Karnataka High Court
Smt. Surya Prabha Garcha vs State Of Karnataka on 2 June, 2023
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
WP No. 10054 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 10054 OF 2023 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SURYA PRABHA GARCHA,
W/O LATE. COLONEL G. S. GARCHA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/O NC-127, BLOCK NO-8, S-HIG-A,
4TH PHASE, NEW TOWN,
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560064.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K R LINGARAJU., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
ITS UNDER SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
Digitally VIKASA SOUDHA,
signed by DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
JUANITA BENGALURU-560001.
THEJESWINI
Location:
HIGH COURT 2. MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
OF REPRESENTED BY
KARNATAKA ITS COMMISSIONER,
J.L.B, ROAD, MYSURU - 570 005.
3. THE SPECIAL THASILDER,
MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
J.L.B. ROAD, MYSURU - 570 005.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NITHYANANDA, AGA FOR R1
SRI. SIDDHARTHA H.M., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
-2-
WP No. 10054 of 2023
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITTUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING MY.NA.PRA/VA.KA-8/2022.23
DTD 27.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE R3, THE GOVERNMENT
ORDER BEARING NO.NA AA E 543 MY A PRA 2005, DTD
14.09.2010 ISSUED BY THE R1 AND CANCELATION ORDER
BEARING NO.LP 83 VOL-2 DTD 23.01.2006 PASSED BY THE R2
VIDE ANNX-A, B AND C RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner was allotted a site by the respondent- Mysuru Urban Development Authority (for short, 'MUDA') under the Ex-servicemen category, since the husband of the petitioner was a soldier. The petitioner was allotted a site bearing No.1644, measuring 50x80 feet at Hanchya- Satagalli B-Zone Layout, Mysuru on 25.02.2001. The sital value was fixed at Rs.3,03,000/- and the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.4,374/- as initial deposit. The petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.,45,450/- within 15 days from the date of communication of the allotment letter and the remaining sum of Rs.2,53,176/- within 90 days from the date of communication of -3- WP No. 10054 of 2023 allotment letter. It is the contention of the petitioner that as could be seen from the material available on record, the allotment letter was prepared on 25.02.2001 and was dispatched on 16.05.2001. The petitioner had secured a Demand Draft bearing No.239810 from the State Bank of India, Mysuru on 29.06.2001, for a sum of Rs.45,450/- and the same was submitted before the MUDA on the same day along with a representation. Again on 13.10.2001, the petitioner secured another Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- from HDFC Bank, Mysuru and submitted to the MUDA along the representation dated 13.10.2001. The petitioner was in arrears of payment of Rs.1,43,176/-. At the request of many such allottees like the petitioner, the Board of MUDA passed a resolution on 29.06.2002 to accept the balance of sale consideration from the allottees and to execute the sale deed in favour of such allottees. No sooner such information was received by the petitioner, the petitioner secured one more Demand Draft for a balance sale consideration of Rs.1,43,500/- on 05.02.2003 from Corporation Bank, -4- WP No. 10054 of 2023 Mysuru and along with a representation submitted the same to the respondent-MUDA.
2. Nevertheless, instead of executing a sale deed in favour of the petitioner, the respondent-MUDA issued a notice dated 31.01.2005 calling upon the petitioner to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,43,176/-. The said notice was issued to the old address where the petitioner was earlier residing and the petitioner did not receive such a notice. It is the contention of the petitioner that without noticing the fact that the petitioner had already paid the entire sale consideration, the notice was issued by the MUDA.
3. On the other hand, it appears that pursuant to directions issued by the State Government, the respondent-MUDA took action to cancel the allotments made in favour of the persons like the petitioner who had delayed the payment or did not pay the balance consideration within the prescribed period. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits the various writ -5- WP No. 10054 of 2023 petitions were filed before this Court venting out similar grievances and the issue is now settled by a series of judgments of this Court, including the case of Pankaja N Vs. State of Karnataka and others, in W.P.No.10077/2021 dated 16.07.2021.
4. It is noticeable that in the said case, the co- ordinate Bench noticed the decision rendered by this Court in various cases including W.P.No.34613/2010 and connected matters, wherein at paragraph No.10, it was held as follows:
"10. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the full amount of sital value has been paid along with interest as back as in the year 2003 by the petitioners. The fact that the respondent has not only accepted the said amount but has later on acted on the strength of the allotment letter or at any rate has not acted pursuant to the order of cancellation to re-allot the same in favour of any third party ins undeniable. Therefore, no third party interests have set in. In almost all cases except in the case of four writ petitioners, the Commissioner has at an undisputed point of time permitted the receipt of the balance amount and pursuant to such permission granted, their petitioners have paid the amount during 2003. Therefore, it will be unjust and harsh to deny the relief as sought by the petitioners, having regard to the circumstances narrated by the petitioners and adverted to by me hereinabove. It is also relevant to notice here that the State -6- WP No. 10054 of 2023 Government has indeed informed the MUDA to consider the cases of such of the petitioners who had paid the balance amount prior to the cut off date as is clear from the affidavit filed before the Division Bench. Hence, in my considered view, the action now taken by the MUDA, based on the communication addressed by the State Government cannot be sustained. The petitioners are entitled for the relief's sought in these writ petitions. Therefore, the impugned order of cancellation of sited challenged in these writ petitions are set aside."
5. Consequent to the earlier decision, the co- ordinate Bench allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order passed by the respondent-MUDA which had cancelled the allotments and further directed the MUDA to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner and issue Possession Certificate and put the petitioner in possession of the allotted site. Learned Counsel prays for similar orders.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondent-MUDA submits that although there is no instructions coming from the respondent-MUDA regarding any challenge raised by MUDA to the decisions referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, nevertheless, learned Counsel submits -7- WP No. 10054 of 2023 that the directions can be given to MUDA only if the site allotted to the petitioner has not already been allotted to some other person.
7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the benefit given to similarly placed petitioner in the decision cited by the learned Counsel is also to be given to the petitioner.
8. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement dated 27.03.2023 issued by the respondent-MUDA is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent-MUDA is hereby directed to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner, issue Possession Certificate and put the petitioner in possession of site bearing No.1644, measuring 50x80 feet at Hanchya- Satagalli B-Zone Layout, Mysuru.
The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of -8- WP No. 10054 of 2023 two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
If it is found that the site allotted to the petitioner has already been re-allotted and sale deed is executed in favour of any other person, then the respondent-MUDA shall furnish necessary information to the petitioner showing the allotment made and the sale deed executed. In such circumstances, an alternative site shall be allotted to the petitioner to her satisfaction and the sale deed shall be executed within the time period stipulated herein above.
Ordered accordingly.
Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE DL