Karnataka High Court
Smt. Tulasamma A vs State Of Karnataka on 3 January, 2017
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
1/10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 03rd DAY OF JANUARY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
WRIT PETITION No.29845/2014
C/W
WRIT PETITION Nos.18865/2015, 37752/2015,
47418/2015, 49445/2013 (LB-RES)
WRIT PETITION No.29845/2014
BETWEEN:
SMT. TULASAMMA .A
W/O LATE KRISHNAIAH K.V.
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
R/AT No.31, (OLD No.15), 1ST CROSS
SRIRAMAPURAM, BANGALORE-560 021.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.R. LINGARAJU, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
Dr. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
J.L.B. ROAD, MYSORE-570 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH, HCGP FOR R1
SRI. AJIT KALYAN, FOR SRI. SACHIN V.R. ADV., FOR R2)
Date of Order 03-01-2017 W.P.No.29845/2014 & connected matters
Smt. Tulasamma A & Others Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.
2/10
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 14.9.2010 ISSUED BY THE R-1 AND ENDORSEMENT
DATED 14.12.2010 ISSUED BY R-2 VIDE ANN-A & B & ETC.,
WRIT PETITION No.49445/2013
BETWEEN:
SRI. N. ARMUGAM
S/O LATE NANJAPPACHAR
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT. No.18/B, MEDAR BLOCK
2ND MAIN ROAD, BAMBOO BAZAAR
MYSORE - 570 027.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.R. LINGARAJU, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
Dr. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
J.L.B. ROAD, MYSORE-570 001.
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH, HCGP FOR R1
SRI. I.G. GACHCHINAMATH, ADV., FOR R2)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
GOVERNMENT ORDER/LETTER DATED 14.9.2010
PASSED/ISSUED BY THE R-1 TO THE R2 ENDORSEMENT
DATED 14.12.2010 AND CANCELLATION ORDER DATED
4.1.2003 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANN-A, B & C ETC.,
Date of Order 03-01-2017 W.P.No.29845/2014 & connected matters
Smt. Tulasamma A & Others Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.
3/10
WRIT PETITION No.18865/2015
BETWEEN:
SRI. RANGASWAMY C
S/O LATE CHIKKAVEERE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
#2347, PADUVARAHALLI
RAMAMANDIRA ROAD
3RD CROSS, MYSURU.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.R. LINGARAJU, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY
VIKASA SOUDHA
Dr. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
J.L.B. ROAD, MYSORE-570 005.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH, HCGP FOR R1
SRI. AJIT KALYAN, FOR SRI. SACHIN V.R. ADV., FOR R2)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 14.9.2010 ISSUED BY THE R-1 AND CANCELLATION
ORDER DATED 7.12.2002 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANN-A & B
ETC.,
WRIT PETITION No.37752/2015
BETWEEN:
KUM. K. GENDABAI
D/O LATE H. KRISHNA SINGH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
#1629, V CROSS
MARUTHI TENT ROAD
Date of Order 03-01-2017 W.P.No.29845/2014 & connected matters
Smt. Tulasamma A & Others Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.
4/10
JANATHA NAGARA
MYSORE - 570 014.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.R. LINGARAJU, ADV.)
AND:
1. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
J.L.B. ROAD, MYSORE-570 001.
2. THE SPECIAL THASILDAR
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
J.L.B. ROAD, MYSORE-570 005.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. AJIT KALYAN, FOR SRI. SACHIN V.R. ADV., FOR R1 &
R2)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ENDORSEMENT
DTD.3.8.2015 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AND THE CANCELLATION
ORDER DTD.20.12.2002 ISSUED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEX-A &
B.
WRIT PETITION No.47418/2015
BETWEEN:
HABEEBULLAKHAN
S/O JAFFER KHAN
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
#55, 1ST STAGE, 1ST CROSS
M.G. ROAD, UDAYAGIRI
MYSORE - 570 019.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.R. LINGARAJU, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Date of Order 03-01-2017 W.P.No.29845/2014 & connected matters
Smt. Tulasamma A & Others Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.
5/10
VIDHANA SOUDHA
Dr. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
J.L.B. ROAD, MYSURU - 570 007.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MYSURU - 570 005.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH, HCGP FOR R1
SRI. AJIT KALYAN, FOR SRI. SACHIN V.R. ADV., FOR R2 &
R3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT DTD.3.9.2015, ISSUED BY THE R-3 VIDE
ANNEX-A & ETC.,
THESE W.Ps. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Mr. K.R. Lingaraju, Adv. for Petitioner Mr. S. Chandrashekharaiah, HCGP for R1 Mr.I.G.Gachchinamath & Mr. Ajit Kalyan, Advs. for MUDA
1. The controversy involved in these writ petitions is prima-facie covered by the decision of the co-ordinate bench passed in similar matters i.e., in W.P.No.34613/2010 & connected cases (N.Krishnappa & Others vs. MUDA & State) decided on 18.01.2012, a Date of Order 03-01-2017 W.P.No.29845/2014 & connected matters Smt. Tulasamma A & Others Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.
6/10copy of which is placed on record at Annexure-L. The relevant portion of the said order passed by the co-
ordinate bench is as under:-
" 6. It is the case of the petitioners that due to unavoidable circumstances, they were not in a position to pay the entire balance amount within the time prescribed. Several justifications are offered in this regard by the petitioners in their writ petitions.
