Karnataka High Court
Sri Range Gowda Subedar C vs Mysuru Urban Development ... on 1 June, 2021
Author: Alok Aradhe Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.A. NO.744 OF 2014 (LB-RES)
IN
W.P. NO.24060 OF 2010 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RANGE GOWDA SUBEDAR C
DEAD BY LR'S.
1. GOWRAMMA
W/O LATE RANGE GOWDA SUBEDAR C
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
2. SMT. THANUJA R
D/O LATE RANGE GOWDA SUBEDAR C
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
3. SRI. HARISH KUMAR R
S/O LATE RANGE GOWDA SUBEDAR C
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/O
NO.155, 9TH CROSS
NEAR MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA
KUVEMPU NAGAR
HASSAN-573201.
... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. K.R. LINGARAJU, ADV.,)
2
AND:
MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD
MYSORE-570 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY MR. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADV.,)
---
THIS W.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN
THE WRIT PETITION NO.24060/2010 DATED 05.08.2013.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In this intra court appeal under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 the appellant has
assailed the validity of the order dated 05.08.2013
passed by the learned Single Judge.
2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly
stated are that original appellant late Rangegowda was
allotted a site bearing No.1406 measuring 40x 60 feet at
Hanchya and Sathagally 'A' Zone by the Mysore Urban
Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Authority' for short) under the category of ex-
servicemen. It is the case of the appellants that after
order of allotment the authority failed to communicate
the letter of allotment to the original appellant and the
fact of allotment of the site was not within the
knowledge of original appellant. The original appellant
derived knowledge about the factum of allotment of site
in first week of February 2005. Thereupon the original
appellant made representations on 21.02.2005 and
17.03.2005 to the authority, in which request was made
to issue order of allotment and to receive balance
consideration. However, the authority issued an order of
cancellation of allotment made in favour of the original
appellant by an order dated 29.03.2005.
3. The original appellant again approached the
authority by submitting a representation dated
05.07.2005 in which request was made to re-allot the
site. The aforesaid request was rejected by the authority
by an endorsement dated 25.07.2005. The original
appellant thereafter approached the State Government.
It is the case of the original appellant that the State
Government by an order dated 03.05.2006 directed the
authority to re-allot the site in favour of the appellant on
receipt of the balance consideration and to execute the
sale deed. However, no action was taken by the
authority. The appellant therefore, filed a writ petition
before the learned Single Judge, in which prayer was
made for quashment of the order of cancellation of the
allotment dated 29.03.2005 and a direction was sought
to the authority to re-allot the site to the original
appellant on receipt of the balance consideration. The
aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by a common
order dated 05.08.2013 by the learned Single Judge. In
the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been
filed.
4. Learned counsel for the authority at the
outset submitted that the learned Single Judge disposed
of a batch of writ petitions in which similar grievance
was made with regard to cancellation of allotment. The
petitioners in W.P.Nos.19396-398/2014 had challenged
the aforesaid order in a writ appeal before division
bench of this court and division bench of this court by
judgment dated 06.04.2017 had relegated the
appellants therein to the alternative remedy of Section
66 of Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act,
1987. Our attention has also been invited to order dated
16.08.2016 passed by Supreme Court in SLP©
No.9936/2014 which has been disposed of with the
liberty to the authority to raise all the contentions before
the revisional authority. It is also pointed out that
pursuant to aforesaid orders, the other allotees have
filed the revision petitions before the revisional
authority, which are being heard by it.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has not
disputed the aforesaid aspect of the matter. However, it
is submitted that the order of allotment was not
communicated to the original appellant and therefore,
he could not have complied with the terms and
conditions contained in the order of allotment with
regard to payment of consideration. It is further
submitted that the order passed by the learned Single
Judge be set aside and a direction be given to the
authority to allot a site to the appellants on receipt of
the balance consideration.
6. We have considered the submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
record. It is not in dispute that the order passed by the
learned Single Judge dated 05.08.2013 has been upheld
by the division bench of this court by an order dated
06.04.2017 passed in W.A.Nos.6072-6074/2015 at the
instance of some of the petitioners before the learned
Single Judge. The aforesaid order has been passed by
the division bench by placing reliance on the order dated
26.07.2016 passed by the Supreme Court. The relevant
extract of the order reads as under:
4. Our attention has been drawn by the
learned Advocates appearing for the parties,
that the Supreme Court of India on July 26,
2016, in a batch of special leave petitions, set
aside the order of the division bench, which
has been the basis of the order impugned.
The parties were granted liberty to urge all
factual and legal contentions available in law
before the revisional authority and the
revisional authority was directed to consider
the same in accordance with law.
5. Therefore, the impugned order is set
aside. Liberty is granted t the writ petitions to
file a revisional application before the
revisional authority under the provisions of
the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities
Act, 1987, by two weeks.
6. If such an application is filed, the
revisional authority shall consider the matter
in accordance with law. We express no
opinion on the merits.
7. In view of the aforesaid order of the division
bench, which has been passed in the light of the order
dated 26.07.2016 passed in a batch of special leave
petitions, passed by the Supreme Court, we set aside
the order dated 05.08.2013 in writ petition W.P.
NO.24060 OF 2010 (LB-RES) with the liberty to the
appellants to move the revisional authority. Needless to
state that in case, such an application is filed within six
weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the
order passed today, the revisional authority shall
consider the matter in accordance with law. It is made
clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the claim of the rival parties.
In the result, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
