Sri Chandulal V Patel vs The Mysore Urban Development ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11540 Kant

                          1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022

                      PRESENT

            THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
                ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

                        AND

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY

             W.A. NO.93 OF 2022 (LB-RES)
                         IN
         W.P. NOs.23563-565 OF 2018 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

1.     SRI. CHANDULAL V. PATEL
       S/O LATE V.K. PATEL
       AGED 60 YEARS
       R/AT 96/A
       SOUTH POST OFFICE ROAD
       INDUSTRIAL SUB URBANN INDUSTRIAL AREA
       MYSORE (S), MYSORE-570 008.

2.     SMT. DAMAYANTHI C. PATEL
       W/O CHANDULAL PATEL
       AGED 57 YEARS
       R/AT 96/A
       SOUTH POST OFFICE ROAD
       INDUSTRIAL SUB URBAN INDUSTRIAL AREA
       MYSORE (S), MYSORE-570 008.

3.     SRI. GAUTHAM C. PATEL
       S/O CHANDULAL V. PATEL
       AGED 33 YEARS
       R/AT 96/A
       SOUTH POST OFFICE ROAD
                                 2



       INDUSTRIAL SUB URBAN INDUSTRIAL AREA
       MYSORE (S), MYSORE-570 008.

                                               ... APPELLANTS

(BY MR. CHANDRAKANTH R. GOULAY, ADV.,)

AND:

1.     THE MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
       REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
       JHANSI LAXMI BAI ROAD
       MYSORE-570005.

2.     THE REGIONAL OFFICER
       MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
       JHANSI LAXMI BAI ROAD
       MYSORE-570 005.

                                              ... RESPONDENTS
                               ---

       THIS    WRIT   APPEAL    IS    FILED   U/S   4   OF   THE

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE

ORDER DATED 19/11/2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED

SINGLE        JUDGE   IN   WP        NOS.23563-565/018       VIDE

ANNEXURE-A AND TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION.                   PASS

SUCH OTHER ORDER.


       THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING, THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED

THE FOLLOWING:
                                  3



                            JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal has been filed against the

order dated 19.11.2021 passed by learned single

Judge by which writ petition preferred by the

appellant has been dismissed.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal

briefly stated are that the site bearing No.28

measuring 140 x 112 square feet situate at 3rd Stage

Industrial Sub-Urb was allotted to one

P.A.Shreedharan Nair on 16.06.1977. The possession

of the site in question was handed over to the

aforesaid allottee on 12.05.1989. Thereafter, the

Khatha was changed in favour of the allottee on

19.05.2007. After a period of 20 years, the aforesaid

allottee sold the land in favour of the appellant by a

Sale Deed dated 28.06.2013. On 21.01.2014, the

appellant submitted a representation which was

rejected on 05.02.2014. The appellant filed an

application seeking conversion of the site from

industrial to residential purpose to an extent

measuring 140 x 112 square feet on 25.04.2016

under the provisions of Karnataka Town Planning Act,

1961. The appellant thereafter filed a writ petition

seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus to Mysore

Urban Development Authority to allot an additional

area measuring 5460 square feet, which according to

the appellant is deficit in terms of the allotment made

to the vendor of the appellant. The learned Single

Judge has dismissed the writ petition preferred by the

appellant. In the aforesaid factual background, this

appeal has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in

dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant

and it ought to have held that the appellant is entitled

to additional area of 5460 square feet.

4. We have considered the submissions made

by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused

the record. The appellant is not the original allottee of

the site. The site in question was allotted 30 years

ago. The vendor of the appellant did not raise any

grievance with regard to the area of land allotted to

him. The appellant who is a subsequent purchaser

after 30 years from the date of allotment has raised

grievance with regard to the deficit area in terms of

the order of allotment. The appellant with his eye wide

open has purchased the land in question and ought to

have satisfied himself about the measurement of the

property before purchasing the same. The grievance

of the appellant therefore has rightly not been

entertained by the learned Single Judge.

For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find

any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby

dismissed.

Sd/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

SS