7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents having received the entire sale consideration without being informing the petitioners about the cancellation of the sites made in their favour are now estopped from contending that the petitioners are not entitled for the benefit of the allotment and for execution of the sale deed. It is their contention that the order of cancellation were not served on them.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-MUDA submits that atleast in the case of four writ petitioners, the amount was not paid pursuant to any permission granted by the Commissioner to receive the payment belatedly and therefore they are not entitled for the relief sought. It is his further contention that as the State Government had taken a decision and communicated the same to the MUDA stating that MUDA has no power to extend the time for receipt of the payment after the expiry of the period fixed, the impugned endorsement issued is just and proper.
9. Learned Additional Government Advocate has supported the action of the State Government and the consequent action of the Date of Order 03-01-2017 W.P.No.29845/2014 & connected matters Smt. Tulasamma A & Others Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.7/10
MUDA as well. He has made available a copy of the affidavit filed in W.A.No.499/2011 stating inter alia that the Government had issued necessary instructions on 23.04.2007 and 04.03.2008 to the Commissioner, MUDA to consider the allotment of sites to the applicants who had paid full sital value along with interest on humanitarian ground as one time measure. It is also further stated in the said affidavit at Paragraph 4 that the Government has later on issued order dated 10.12.2009 directing the Commissioner, MUDA not to consider and submit such proposal which were not in conformity with Rule 19 of the Rules. It is the further stand taken by the State Government in the said affidavit that a circular is issued on 04.02.2011 by the Government directing all the Urban Development Authorities of Karnataka to strictly abide by the provisions envisaged in the Rules, namely, the Karnataka Urban Development (Allotment of Sites) Rules. It is thus clear from the stand taken by the State Government in the writ appeal wherein a similar question came up for consideration that in such of the cases where full sital value had been paid along with interest, instructions had been issued to the MUDA to consider the request of the applicants for execution of the sale deed by confirming the allotment.
10. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the full amount of sital value has been paid along with interest as back as in the year 2003 by the petitioners. The fact that the respondent has not only accepted the said amount but has later on acted on the strength of the allotment letter or at any rate has not acted pursuant to the order of cancellation to re-allot the same in favour of any third party is undeniable. Therefore, no third party interests have set in. In almost all Date of Order 03-01-2017 W.P.No.29845/2014 & connected matters Smt. Tulasamma A & Others Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.
8/10cases except in the case of four writ petitioners, the Commissioner has at an undisputed point of time permitted the receipt of the balance amount and pursuant to such permission granted, the petitioners have paid the amount during 2003. Therefore, it will be unjust and harsh to deny the relief as sought by the petitioners, having regard to the circumstances narrated by the petitioners and adverted to by me hereinabove. It is also relevant to notice here that the State Government has indeed informed the MUDA to consider the cases of such of the petitioners who had paid the balance amount prior to the cut off date as is clear from the affidavit filed before the Division Bench. Hence, in my considered view, the action now taken by the MUDA, based on the communication addressed by the State Government cannot be sustained. The petitioners are entitled for the reliefs sought in these writ petitions. Therefore, the impugned order of cancellation of sites challenged in these writ petitions are set aside.
11. The respondent-MUDA is directed to execute registered sale deeds in favour of the petitioners in respect of the respective sites allotted in their favour, upon being satisfied of the fact that no balance amount is payable by them both towards the sital value and the interest accrued. This exercise shall be done as expeditiously as possible".
2. The said order was later on followed by another learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.38719- 181/2012 (Mahadeva & Others vs. State & MUDA) on 26.11.2012, a copy of which is placed at Annexure-M. Date of Order 03-01-2017 W.P.No.29845/2014 & connected matters Smt. Tulasamma A & Others Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.
9/103. The controversy in brief is that once the allotment of sites in question were made in favour of the petitioners and the amount towards such allotments were also paid by the petitioners, whether such allotments could be cancelled by the respondent-MUDA much later in the year 2010, after about 10 years, merely because the State Government failed to approve the said allotments in favour of the petitioners.
4. Considering these very submissions, the earlier orders have been passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court and the learned counsel for the petitioners also informed the Court that sale deeds in pursuance of those directions have been executed in favour of the respective parties. The allotments in the present writ petitions are also for the sites in the same area in question and the petitioners are also similarly situated to those petitioners as were before this Court in those aforesaid judgments.
Date of Order 03-01-2017 W.P.No.29845/2014 & connected matters Smt. Tulasamma A & Others Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.
10/105. This Court, therefore, does not find any good ground to take a different view in the present matters and these writ petitions also deserves to be allowed in same terms as quoted above.
6. Accordingly, the present writ petitions are also allowed in the same terms. No costs.
If the amount paid in question by the allottees has been refunded back by the MUDA on account of the aforesaid impugned non-approval of all allotment by the State Government, the petitioners/allottees shall immediately pay back that amount to MUDA within a period of one month from today and thereafter, the aforesaid directions for execution of sale deeds will be implemented by the Respondents within next 3 months of the entire payment by the petitioners, in terms of the original allotment orders.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srl.