, measuring an
cxient of40'x 60', etc. ' . V --.
In W.P.No.1 'V 1;
Smt. P. Ffuslipa -- .
W/0 Sri. (3, i\'._ P;andu1*anga_.Shc'§ty
Hindu, Age{iu._60.ycar$ ,\ '
Residing at Nd-;HI*G vNo_.4t} '
9"' C1935'; 4"' M3371, V V '
. - {_¢Banl§:ei:'s VR'e:creatio':1 «Ciinb Road)
Sharad adéfimagar
PETITEONER
(Eiy Bhat, Advocate}
AND:
V " State ofxarnataka
_ Rgpfcscnted by its Under Sccmtaiy
X';.I:rbém Deveiopment Departxnent
Vikasa Soudha
' Karnataka Government Secxttaxiat
Bangalorefiéfi ()0 1
5
2. The Commissioner
Mysore Urban Development Auihoxéty
J. L. B. Roaé, Mysore RESFONDENTS
(By Shzi. R. Sevclas, AGA for R» 3)
(Sri.T.P.Vivekananc1a, Advocate for Sri. ' V
This Writ Petition is fileci under Articiés '£?_2'6_'an:iwVi2V,?_.7
the Constitution of India, praying to" qu.:-ash the ,_G~0vcrr11::£a:¢zii
Order dated 10.12.2009 gaassedfby the 'f?_1":ride !;m3r:xure--§A in
so far as the petitioner is concerxied and <;<)z1s,cq_ué1nVt}y'V'<iirec{ "
the R2 to €X6C1}taE'.' the sale éecd _:féwour of.t11e"pet;i:ioner in
respeci of site no.395() fonneci 133*--The. respond'e;;t,.n{:'L2 in the
layout calleé by name Dcv&i£1ooz_'V 35?? Stagggm-.Mysom, measuring
an extent of 40' x 60', etc. ' ' 7 . A. M
In W.P.Ng5."1"i'z7%i120"'£b"'
BE'I"wEEi*§_; ' "
Sri. S. Shi\reiImr4arVVV' . M
S/0 Sri,--§3. S13{§§}E§I}I1a '
_Agéd 4&7} yeazfs
' asiding ?ai.H6use NdV."3"" «V
"g3r.d K R, Vanam
is.¢;y4s;;re45fz"0'V_%00*s.VJ._ ?13;*r*1*r10r~:g;<z
Bhat, Advocate)
of Karnataka
"._Ré'j§1f€S€I1t€d by its Under Secretary
'l;Jrba:1 Development Dcpartmsnt
" ~~Vikasa Soudha
Kaxnataka Govfimmem Sccrtétaxiat
BaI1galore»ES6O O0 1
2. The Commissioner
Mysore Urban Development Authority '
.1. L. 3. Road, Mysom 1<2Es12a%§'§:1:}§i§5:§tfsi--. _
(By Shri. R. Devdas, AGA for R-1)
(Sz*i.'I'.i3.Vive3{a§1a13da, Advocate for S21" PIS; u
irgcwa-k
This Writ Petition is filed 'under Amioles 2:5 god'. 2:27 at
the Constitufion of India, p1ayin.g"-to quashfixov-._GLn1V€m1ment
Order dates! i0.12.20{)9 passed R1 V3:I31€ 1:§.{:1Il€}§¥J.I'B'A in
so far as the petitioner is .conc¢:-Iwdv-arid conéeqxxenfly ciizcct
the R2 to execute the sale "x:ie:.edi Vfavoujr'~--of tho potifionor in
respect of site no.'?() fGI'BikZ(1_'3')}'r'._ti"'lCv zésvjoondont 110.2 in the
layout called by name Hanchya 3;! Zone, Mysore,
measuring an extent of 30"$t"40.'; <::tc._7._ '
In w.P.No.1o2oV£§--I2é;g_ ~ 1
B BEN: '
Sri. '1'. C.*:Ramak1*ls;hnaV
S/o Lats tiihéluvaialsg" ' '
Aged 50 years % ' <
Residing at T11amasa11dr3 o
Ka11ahai§iIf'05tV ' " V-
Ramastiagaim fiismsrt oooo 14 .
