Karnataka High Court
Mr. A Rajesh vs Mysore Urban Development Authority on 28 June, 2024
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:24147
WP No. 25140 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 25140 OF 2016 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
MR. A RAJESH
S/O MR A R ASHWATH NARYANA SETTY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NO.1614, SRIRAMPURA I PHASE
CHAMARAJA MOHALLA, MYSORE
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
MR C V DATTRAJ SETTY,
DELETED AS PER COURT ORDER
DATED:04.12.2018
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NISHANTH A V.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
JLB ROAD, CHAMARAJPURAM MYSURU-570 005
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
Digitally signed by 2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
HEMALATHA A
Location: HIGH ZONAL OFFICE-I
COURT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KARNATAKA
JLB ROAD, CHAMARAJPURAM MYSURU-570 005.
3. ZONAL COMMISSIONER
ZONAL OFFICE-II
MUDA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX
NEAR DOCTORS CORNER
7TH MAIN ROAD, GOKULAM 3RD STAGE
MYSURU,KARNATAKA-570 002.
4. MRS SHIVAMMA
W/O MR BEERE GOWDA
AGE MAJOR
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:24147
WP No. 25140 of 2016
R/AT NO.L-191, CITB HUDCO 2ND PHASE
KUVEMPU NAGAR, MYSURU-570 023.
5. MR G NINGAIAH
S/O LATE JAVARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT DODDAGERE VILLAGE
VARUNA HOBLI,MYSORE TALUK
MYSURU-570 010.
6. MYSORE MUNICIPAL CITY CORPORATION
MUDA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX
NEAR DOCTORS CORNER
7TH MAIN ROAD, GOKULAM 3RD STAGE
MYSURU,KARNATAKA 570 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G B SHARATH GOWDA.,ADVOCATE FOR R1&2:
SRI. RAMACHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5:
SMT. N GEETHA DEVI M.P., ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DTD1.6.2011 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE
ANNEXURE-MSET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD23.6.2015 PASSED
BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-JDIRECT THE R-6 TO RESTORE
THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION RECORDS IN SO FAR AS THE SCHEDULE
PROPERTY IS CONCERNEDGRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY
THE ORDER DATED:23.6.2015 PASSED BY THE R-3 VIDE
ANNEXURE-J AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS SUBSEQUENT
THERETOSTAY THE ORDER DTD1.6.2011 PASSED BY THE R-1
VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
SUBSEQUENT THERE TO PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE PRESENT
WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:24147
WP No. 25140 of 2016
ORDER
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question: (a) the order dated 01.06.2011 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-M, whereby the allotment of site made in favour of Smt.Shivamma has been cancelled and (b) the consequential order dated 23.06.2015 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-J, whereby the katha standing in the name of the petitioner has been cancelled.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the property bearing No.1614, situated at Srirampura Block, I Phase, Chamaraja Mohalla, Mysuru more fully described in the petition schedule, was originally allotted to Smt.Shivamma (respondent No.4) by respondent No.1 and executed a sale deed dated 16.04.2002 vide Annexure-E. Pursuant to the sale deed, the name of Smt.Shivamma has been entered in katha register vide Annexure-F. Later, Smt.Shivamma sold the property in favour of one Mr.G.Ningaiah (respondent No.5) vide registered sale deed dated 19.04.2011 as per Annexure-G and katha has been -4- NC: 2024:KHC:24147 WP No. 25140 of 2016 transferred to the name of Mr.G.Ningaiah vide Annexure-H. Thereafter, Mr.G.Ningaiah sold the property in favour of the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 07.09.2012 as per Annexure-A. Pursuant to the said sale deed, the name of the petitioner has been entered in the katha register vide Annexure-B. When things stood thus, the respondent No.1 by order dated 01.06.2011 cancelled the allotment of the petition schedule property, which was allotted in favour of Shivamma and consequently, by order dated 23.06.2015 has cancelled the katha standing in the name of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that originally the petition schedule property was allotted in favour of Smt.Shivamma by respondent No.1 and accordingly executed a sale deed in her favour on 16.04.2002 and consequently, her name has been entered in the katha register. Thereafter, Smt.Shivamma sold the property in favour of Mr.G.Ningaiah vide registered sale -5- NC: 2024:KHC:24147 WP No. 25140 of 2016 deed dated 19.04.2011 and his name has been entered in the katha register. Later, the petitioner