Karnataka High Court
Smt Mohammad Abi vs The Commissioner on 6 June, 2012
Author: K.L.Manjunath
Bench: K.L.Manjunath
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 06th DAY OF JUNE 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO
WRIT APPEAL NO.17579/2011 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
Smt.Mohammad Abi
W/o Mohammed Ali Sab,
Aged about 49 years,
R/at Madeen Masjid Road,
Gandhinagar, Challakere,
Chitradurga district. ...APPELLANT
(By Sri.G.S.Balagangadhar, Adv.)
AND:
The Commissioner.
Urban Development Authority,
Akashavani Road,
Present Address:
C.K.Pura, Chitradurga-577501.
Represented by its representative.
...RESPONDENT
(By Sri.M.C.Akkamahadevi, AGA)
This W.A. is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the
-2-
order passed in the W.P.No.2536/2010 dated
15.09.2011.
This W.A. coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, MANJUNATH J, delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
The appellant is questioning the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 15.09.2011 in W.P.No.2536/2010.
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are hereunder:-
A commercial site bearing No.151 was sold in public auction conducted by the respondent on 21.09.04. The appellant was the highest bidder. He auctioned the site for Rs.2,42,000/-. 25% of the bid amount was deposited on the spot and he was required to pay balance 75% within the prescribed period as per the terms and conditions of the auction sale. Since he did not make the payment, the respondent got issued two notices dated 24.03.2005 and 27.02.2006 calling upon the appellant to pay the balance amount and again final notice was issued on 10.08.2006. Still, the -3- appellant did not make the payment even after one year from the date of auction. Three year after final notice was issued, he alleges that on 06.01.2009, he intimated the respondent about depositing of Rs.87,000/- to the account of the respondent in Vysya Bank and the balance amount would be paid in due course. On the ground that the cancellation of site by the respondent was not in accordance with law, the aforesaid writ petition was filed.
The learned Single Judge after considering the entire documents and the objections by the respondent, came to the conclusion that the appellant did not deposit the amount as required under law within the stipulated period and he committed default and did not make payment for years together, upholding the action of the respondent, cancelled the site.
During the pendency of the writ petition, the site in question was notified for fresh auction by the respondent and the same was sold in public auction -4- and one Muniyappa has purchased the same for Rs.13,82,000/- and he deposited the entire amount. Therefore, he declined to interfere with the order of cancellation. Challenging the legality and correctness of the same, the present appeal is filed.
3. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and we do not see any merits in the appeal for the following reasons:-
Admittedly, the auction was conducted on 21.09.2004. The appellant was required to make the payment within 30 days from the date of auction. In other words, he was required to pay the amount on or before 21.10.2004. The respondent has waited nearly for two years. Thereafter, three remainders were issued. Even then the appellant has not paid the money. In the circumstances, if the site is cancelled, no Court can interfere with the action of the respondent as the Court cannot exercise its discretion when the parties are governed by terms of contract.
The appellant has participated in the public auction -5- knowing fully well that he was required to deposit the balance amount of 75% within 30 days.
4. Therefore, we do not see any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the application filed to condone delay of 25 days is also rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Srl.