PIN-562 PETITIONER
Bhat, Advocate)
ANI);._
State"of Karnataka
"R.:rpms6Lntcd by its Under Secretary
-' ijriian fieveiopment Deparment
.Vika$a Souéha
Kantzataka Government Secretariat
" -"Banga1oro~56() O01
7
2. The Commissioner
Mysore Urban Development Auizhoxity
J. L. B. Read, Mysore RESPON{)EN'FS
(By Shri. R. Dcvdas, AGA for R4.)
(Sx'i.'I'.?.Vivekananda, Advocate for Sri. H.C.Sh1'VaI'&fl}1l" for-.R--*:3)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 '
the Consfimfion of Inéia, praying to quash thc:"«.G0vft:mmei3,tT
Order dated 20.12.2099 passed by the R: vid=:i"Avn;?mxi1re+A 1;:
so far as the petitioner is concerneé" CQI§S¢(f*1_€§iiti}f C'1--ii°eCt'
the R2 to execute the sale deed in fé"-;votzrT Qf thee Apéfiflongr
respect of site no.2145 formed by thé«Vf€::3})(:)I1dC.111;/Il().?'} i:;"t1:1é'._
Layout called by name Hanchya'8r._ Sathagalfi B Mysore, _ V' L.
measuring an extent of 30' X 40', 's:j;"(':~.
I11 W.P.No, 10712120 10
BETWEEN:
Sri. Vish:akanth'a;t;1uIti1y _
Aged 52 years' ' " ' --
S/0 Lair: 8; Marinanjaiéfil "
R/at Door N"c,4'? V " _ = V
LIG 3rdfAfMai;t1 V'
I Bio(:J<_§, Ramalniéhaanagsw
" 'i*:€ysc>-:13' AA -------- ~ PETITIONER
"(.E3y=VSj_:n-i_. Bhat, Advocate)
AM)- "'
_ 2 _ V_ ' é ' 1 3 Sfatfz ..oi"'Ka§11ataka
-- V Rt:pI*esr:--n'tcd by its Under Secretary
* Uffian Development Deyarmaent
' Vijirzasa Soudha
Kanzlataka Govcmment Secretariat
VM V. _..BaIzgalore--560 O01
2. The Commissioner
Mysore Urban Development Authority
J. L. B. Roaci, Mysore
(By Shri. R. Devdas, AGA for R~ 1)
(Sri.T.P.Vi.veka.nanda, Advocate for Sri. I~I.C.Shi\{
This Writ Petition is filed under' Ax~t;ic:<:s'--«.22:3 .am: 22?' of.
the Constitution of India, praying to' qrgazah the 'Govei:i2ge1;gt
Order éated 10.12.2609 gassed by the1_R1._vide Am1'ex1'u'e~-2A'
f_cn9R§2;-- K V'
so far as the petitioner is cone-erraed and conscqlientjy ciireet v
the R2 to execute the sale eieed"in"'favour of t;he",pe'éfi.1:ioit1er in
respect of site 13.0.4690 formed by "the r_jespo1'1d.ent no}? in the
layout called by name Safl;1aga33i"'Ii=Stag"ee,_ Mysore, Ineasuring
an extent of30'x 40', etc. V' * to
I11W.P.No.2183 20;__9_ *
8E'1'WEEN: " r '
Aged about 64
R/at Sathya V'
Durga Nag;-iuf ' M v
$hadzavathi5.T? 30$ 7 S g PETITIUNER
V (By "I; sdniv.:a§§a"'Goig:de, Advocate)
Regzxesentejd by its Under Secretary
Deupart:_r:I1'ent9of Urban Development
Vika:5.a"&ud}:1a, Baslgalore-560 001
V' '1"'ne_My"séom Urban Development Authority
' Represented by its Commissioner
'Jansi Lakshmi Bai Road
RESPONDENTS
_ V.(By Shri. R. Devdas, AGA for R-1)
' " (Sri.'i'.P.Vivekananda, Advocate for Sri.P. S. Manjunath for R-2)
This Writ Petitiozx is filed under Articles 226 anaaJ..2_27f:g:"
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the O1_1t;1er.Vdate£i-«
24.03.2005 passefi by the 2"' respondent ~ _
the Government Oxfier elated 10.12.2009 Annex1:re~Cf;'-..di:'ee?.
the Respondent to accept the balance of sita1."va1ue*V.from<--the__
petitioner for aiiotment of the site viariie A.'I'mex';.¢A is-_1:1£i '.confi.:*m
the allotment of the same 111 favour of the pet;itio;},er,-..etc. .
