Smt Shobha S Kamat vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 April, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Shobha S Kamat vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 April, 2008

Bench: Ashok B.Hinchigeri

5 AND   

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BAN

mas     

IIIIIIF III

M'-'er.> T-M we 15* 9.1.-.v or .-a.9e::,.,
BEFOREL 1 %    
THE HON'BLE MR. JusncE_AsHoKe3.   k'

 

BETWEEN

Smt. Shobh S. Kamat
W10 5. Karnat  __ _ _ _ . V .
Age 61 Years       _  
Residing at N:o';2643?.,..Mahan_tesh ewagar .
BeEgatirr., duE1';:Vrejpfese%:te;';"eb;y  hissﬁand
Special Power 6f_Ati~e,rne',r_ H_o_Ider...._H_ 

Sri SR. {Kamat*~ag,ed 'e4bcui:=56 years
No.2647;v..AMehatesh'j'NAacar;jselgaum

. . . PETITIONER

" V_ [Byi'~Sfi'v.SV.V; Anoadl, Advocate]

' 'Tee' 1-3£aie'v4:ifAVe'I:(ia;.rnataka

~Repre§eiIi:ed'Tby its Secretary to Government
Department of Housing and Urban Department

Ba'ﬁg.a'i9re' "

.'*Ce.rporatIon of City of Belaaurn
* _ Belgaum
{By "Its Commissioner
E  RESPONDENT!-3

[By Sr! Ramesh B. Anneppanavar, AGA for R1, .. in I - 'la;

5:? Allin 5. K-tutti, Auvﬁﬂﬁtﬁ 'r'6i" R2] This writ petition is ﬂied under Articies 226 andj2.?.?.:of_'the constitution of India praying to call for the entir5a"'recer'd£_.__e~nd proceedings from the respondents and after-.j exarni':1mg""--.be pieaseci to q- ash the fine! notice dt. 25.?.20.'J?__Ar:nexu_r-3-F"

illegal, unconstitutional and u|travires;~and,ete;. This petition coming on for hiearin1'a*~':on"IA' Court made the foiiowing: = _ Although the mauefis IA, I have taken it up for final disposveiyrith of the iearned advocetes,Sr! S;V."'.enged~i, pe_itioner,. Sr! Anii 'am, anoeari-n§.e1for"th.e"csresﬁ:-indent" tie. on r.

U ﬂ I an H'! 3' on sisal all"

lid

3. Anneppa.netre'r, fortne respondent No.1.

2. of the case in a nutshell are that A"V__respondent..i€o;2 in respect of piot hio.2655 measurina 4?: X 66 fee:tAV"in~ of Maiamaruti Extension Area, Beiqaurn in A --voctoi5er, The auction however could not fructify itself, as s'e§|36ndent No.2, vide its order, dated 26"" November, 1999 the petitioner that there is some encroachment on the 'ffpiot in q:.:es.ien and !t titer !' r i respondent No.2 also called upon the petitioner of Rs.1,650/- [Rupees one thousand six hundred the cost of the additional land measuringes it 'petitioner' T. complied with the said demand, as Isnleuid-ent frornrthe respondent. it appears stiiat the --..rf'i_o\i"err1ment"ciio'v'V4not accord approval to the aliotment4of__sit"e..§io'.7§iV;2jsv;' --.__On the petitioner persisting for allotment ofalterrratlvefélte, the respondent No.2 offered tlteutiiaseam V_a'rid:~'._:10_564A/8 on the condition that the .ivpet!tl"o'nlerK'shelledposi't~Rs.87,75o/- [Rupees eighty . ' l'lﬁ'u'l A than nr unlllnn rnnrlm IU ' '. IIIC J K FIT'i'UIII' IIIZII'TC l.«vva;mou_rits the p'r'e"ve.I.lin¢.'i market rate, the petitioner caused the V"--iss:.ianc.e --o_f"thvelAl'eg_al notice, dated 14"' July, 2007 [Annexure-E]. On'*;'t6*" the respondent No.2 sent the ultimatum at ' 'Anne>t'ure¥'Fl. to the effect that if the petitioner defaults in lijepgositinglll the demanded amounts and get the sale deed "This order is challenged in this writ petition. ﬂﬂu "D.

