Karnataka High Court
Comrade Lenin Vidya Samsthe vs The Commissioner on 12 June, 2009
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
'DUDA' when constituted, made a demand ~ V. the petitioner to pay a higher value for site L" 'V D.Devaraj Urs extension, allotted dddte, the-: ' This demand when called qneetion in W.P.6690/1997, was quashedirby o:~'e¢r= -"dated 1st March, 2000 Annexureéb following directions:
"Inf ' "gt-flese the at stands quashed there. : vtrrit of mandamus direceng u;¢,1st,mg;1;ondem to regularize the __siteA.No.V4'2Q_V_,Vin DV.:Devara3' Urs Extension, 'B' V" cofiifiiete all the formalities within ' "of six months from the date of . this order."
order was carried in W.A.3885/O0 by H u "thence the Division Bench of this court by order
--'.ff.--d£1ted:6.9.2000 Annexure-'(} dismissed the appea}. The "representations of the petitioner to comply with the orders of this Court when not responded to, irlstituted M ece (Civil) No.51'?/2006 for disobedience, es Bench of this court by ordefiiiii " Aniiexuie L recording the submissioii. that DU.'§At V' issued an endorsement dated. the proceedings, reserving petitiofier to question the endersemeiit legal forum. Hence,
3. A'ie..'eo;ieide.iféib1e--fozee in the submissien of the learxciedii i,comiseI' the petitioner that the endorsement irnptigieei. is contrary to the direction :i,ti'i;e«...lea1*13.ed Single Judge of this court in it ,i';'9si:i1iexuie D. Although learned counsel for il3_iUD,A' a feeble effort: to eenteiid that the " --2i1}etIiie1it'v...of the site by the erstwhile Davangere it "~,Eitip:'eVement Board, invoking a jurisdiction under the '11' City} Improvement Trust Board Act, and execution of a iease-cum-sale agreement in favour - of the petitioner, nevertheless, on coming into force of the Act, that Jrk 5 allotment stands regulated under the Act, and A4 repealed Act. In my considereé OpiIliOII,;T'iSv "
specious piea. Isay so because""See.7§3V'of saved all such actions done improvement Board . ' Boards Act and therefoz-'e,x it isc'toenc_faf"fetched "to contend that the allotment ' stand destroyed, on Boards Act, and Act.
--.Ir_1 the of éection 78 of the Act, it is well accept the submission of the for DUDA that the petitionefis ' _ aHo&':'L*zent" the site must be regulated under the Act. " " .. that' of the matter, the endorsement dateé Annexure K declining the petitioner's request VT "to "execute: a conveyance deed, of the ailottcd property u but 'subjecting it to a 30 years lease, is arbin'ary and iflegal. fijmk Csg ,, _; "
In the result, the Writ petition is allowed A4 The endorsement dated 6.6.2006 M quashed. A writ of mandamus shall' ensAu-.é'5 2 to comply with the Jmi(s&%.%%Aceurt%* W.P.6690/1997, in any 'a V Efivo months fimm the date :31' re(:éi'p'£j:'a.._ce1'f:§fied"'(§opy of