I11 W.P.No.531 1/ 2010
BETWEEN:
Sri. N. C. Lingappa V
S] 0 Late Chikkapanchaiah
Aged 58 years V' - ~
R/at 350.2021, Rda'-2,1 _' K to
2nd Phase,.}. 19. Iiager»-V " _
Ba.nga1ore~78 V ~_ V. = ' 17*-'ETIT§{)NER
(By Shri.
AND: V 4' t V' t
1. State of =
Represented itS;--UI1~:ier'§ec1*etaIy
Development II)e.partment
Vilt:isa_'Soedha ---------- ~
. Govemment Secretariat
efiangaioretesw «fm
3. V«C1o1_t;;i:§}:i'§;eVioner
My':~;oze_' Urban Develoyment Authority
.5. L. .13. Road, Mysore RESPONDENTS
* R. Devdas, AGA for R-1)
_ ._(Stfi.'§'.--P.Vivekananda, Advocate for Sri.P. S. Manjunath for R-2)
This Writ Petition is flied under Articles 225 and 22?' of
u Constitution of indie, pmyiztzg to quash the letter/order
" éateii 23.04.2007 paaseé by the R1 vide Am:1ex12re~A in so far
10
as the petitioner is concerned and consequentiy €iiI'€C§','$,'{i'f.5..">R§_.).
to» execute the saie deed in favour of the petifioner i1z_I.eepecet';ot"« 3
site 310.1043) formed by the respondent no.2 3-LIf'1_~*'_51L}Z1€"t"'}.V:"_%}"a*--.'lZ__}'1i""f_._',_
calleé by name Vijayanagara 4351 Stage, 2"' Phase, .i_§?§y9;ore,.
measuring an exient of 15 x 24 metres,_ete_. 3 b
I11 W'.P.N0.664~4i2O 10
BETWEEN:
Smi. Jayamma
Aged 61 years
W/0 Ramaiah
Residing at No.26???
New No.8/A, Sth Cross _ . _
V. V. Mohalla , * _ V
Mysore _. ' PE'I'I'I'§€)NER
(By Shri. 0. ~
AND:
1. State of&Karnataka""e«. i ,
Representediby its U'nt1e1t__See:etax'y
Urban Development ifiepatitment
Vikasa Soudiia ' * " *
Kaiitiataica Goveimxiiient Secretariat
. - ,B.éLmgaie:e4'e§0 00 1
'Mysore LVfr'o_aii. Development Authority
B.V.Ro"egr.1', Mysore RESPONDENTS
3-.§_'{By Shri. R; eeveas, AGA for R-1)
' {.Sfi.*F,P.Viv'ekananda, Advocate for Sri.P. S. Manjunath for R-2)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
V. Constitution of Inciia, praying to quash the Government
' Orfier dated 30.12.2009 passed by the R1 vide Am;1exu.pe~A in
so far as the petitioner is concerned and consequently direct
the R2 to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner 311
i1
respect of site 110.9899 formed by the respondent no.i>;..VVi:n_ t.':;e
layout called by name Vijayanagar 493 Stagé, »1?:'h%'51'Se",-«
Mysore, measuring an extent of 12 x 18 mtrs. (4{)' x__:';0'j; _
These Petitions coming on for further s1x'e1Iiis,siG1:3<.this"
day, the Conri made the fo}f1owi31g:--
oagsge
As the questions of fact infidlved the * L'
same, all these petifions eluh.13e{:i,._heg11'd hfdgetheyiiand are
being disposed of by this
2. The iaetititfiagefs are aliblfiiie sites situated
at differezlt }aj?ei1%.S' the deyosit but
co1z1mitte:£1"ée'fa£1;1f§ the balance amounts
towards Whee 'they did not
comp1yV_\§7ith 't';-.eV' c3_et;1:s:Ai1.¢b1 :;inbtices issueé by the respondent
'3V'Ne.2;ie_ji;§1e;b_A..s"l1z)&Le§:iiS'v~-eaine to be cancelled. Out of the 10
"'p¢ai=srifo:;s 9 parties had. fiieé w.P. No.3669/2008 and
o:h'er ;:7e:§ti¢i§s:, 'éshieh came to be disposed of by this Court by
" 'ifs 0155;: 20.7.2009, which reads as under:
V s' " "Learned counse} for the State
Government submits that 95 sizzeilariy p§aeed
applicants were extemied the benefit of
extension of time to pay] deposit the unpaid
I
12
amount of the eital value even after the sites
allotted. were cancelled anti that 1 1 other .