has purchased the said property from Mr.G.Ningaiah vide registered sale deed dated 07.09.2012 and his name has been entered in the katha register. The respondent No.1 while passing the impugned order canceling the allotment made in favour of Smt.Shivamma, has not given any notice either to respondent No.5 or to the petitioner. Without giving any notice to respondent No.5 and petitioner, the impugned order at Annexure-M is passed. He further contended that even though cancellation order has been passed on 01.06.2011, the petitioner has purchased the property on 07.09.2012 i.e., subsequent to passing of the cancellation order. Since no notice has been given to the vendor of the petitioner i.e., Mr.G.Ningaiah, who has purchased the property from Smt.Shivamma vide registered sale deed dated 19.04.2011 and his name has been entered in the katha register, the impugned order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice and the same requires to be quashed. Hence, he sought for allowing the petition. -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:24147 WP No. 25140 of 2016
4. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that as per the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1991, each family is entitled for only one site. Smt.Shivamma by misrepresenting the respondent No.1 has got the site allotted in her favour. Later, after noticing the said fact, the authority after giving notice to Smt.Shivamma has passed the impugned order vide Annexure-M. He further contended that as on the date of cancellation of allotment made in favour of Smt.Shivamma, the petitioner was not a party to any of the sale proceedings and he has purchased the said property from Mr.G.Ningaiah only on 07.09.2012. Hence, the petitioner has no locus to challenge the order passed by respondent No.1. There is no error in the order passed by the respondent No.1. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:24147 WP No. 25140 of 2016
6. The property bearing No.1614, situated at Srirampura Block, I Phase, Chamaraja Mohalla, Mysuru more fully described in the petition schedule, was originally allotted to Smt.Shivamma (respondent No.4) by respondent No.1 and executed a sale deed dated 16.04.2002 vide Annexure-E. Pursuant to the sale deed, the name of Smt.Shivamma has been entered in katha register vide Annexure-F. Later, Smt.Shivamma sold the property in favour of one Mr.G.Ningaiah (respondent No.5) vide registered sale deed dated 19.04.2011 as per Annexure-G and katha has been transferred to the name of Mr.G.Ningaiah vide Annexure-H. Thereafter, Mr.G.Ningaiah sold the property in favour of the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 07.09.2012 as per Annexure-A. Pursuant to the said sale deed, the name of the petitioner has been entered in the katha register vide Annexure-B. The respondent No.1 by impugned order dated 01.06.2011, cancelled the allotment of site, which was allotted in favour of Smt.Shivamma, on the ground that she has got the site allotted in her favour by -8- NC: 2024:KHC:24147 WP No. 25140 of 2016 misrepresentation and contrary to the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1991. Consequently, respondent No.1 by order dated 23.06.2015 has cancelled the katha standing in the name of the petitioner.
7. While canceling the allotment of site by respondent No.1, though notice is issued to Smt.Shivamma, but as on the date of issuing notice, Smt.Shivamma had alienated the property in favour of Mr.G.Ningaiah vide registered sale deed dated 19.04.2011 and his name was also entered in the katha register. Even though the petitioner has purchased the property from Mr.G.Ningaiah after cancellation order is passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-M, but his vendor has not been issued with any notice. Now, the petitioner has stepped into the shoes of his vendor. Since the impugned order is passed without issuing any notice to Mr.G.Ningaiah, the same is in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the impugned order is required to be quashed and matter is -9- NC: 2024:KHC:24147 WP No. 25140 of 2016 required to be remitted back to respondent No.1 for fresh consideration after issuing notice to petitioner, respondent Nos.4 and 5. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
ORDER
a) The writ petition is allowed.
b) The order dated 01.06.2011 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-M and consequential order dated 23.06.2015 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-J, are hereby quashed.
c) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for fresh consideration.
d) The respondent No.1 after giving notice to the petitioner, respondent No.4 and respondent No.5, and after hearing the parties shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE DM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45