Karnataka High Court
Sri R C Vijayakumar vs Mysuru Urban Development Authority on 12 April, 2022
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.55072 OF 2016(LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. R. C. VIJAYAKUMAR,,
S/O LATE R.S.CHARANA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
#130, 3RD MAIN ROAD,
2ND CROSS ROAD,
RAMAKRISHNANAGAR,
H BLOCK, MYSURU-570 023.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K R LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
J.L.B.ROAD, MYSURU-570 007.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SHARATH GOWDA G B, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
CANCELATION ORDER DTD.25.9.2004 ISSUED BY THE R-1 VIDE
ANNEX-A.AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
The petitioner is knocking at the doors of writ court for assailing the cancellation of allotment of house site vide order dated 25.09.2004, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A. After service of notice, respondents having entered appearance through the learned Senior Panel Counsel opposes the petition by filing the Statement of Objections. Learned Panel Counsel makes submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been structured.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter for the following reasons.
a) The allotment of site was done vide order dated 14.07.2003 and this intimation was sent to the petitioner by speed post on 22.08.2003 to the address mentioned in his application for allotment. There was no response. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that his client being a siteless person had shifted his residence in the meanwhile, will not come to his assistance since he being a businessman admittedly failed to inform the 3 respondent-MUDA about the change of address. No explanation has been offered for not intimating his change of address to the MUDA even by a Post Card or Courier. He had been a farmer, a peasant or a labourer, contention of the kind arguably could have been countenanced.
b) since there was no response to the allotment letter, the respondent sent notice to the petitioner asking him to comply with the requirement of the allotment letter, and again there was no response. Therefore, the respondent issued news paper notice twice i.e., 27.09.2003 & 20.07.2004 and for this it incurred huge expenditure. There was no response by the petitioner to this, too. Only thereafter the impugned order of cancellation has been passed on 25.09.2004. This in the backdrop of the case cannot be faltered.
c) the vehement submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that even now he is ready and willing to pay the present value of the site in question as prescribed by the MUDA and therefore, the impugned order be set at naught cannot be a legal ground meriting acceptance. Sustaining such a contention would lay a very bad 4 precedent that would affect the public interest at large, to say the least. However, there is force in the submission of the said counsel that petitioner should be given liberty to apply for the site afresh and the same should be considered favorably reckoning his seniority w.e.f. the date on which he had applied for the first time.
The reliance placed upon by the petitioner on the Co- ordinate Judges orders do not much come to his aid, regard being had to certain factual variables like absence public notice through Paper Publication and the like in those cases.
In the above circumstances, the writ petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is, costs having been made easy.
Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to apply afresh for the allotment of site within four weeks and if applied, the respondent-MUDA shall consider it favorably keeping in view the seniority of the petitioner taking the date of his original application for reckoning his seniority.
Sd/-
JUDGE DS