applicants similarly situate having m.-eiiev -
applications, are pending considerafion :Ei}"' "
State. Learned Government (gounslelfv " _ V
that the pcfitioners' claims also ._.be o, n
considered by the State Gojéerpmefivt
the other 1 I applicants a §1ec§$io'fi ifi
granted two monthfrflfinole. ' "
Learned' cou11se_lV_fox' 1§c11t1ot1e';'s__ 'are not
averse. 'to 8g.vd'§3%cCtiOIZl to. V.{}ove2*lV11nent to
conside:"'fl1eif::c_§;qjm:$ other 1 1
pending * reliefs by the
State the submission,
notlliilg for consideration in
these liJetitiofils_aI:.gd" accordingly disposed of
tvso"fi1ofiflns' time to the State for
,. . .. ..... ..
" leefoo-ixsiderafion of the petitioners' cases, the
_res>.§>o':1de;3t' has passed the order, dated 10.12.2009
their request for the extension of time for making
ll of balance of allotment consiécration. The impugned
further states that as the allotments are already
Lllcazxcelled and as the Rules do not provide for re~allotment,
&8H..
13
their request is turned down. It is this order, which is
assailed in these petitions.
4. Sri o. Shivamma Bhat, the-ieamea £5: "
petitioners in W.P. Nos.}4, 15, 112?3,1'*11iééA:27éz,
5311 and 6644120 10 eomplaixls He = '
submits that 146 sizailarty " are given an
opportunity to make the get the sale
eieeés executed ._ to my notice
this Court's_. 9.,Q+.i2(')'('i-Vféiiiiiiiipassed in W.P.
Nos. '?S68_/_ V .: disgzosing them
of with No.2 to execute the sale
deed in fafioxii" of th=oseA' petitioiiers in View of the subsequent
eve:1t_<§:t'" the Otder, dated 4.3.2008 directing the
to execute the sale deed in favour of 95
defa1iitii1gvi':'e};tot.te.es, on their paying the sale consideration
V a1ong««wit1:;'mterest)¥:>ut as a one-«time measure.
it ~ it Bhat further submits that the consideration of the
>i«'--'pe'i;itioi1ers' cases is not in keeping with this Court's oxtler,
" éeted 27.3.2009 211 we No.1337'5/ 2007. The learned counsel
HRH.
3.4
bmught to my notice, the order, dated 2.11.2009 pa5sed._ib.y
this Cour: in w.P.23:63/2009 in the case of o:;s{Ws'ii;V'.',ji»§I.,f'i¢--. _
Amanda. The said order directs the zespoiidentsits ii
saie deed in favour of the said eetitioxier. :11-ie iaiso ii
Apex Cour1:'s judgment in the casa.___or JEXSEIR SI.EsI'é§{.i:4}§A¥<_ITSI{;i'§
v. UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGAREI: A1§1:i'<:)*:'ta?:eVés,:'f;~epor:ed
in AIR 2004 SUPREME' Hozfble
Supreme Court gIA':;";1,1}f(:€iAASQJ:iI_1€v Viiixei-i"a1iottee of an
incliietrial galot, default 4 times in
making the i in
6. 'tile iearned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner in the
said case is an e>E~s._ewiceman and the afloiment of the site is in
the ex--sei"eice:i;en's quota only. He takes exception to the
to 146 persons but not extending
V V' _ time in theeejées of the petitioneis. He complains of lack of
:1Liii:ifoL1111ify---- " in the treatxnent being meted out by the
_ iesfaesiiienis.
fiBP£
15
7. Sri Vivekananéa, the learned counsel for the
xesyondezlt submits if iliegalifies are eommitteé in the past, it
does not mean that the same are to be perpetuated etel"tléx1ly.
He read Gut Rule 19 of iiagmataka Urban
Authority (Aflotment of Sites) Rules, 1991 l
authority cannot give more than mejnthe l'
payment of the baianee 3.mount»eeven allottee ready. L'
give the interest on the delayed yeiyeztient.