3. Srl Siv'. Angadi submits that the respondent not I justified in demanding the amounts at the preta'l:l4ln§'L:~..iénarlcet rate. He also submits that the petitioner. has; and they want to put up the commercial compiexf isfoir that the petitioner went for bidd:l'e.g for"takinVo»v:th'e;'corr:er site.' ff red is an lnfnrrngdlgi_::_:;*.gItg l-lg thgr_f_r__ prays hr the tiua-shine of the ihpaehed ettier aedleoeeht a election to the second respondent to"aliot'¥aV.i;o'r.ner".si.§e'»"of the dimension of 1775 sq.ft. viilthout'inelstlng'_ifor the§f.'payn'ient of any additional or differentiali.cost.y_"' ll'

4. en the othe"rrlhaan6,diien Ami s. Katti, submits that the respondent l"lslo_.'2._'has=_l' extremely co-operative and 'V"respen'si\;_e, it lsutth-e' petitioner's pressing instance only that ll'theVrespo'nden't:l$lo,2 offered to allot the alternative site. It is his "p"rays"for the disrnissai of the writ rrtitioh. defence petitioner went on shifting her preference ' 1:;-ra_anri~l;-m; that a ell-A F r-Inn Fat:

'IF I' KlI&i Iv. IIIHU X Iliiﬁ I&$III' 131 or North only be alletta. He l' ..__"§';'that though the prevailing market rate is Rs.1,SCiO/'- per sq.ﬁ:, igthe respondent No.2 is demanding the allotment consideration Ar-\i..

HUSH.

hr 011 I. I. tlﬁu and the annexures to the writ petiizion, i "find_V_tha"t= notificatiton or advertisement for aisctionindwthnetjvppiot'.No«'.2655'VV:showing its extent as 40 x 60 feet Vi'tseif'V'i:s::V jfu.sti'i'iabie, as by the admission of letter, dated 26"' November, the said plot was under

encreachmezrt The"'r;;~pondent"'R!o .2 should have set the encroachrnent vacat"'*1'Vh5f'--"e,.pu"inﬁ the s"e to atrtion, or in the alternative to auction the plot in question fuiiy informing the "V"biAddtér'§'tha.t a..i'portionvv~af«the property is under encroachment and 'sit'. istéfortathesuccessfui bidder to get the encroachment vacated. Not_Ar;e"sortinﬁ'i_tVr..i:: one of these two courses, has created all the _ _ 'problems;

A Srl Anqadi's demand that the corner site No.361 be 'jfr=ai.i--otted to the petitioner cannot be acceded to, as he has no eaiegaily vested right that any particular corner site be allotted to ﬁBH.

the petitioner only.

'.7. In the factee! matrix. fg this case. thefettd-e*.l.:oli_ justice site measuring 40 X 60 feei:._: ﬁte e*§ternative--"«ieite "ha.~j.l.to'Vt:e comparable In size, value and loﬁttien witltsite-I No.§2oV55. The same shall be done w.l,th.out.*'*Mnderirnondving any additional or differential cost.

8. HOW._e.\!fs.l"' If:,:the~vpetlti:onei" jdeme'n'ds the allotment of a bigger site,_,Vor~,.,I'_:n 'V~e___ V etc., It is open to the respondent No.V2;"~'to:v...dernendv----._the additional or differential cost. ' The processof allternetiveelllotment shall be completed in an s i _ etiter,|3§!'!'§!i:eoor threegntontlits, from tody.

t 9.,i!itt;:'tl1iis:ju.ncture sri Anll submits that no 40 it so feet siteoIs"evaiiei$iieV.f'or allotment. If this is the position, it is open to the reooooogni No.2 to club two 30 x «in sites. If the petitioner . 'tt'arees~«.te take enly one site meserinc 39 x 49 feet, she is l' fentitied to refund of the differentiai form the respondent l' ' "' The amounts to be refunded, if any, shall carry interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of payment by uﬂ'I""'5|.| ' ".b.'H. the petitioner till the date of refund to the petltlonef, Judgmé 'T : ' "inn:

__

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court