Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Housing Board vs Sri Basavaraj S Gaddikeri on 18 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO. 519 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD
K.G. ROAD
BENGALURU-560 009
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ACHAPPA P.B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. BASAVARAJ S. GADDIKERI
S/O SRI. SHIVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/O. B.S. GADDIKERI
B.T. PATLINAGAR
KOPPAL-583 231
2
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT
VIKAS SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH CHANDRA S.N., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WP
No.9963/2016 (GM-RES) DATED 07.02.2023 PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE CAPTIONED APPEAL AND
CONSEQUENTLY ABIDE BY ALL OR ANY COMMUNICATIONS
OR ORDERS PASSED IN FURTHERANCE OF THE
GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 19.02.2016 AND CONFIRMED
IN WP Nos.8109-133/2013 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 13.11.2025 AND COMING
ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU
SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
3
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the order dated 07.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.9963/2016 (GM-RES).
2. We have heard Shri. Achappa P.B, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Shri. Prashanth Chandra S.N, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt. Pramodhini Kishan, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.2.
3. The writ petition had been filed by respondent No.1 herein, cancelling the allotment of a site in his favour. The learned Single Judge found that the order was passed without hearing the petitioner and that the principles of natural justice stood violated. It was held that since the order had the effect of affecting the legal rights of the writ petitioner, it could not have been passed without hearing the petitioner. On these grounds, Annexure-A order dated 19.02.2016 passed by the appellant - Board was set aside. 4
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Government of Karnataka had passed an order dated 24.01.2013 allotting house sites in favour of 43 applicants at Suryanagar Phase-II under the discretionary quota of the Government of Karnataka as enumerated in Rule 9-A Category C of Karnataka Housing Board (Allotment) Regulations, 1983 ('KHB Regulations' for short). The name of respondent No.1 was included at serial No.41 in the said order of allotment. Writ Petitions No.8109- 133/2013 was filed by one Shivakumar and others challenging the Government Order dated 24.01.2013. Respondent No.1 was Respondent No.43 in the said writ petition. While so, a conditional deed for sale was registered in favour of respondent No.1 by the appellant on 04.07.2013. However, on 07.11.2014 the Government passed an Order withdrawing the order dated 24.01.2013. The said fact was submitted before this Court considering Writ Petitions No.8109-133/2013. On 10.11.2014, the writ petitions were disposed of recording the submission that the allotment dated 24.01.2013 had been withdrawn by 5 Government Order dated 07.11.2014. It is submitted that it is in these circumstances that the appellant had taken a decision to cancel the allotment. It is also submitted that Annexure-A was only an office note and this was consequential to the withdrawal of the allotment vide Government Order dated 07.11.2014. It is submitted that the writ petitioner had not challenged the Government Order dated 07.11.2014. It is further submitted that by judgment dated 18.10.2019, passed in Writ Petition No.8340/2018 (PIL), this Court had struck down Categories A and C in Regulation 4 and Category C in Regulation 9-A of the KHB Regulations along with Explanation-A thereto.
5. It is submitted that since the allotment granted to the petitioner stood withdrawn by Government order dated 07.11.2014, there was no right whatsoever available to the writ petitioner and there was no question of hearing him. It is therefore submitted that the finding of the learned Single Judge is completely unjustified and inapplicable to the facts of the case and that the judgment is liable to be set aside. 6
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied on the following citations:-
• Sarwan Kumar and Another v. Madan Lal Aggarwal, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 147; and • The State of Manipur and Others v.
Surjakumar Okram and Others, by Order
dated 01.02.2022 passed in Civil Appeal
Nos.823-827 of 2022.
7. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, on the other hand, contends that after the allotment letter dated 25.01.2013 there was a conditional sale deed registered by the appellant in favour of respondent No.1 herein and that the said Sale Deed had not been cancelled in any manner known to law. It is therefore contended that even if all the contentions of the appellant are accepted, the finding of the learned Single Judge that respondent No.1 ought to have been put on notice and given a chance of hearing before the allotment was cancelled by Annexures-A and D was perfectly legal and valid.
8. We have considered the contentions advanced.
We notice that the allotment in favour of respondent No.1 7 and other similarly situated persons had been made by the Government by its order dated 24.01.2013 in the discretionary quota provided under Category C to Regulation 9 of the KHB Regulations. The said category in the Regulations itself stands set aside by a judgment of this Court dated 18.10.2019 in W.P.No.8340/2018 (PIL). It is also clear that the Government Order of Allotment dated 24.01.2013 has been withdrawn by a later Government Order dated 07.11.2014 which was produced as Annexure-E in the writ petition. There was no challenge to the said Government Order.
9. In the above view of the matter, it is clear that the allotment of the house site to the writ petitioner stood cancelled by the Government which had made the allotment in the first instance. If that be so, the action which was impugned before the learned Single Judge was only consequential to the Government Order and there would have been no purpose whatsoever in putting the writ petitioner on notice and hearing him since there would be no contention that the writ petitioner could have raised in the 8 absence of any allotment at all. The writ petitioner would also have no right to seek any allotment or further the impugned order have not dealt with any right of the writ petitioner since the allotment already stood cancelled in the year 2014. The fact that a conditional sale deed had been executed before cancellation of allotment can make absolutely no difference to the situation.
10. In the above factual situation, we are of the opinion that any hearing which would have been afforded to the petitioner would clearly be a useless formality and in the absence of any allotment in his favour, the appellant could not have taken any decision other than the one already taken even if such hearing had been afforded.
11. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
12. In the result:-
(i) The writ appeal is allowed.
9
(ii) The order dated 07.02.2023 passed by the
learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
No.9963/2016 is set aside.
(iii) Writ Petition No.9963/2016 is dismissed.
All pending interlocutory applications shall stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE cp*