8. He reiies 011 the in the ease of
FULJIT KAUR v. STATE QF"?EJ:NJAE3A"«B5 "C§';2$~§;;l,.r.e§poned in 2010
AIR SCWVf.35<%3. of the said judgment is
extracted hefetfihelewzllél = x l
V. 'V "13. reepondeat cannot claim parity
_ V""I}.VS',.&t.aung;fléi"l(s'upra) in View of the settled
V * lega1.:_:'l,tS:t<::{:3cs§ition that Articie 14 of the
H = of India does not envisage for
""31egé;itive«:""equality. Afiicle 14 is not meant to
peipetuate illegality or fraud. Article 14 of the
VKl"C«'{')flSt1'1L1lt1'()Il has a positive concept. Equality is
V ajtrite, which cannot be claimed in iiiegality and,
therefore, cannot be exzzforeed fly a citizen or
court in a negative manner. If an illegality and
FISH
17
efiefififafiy speaking, the mere fact that the
respnondent-authority has passed a
order in the ease of another person is
situated can never be the for
writ in favour of the petifione:-E on::A4ti§:'*'.?iea* of
discrimination. The order in £ax?og£--.¢§f':he''¢:her «. " if
person might be legal or"-it:
be. That has to be iuvesfigaieqiksut before: itfcazvig
be directed to be .fo'11oWedWifi Qdthcjdease of
petitioner. If the of{ie;" dtbe other
person is found to:.A};;Vc...oontr:eIIy : «war not
waxranteé faets oixouitnstaasces of his
case, :?.'t'H such illegal or
the basis of
issuing _A the Iespondezm
atltiiofity Vto : .. iilegaiity or to pass
anothei'«--1_1nwaiI.m1+;,ed oider. "
yfgvekananda submits that the order dated
.93'? 13375] 200'? was not a subject matter of
_considera1;io;1VdAo¥Aihe hnpugned order.
n "Sri Qevdas, the learned AGA agopearing for the
'~«d«.respo1ident No.1 submits that the Government has no power]
" ".:ooii1;::ete11oe to issue any direction $0 the 2&3 respondent MUDA
QEH
18
to extend the time for making the balance payment of ssgetllits
by the allottees. He submits that the Gevemment _
anxious t0 avoiel any kincl of diserimixiatiuiz 'then: u
soxnewhere an end has to be put to .'
submits that a large number of .:isp§rants.fdr sf sites ,
are in the queue. He submits 'alr13*_erde1* gives any
illegal privilege to anybodj§:_._%;ann§et a_ pfficcdent "four passing
similar orders. He .316 petitioners,
there axe 200 pIaee(i"1):efseIi$.s.i&
12._S.1i that in 2005 an open
i13vi'{ati<)1i;.j.x.?a--s"£}Jl§;'(iit'»:'ju3_.resgsendents to all the allottees to
make the bs1--al1ee get the sale deeds executed in
their fsfieuzf. The'y"..le§é1€}e sot availed of the ofier. The petitioners
ale' .35: demanding that they be given one mane
the balance payments and take the sites.
Zhsve given my thoughfiu} consideration to the rival
I w.s'ul§fi1issions macie at the Bar. The resistafice by the
..ll,'--:*eAs";§:)orjAdents to the allowing of these petitions is that any
"".VVlVel§{9iensi0z1 of time beyond 9 months from the date of allotment
F1314.
19
runs cexztxaly to the Ruies. This resistance has to be
boih in the facmai end Iegal matrix.
14. It is not :33 disgute that the Gevernmefifi
2005 vide its letter, dated 26.8.2005
Qua respondent MUDA to 1ecei$'e_ "f1x):n late
payments imposing eitl1er;__t}1e (2.1: the {etched in
auction Whichever is on said ietter States
that such 3 dixeetjon eig-,:.bei11g :.gi{}E3f§ : humaniiarian
e0n.sideIatioI1_ .. " fvfiha: is discernible
from this V G0V€i'I}I11€I1t may have
evolved fen <:o_x1s1i3. riv2-rVtTQe«aHofiee_s'ca3es with sympathy.
15. It V1: 1o_tVi1.:g that the Government vide its
._,1_ette1j,"§.1a:te{:i f¥.3.'QGO3____§1i:eeted the MUDA to execute the sale
fiaveii1* __0f 95 allottees who have paid the sale
co:1s«idereifio'i¥L~a:1{i{is11nt belatedly along with interest thereon as
ea 0I>,e 'tinie' nieéisure. I11 the Wake of such a dizectiozx by the
u sf.';:~civez:;11nei1t, this Court by its order, dated 9.4.2008 passed in
.M_eA~1w.V:=%;*7576s/07 dixeeted the MUDA to execute the saie deeds in
? faveur of the petitioners in these cases. Thereafter also, the
F18}-I.
