Karnataka High Court
Vijay Foundation (R) Charitable Trust vs Mysore Urban Development Authority on 19 February, 2020
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION No.1417/2020 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
Vijay Foundation(R),
Charitable Trust (Registered as No.538/1994-95),
Presently at No.429, Hebbal Industrial Area,
Hebbal,
Mysore - 570016,
Represented by its Managing Trustee
B.R.Pai.
...Petitioner
(By Sri.Krishnamurthy.G.Hasyagar, Advocate)
AND:
1. Mysore Urban Development Authority,
Mysore - 570005,
Represented by its Commissioner.
2. Mysore city Corporation,
Mysore - 570001.
Represented by its Commissioner.
...Respondents
(By Sri.T.P.Vivekananda, Advocate for R1
Smt.Geetha Devi.M.P, Advocate for R2)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash
2
annexure-P, the endorsement dated 02.01.2020 issued
by the R-1 and consequently direct the R-1 to issued the
No Objection Certificate for the purpose of obtaining the
approval of the building plan from the R-2 or the
concerned authority.
This Petition coming on for Orders this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner is stated to be a registered Trust and involved in the activities relating to Education, Public Health and Welfare and other charitable objects. The petitioner was allotted site bearing No.CA-14 in Vijayanagar II Stage, Mysore on 28.03.1998 and the entire consideration amount of Rs.9,00,000/- has been paid and lease deed executed on 25.06.1998.
2. It is submitted that Possession Certificate was also issued on 10.07.1998 and subsequently katha entry in the name of the petitioner has been made in the records of the authority. The petitioner submits that subsequent to the initial payment of Rs.9,00,000/- remaining amount due with respect to the allotment 3 price has been paid in its entirety. The petitioner submits that due to bonafide reasons they were not in a position to put up construction as per the provisions of Rule 10(7) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Allotment of Civic Amenity Site) Rules 1991, which requires that construction is to be completed within a period of three years or a further extended period of ten years.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to bona fide reasons there has been lapse on part of the petitioner. The petitioner states that in order to obtain sanctioned plan petitioner sought for No Objection Certificate from MUDA on 10.03.2018. The said request of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent - MUDA as per endorsement dated 02.01.2020 and the same is called in question. The petitioner submits that this Court in other cases involving a similar factual matrix has permitted the 4 allottees to put up construction on obtaining sanctioned plan subject to certain guidelines issued.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent - MUDA had contended that the petitioner has kept site vacant for more than 20 years and submits that other deserving allottees have been deprived of right of allotment and utilization of the public property.
5. It is also to be noted that till date, there is no cancellation of the site of the petitioner and lapse of the petitioner could be made good by imposing cost.
6. However, taking note of other instances wherein allottees have been provided an opportunity of putting up of construction including the orders in W.P.No.26707/2012 and W.P.No.14834/2018 also taking note of the purpose for which allotment is made, the impugned endorsement is set aside and the following order is passed:
5
ORDER
i) The impugned endorsement at Annexure-P is set aside.
ii) The respondent - MUDA to take steps for issuance of No Objection Certificate as per law in light of the observations made above.
Necessary action in that regard to be taken within a period of 2 weeks from the date of release of this order.
iii) The petitioner to make necessary application for obtaining sanctioned plan with the second respondent along with No Objection Certificate issued by MUDA within a period of 8 weeks from the date of release of this order.
iv) The petitioner to take necessary steps to obtain sanctioned plan from the respondent No.2 within a period not later than 3 months thereafter.
6
v) Upon obtaining sanctioned plan, petitioner to commence construction and complete the same within a period of two years from the date of obtaining the sanctioned plan.
vi) It is made clear that the petitioner would not be entitled to seek for extension of lease period only on the ground that construction is put up at this belated stage as permitted by this Court. However, question of renewal of lease is a request that would be considered in accordance with the prevailing rules by respondent - MUDA.
vii) The petitioner to pay costs of Rs.50,000/-
(rupees fifty thousand only) to the respondent
- MUDA within a period of six weeks from the date of release of order and the said costs is to be used for the purpose of tree planting near civic amenity sites in the layouts formed 7 by MUDA. The details of tree planting and expenditure incurred after expending the amount of Rs.50,000/- to be filed in the form of a report to this Court as reporting compliance.
7. It is made clear that the petitioner to inform the developments relating to obtaining of sanctioned plan and commencement of construction as well as completion of construction as per the time schedule indicated above and any lapse could be taken note of by the respondent - MUDA in taking further action in accordance with law.
8. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off and it is made clear that the order is passed in the peculiar facts of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE NS