The Karnataka High Court partly allowed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the entire proceedings culminating into a resolution dated 28.05.2005 issued by respondent no.1 the commissioner as null and void. The Court observed that no such retention could have been allowed to be permitted in respect of the site which had already been allotted to the vendor of the petitioner and a right title interest created in favor of the vendor of the petitioner who has transferred it to the petitioner.
Brief Facts:
The erstwhile CITB Mysore formed a layout. One Sri. Channachari was allotted site No.526 in the said extension. He sold the site to Janab Mohammed Thayab who in turn sold it to one Mr. Srinivas. There being certain issues with the said site, said Mr. Srinivas made an application for allotment of an alternative site in pursuance of which site No.315 was allotted to him. He sold the said site to the petitioner under a registered sale deed. Respondent No.6 on account of alleged interference by the petitioner was constrained to file a suit for permanent injunction. Respondent No.6 contended that site No.315 did not exist.
The petitioner was informed that a resolution released 17 guntas of land in favor of the landowners and as such allotment of the site in his favor was brought into question by way of a resolution dated 28.5.2005. It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the said resolution.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that once there was an allotment made in favor of the petitioner’s vendors, the question of the said property being allowed to be retained by a land looser would not arise and the prior interest of the petitioner could not be superseded by way of such retention.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that there is no fault on the part of respondent No.6 in as much as it is a MUDA that had permitted the retention of 17 guntas with the landowners. As such, the interest of respondent No.6 and his wife would have to be protected and the lapses on the part of the officers of MUDA cannot be permitted to adversely affect respondent No.6 and his wife.
The Court noted that the allotment of site No.315 in favor of the vendor or the petitioners was made prior to the permission granted by the MUDA to the landowners to retain the said 17 guntas. It was required of the officials of MUDA to verify at that particular point of time, if the areas which had been permitted to be retained by the landowners had been allotted to a 3rd party or not.
The Court observed that no such retention could have been allowed to be permitted in respect of the site which had already been allotted to the vendor of the petitioner and a right title interest created in favor of the vendor of the petitioner who has transferred it to the petitioner.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, partly allowing the petition, held that the impugned resolution dated 28.5.2005 permitting retention of 1/3rd out of the extent of 1.12 acres cannot be found fault with but the said resolution cannot affect the allotment made to the vendor of the petitioner.
Case Title: Riyaz Pasha v. The Commissioner & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Suraj Govindaraj
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 19777 OF 2017 (LB-RES)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. M R Vijaya Kumar
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. T P Vivekananda
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