'I
26
iearned Govemsment Couasei before this
W.P.3669/ 2008 336 connected pefitions sui5m1tted....ti_ieit'
petitioners' ciaims will be consiziered by the State
Further, this Court by its order, dated in _<:sse*oi'
one Sri. NLN. Amanda has already givefi'._.é1 ciiieetion
responsfients to execute the deed. . iii Eisiveur. it
Considering ali these orders "L_...'=+:~11"b1:;Ar.1issic$1'1 by the
ieamed Government in the eariier
found of 1i1Liga{iGI1"E§;I'f1{__1 to consistency
in the jlidiciai I';'.Y11:tft fiietxy the sought relief
to the pefifiéners-V
16. "iaw that the equals cannot be
tzeatedi 'unequiéiiiyi tlie placed gzersons cannot be
.treate{§«V.di"s'si1i1i3.&arly.ivviiifiewever, the foxmifi able legal position
gigs fly and sin Vivekananda is also Iequixed to be
considered. . i judgments reiied upen by Sri Vivekananda
"rifizeases invoiving different set of facts. Admittedly,
210 fraud involved in those getitiens. The xelaxation
V. ..._fiso1'ight cannot be termed as illegal with any degree of eex'taj1:1ty,'
Tat the most it can be extmdegal. The gmund ef the earlier
I981-i
extension of fime granted by the respondents being K
the Rules would go against the respondents andlfiot
the petitioners. if the respondents hax.?e}1et' fQ§oWeéfR of
iiarnataka Urban Development: Autl:3;o2rit*3zV_A. (Sitev$v_t.A}'§}}oti13;el:t)V.
Rules, 1991, it attracts the applfieationx of of 'V
desuetueie. When the re$;3enclei1'Le'Ve_:'11eiV*e. beefi"*eefieistenfly
acting in disxegaxd of the kind of implied
repeal or quasi--nepeel_of place. The
doctrine of lxtiqat---"t}:A.{e statute in quesfiou has
been in pracfiee of same
durafion lies' eveiveti; . 3 l
V. In 3.1: is profitable to refer to the Hon'b1e
judgment in the case of MUNICIPAL
eQ1e;v;o«1éA'I*§«v;j_1€.".e"V-Fee CITY OF ?UNE AND ANOTHER v.
_BHAI<"~AT mass Co. LTD. AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1995
Z The relevant pamgraph of the said judgment is
e.e:{t'raeted hereinbelow:
"34. Though in India the deetrine of
desuetude does not appear to have been used so
far to hold that any statute has stooci repealed
because cf this process we fmd no objection in
ffBH
--
22
pxitzoipie to apply this doctrine to our statuteaiiaai ~ A' well. This is for the reason that a citizeo in know Whether, despite a sta¥:t1t:e'"'having ii disuse for long duration and iizsteadaia practice being in use, he is Iequited to»'aa;t as per the dead letter. We it it advance the cause. of jA11s'ri,¥Ce_ "to accept" ttie application of 'iof ;_ tziestietiiezle in our counfiy also. Our soii this principle': _ ..iii{ieed, iieedi for its impiantatioli, iiiijiiiecawig-el it iieéitling in free Itzdia, fiiadamental rights mc1ua"i;1g,,':L,,;haiiiigV'ilgggeani in Article 21, moat "lice their being, say, prosecxited for violation of a law which lia:=._ibecoroe- dead letter. A new path is, ..':,_tit1e;;e:fore, be laid ané trodden." * litigation of this nature, the respondents sha11.__seriQ11Sl}%_. consider formulating a coropxeheasive scheme . coverixig' the silniiariy placed allottees. 'I79. I allow these petitions by giving a éixection to the i realionderzt No.2 to execute the sale deeds in tavour of the " petitioners within an outer limit of two months from the date of the issuance of the certified copy of this order on satisfying that 198%.
23 they have all paid the entire ailotttnent considerafion means the intflrest at 1894:: for the first 90 days . 20% till the date of payment or thc pI'i.¢g%:Mf¢tchc;i' e:1.1ctjo:i"
of a comparable site, whichever is lxiglfigr. .. ii' «
26. No order as to costs.