Karnataka High Court
Maralingappa S/O Hanamanth vs The Chairman And Deputy And Anr on 8 December, 2021
Bench: M.I.Arun
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO.221317/2020 (GM-RES)
Between:
Maralingappa S/o Hanamanth,
Age : 47 years, Occ : Legal Practitioner,
R/o C/o SS Patil Devi Nagar,
Behind New Petrol Pump,
Aland Road, Kalaburagi.
... Petitioner
(By Sri Mogha Sudhakar Rao, Advocate)
And:
1. The Chairman,
Kalaburagi Urban Development Authority,
Kalaburagi - 585 102.
2. The Commissioner,
Kalaburagi Urban Development Authority,
Kalaburagi - 585 102.
... Respondents
(By Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of
certiorari quashing the impugned order Annexure-E in
2
No...£À¥ÁæP/À ¤.ºÀA/C©ªÁ/PÉÆÃ-r/717/2015-16/1250 dated 03.12.2019
passed by the respondent No.2.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner was allotted a site by respondent No.2
on 14.03.2016 for a consideration of `1,30,000/-. At the
time of allotment, the petitioner has paid a sum of
`13,050/-. He was required to pay a sum of `1,16,950/-
within 90 days from the date of said allotment. A provision
is made for extension of time for a further period of 30
days upon payment of interest. However, as the petitioner
could not pay any amounts thereafter, the respondent
No.2 has cancelled the allotment of site by its order dated
03.12.2019, which is impugned in the instant writ petition.
2. The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that, the father of the petitioner had a
paralysis stroke and petitioner has got busy in his
treatment and his father died in the year 2019. Thereafter,
he approached the authorities and requested them to
provide time to pay the balance consideration but, the
second respondent without considering his request has
passed the impugned order canceling the allotment.
Hence, the instant writ petition is filed.
3. In his support the petitioner has relied upon
the judgment of this Court passed in Writ Appeal
No.4110/2017. But, in the said decision substantial
amount towards allotment had been made and for that
reason, it has been held that the authorities could not have
cancelled the allotment of site and the writ petitioner was
granted time to deposit the balance consideration of
`7,410/-. In the instant case, out of the allotment price of
`1,30,000/-, only a sum of `13,050/- has been paid and
the aforementioned decision does not come to the rescue
of the petitioner.
4. The petitioner has further relied upon a
judgment passed in Writ Appeal No.200148/2019. In the
said case, the price of the site was enhanced to `200/-
from `80/- per sq.ft. and because of it, there was some
delay in payment of money by the writ petitioner therein.
Further in the said case substantial consideration had been
paid. Hence, additional time was provided by the Court to
make further payments by imposing interest on the
balance due.
5. In the instant case, as already stated above
only a meager amount has been paid and there has been
no enhancement of sale consideration amount and the
facts of this case are completely different from the facts
dealt by the Court in Writ Appeal No.200148/2019.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner was required to pay
the balance consideration amount of `1,16,950/- within
90 days from the date of allotment of site. He was at most
eligible for 30 more days of time as contemplated in the
allotment letter. Not having done so, the action of
respondent No.2 in canceling the allotment of site on
03.12.2019 cannot be found fault with.
7. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ
petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE
sn
