Karnataka High Court
Maralingappa S/O Hanamanth vs The Chairman And Deputy And Anr on 8 December, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO.221317/2020 (GM-RES)
Between:
Maralingappa S/o Hanamanth,
Age : 47 years, Occ : Legal Practitioner,
R/o C/o SS Patil Devi Nagar,
Behind New Petrol Pump,
Aland Road, Kalaburagi.
... Petitioner
(By Sri Mogha Sudhakar Rao, Advocate)
And:
1. The Chairman,
Kalaburagi Urban Development Authority,
Kalaburagi - 585 102.
2. The Commissioner,
Kalaburagi Urban Development Authority,
Kalaburagi - 585 102.
... Respondents
(By Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of
certiorari quashing the impugned order Annexure-E in
2
No...£À¥ÁæP/À ¤.ºÀA/C©ªÁ/PÉÆÃ-r/717/2015-16/1250 dated 03.12.2019
passed by the respondent No.2.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner was allotted a site by respondent No.2 on 14.03.2016 for a consideration of `1,30,000/-. At the time of allotment, the petitioner has paid a sum of `13,050/-. He was required to pay a sum of `1,16,950/- within 90 days from the date of said allotment. A provision is made for extension of time for a further period of 30 days upon payment of interest. However, as the petitioner could not pay any amounts thereafter, the respondent No.2 has cancelled the allotment of site by its order dated 03.12.2019, which is impugned in the instant writ petition.
2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the father of the petitioner had a paralysis stroke and petitioner has got busy in his treatment and his father died in the year 2019. Thereafter, 3 he approached the authorities and requested them to provide time to pay the balance consideration but, the second respondent without considering his request has passed the impugned order canceling the allotment. Hence, the instant writ petition is filed.
3. In his support the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in Writ Appeal No.4110/2017. But, in the said decision substantial amount towards allotment had been made and for that reason, it has been held that the authorities could not have cancelled the allotment of site and the writ petitioner was granted time to deposit the balance consideration of `7,410/-. In the instant case, out of the allotment price of `1,30,000/-, only a sum of `13,050/- has been paid and the aforementioned decision does not come to the rescue of the petitioner.
4. The petitioner has further relied upon a judgment passed in Writ Appeal No.200148/2019. In the said case, the price of the site was enhanced to `200/- 4 from `80/- per sq.ft. and because of it, there was some delay in payment of money by the writ petitioner therein. Further in the said case substantial consideration had been paid. Hence, additional time was provided by the Court to make further payments by imposing interest on the balance due.
5. In the instant case, as already stated above only a meager amount has been paid and there has been no enhancement of sale consideration amount and the facts of this case are completely different from the facts dealt by the Court in Writ Appeal No.200148/2019.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner was required to pay the balance consideration amount of `1,16,950/- within 90 days from the date of allotment of site. He was at most eligible for 30 more days of time as contemplated in the allotment letter. Not having done so, the action of respondent No.2 in canceling the allotment of site on 03.12.2019 cannot be found fault with.
5
7. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE sn