Karnataka High Court
The Kalaburagi Urban Development ... vs N. Renukadevi Prasad And Anr on 8 February, 2022
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar, K S Hemalekha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
WRIT APPEAL NO.200068/2021 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
The Kalaburagi Urban Development Authority,
Represented by its Commissioner,
Kalaburagi-585 102.
... Appellant
(By Sri. Ananth S. Jahagirdar, Advocate)
AND:
1. Smt. N. Renukadevi Prasad
W/o Late Sri.Revansiddappa,
Aged about 64 years, Occ: Household,
R/o House No.911/4/6, 1st Floor,
Sarvodayanagar, Rajapur,
Shahabad Road,
Kalaburagi-585 105.
2. The State of Karnataka
Represented by its Secretary
Urban Development Department,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bengaluru-560 001.
... Respondents
(Sri. Mahesh Patil, Advocate for C/R1;
Sri. Mallikarjun C. Basareddy, HCGP for R2)
2
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the High Courts
Act, praying to allow the appeal and set aside the final order dated
19.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.226671/2020 (GM-RES) and to pass any such appropriate
orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
This appeal coming on for orders this day,
K.S. Hemalekha J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act is filed by the Kalaburagi Urban Development
Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'KUDA' for brevity),
assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated
19.11.2020 in Writ Petition No.226671/2020 allowing the
petition and directing the KUDA to consider the representation
of the petitioner within prescribed period.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking in the writ petition.
3. The petitioner filed the writ petition seeking for
writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent (KUDA) to
consider the representation dated 11.03.2020 and to execute
sale deed in the favour of the petitioner in respect of the
allotted site No.130 measuring 50 X 80 feet in Bapugowda
Darshnapur Badepur Stage-II Layout, Kalaburagi.
4. The husband of the petitioner was allotted site
bearing No.130 measuring 50 x 80 feet in Bapugowda
Darshnapur Badepur Stage-II Layout, Kalaburagi by the
KUDA way back in the year 1998 for valuable consideration of
Rs.1,86,000/-. The husband of the petitioner on different dates
has deposited the amount with the KUDA. This being so, it is
contended that though the amount has been deposited as per
the allotment and communication were addressed to the
KUDA to execute the sale deed, the KUDA has not executed
the sale deed for the one or other reason best known to them.
5. It is unfortunate that the husband of the petitioner
died on 23.03.2019 without being able to get execution of sale
deed in his favour. Even after the death of the husband of the
petitioner, representation was given by the petitioner for
execution of the sale deed in her favour in view of the
allotment in the year 1998. In spite of this, the KUDA has not
taken the representation of the petitioner into consideration for
execution of the sale deed. Hence, having no alternative, the
petitioner has filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus
directing the KUDA to consider the representation and
execute the sale deed in respect of the allotted site No.130.
6. The learned Single Judge in a well considered
order directed the KUDA to consider the representation in
accordance with law within certain time framed.
7. The KUDA, aggrieved by the direction issued by
the learned Single Judge has preferred this appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant,
learned counsel for caveator/respondent No.1 and learned
High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2.
9. Sri. Ananth S. Jahagirdar, learned counsel for the
appellant would contend that the order of direction to consider
the representation of the petitioner to execute a sale deed is
without considering the fact that from 1998 till the death of the
husband of the petitioner in the year 2019, the husband of the
petitioner has never sought for execution of the sale deed and
it is further contended that the deposit amount of
Rs.1,39,500/- by the husband of the petitioner is not as per the
allotment letter within the stipulated time. On this grounds, the
appellant sought to allow the appeal.
10. Per contra, Sri. Mahesh Patil, learned counsel for
caveator/respondent No.1 would justify the order of the
learned Single Judge and contend that the appeal by the
KUDA is just to prolong the execution of the sale deed in
favour of the writ petitioner/respondent No.1.
11. A careful perusal of the order of the learned
Single Judge and the material on record clearly depicts that
the husband of the petitioner was allotted the site way back in
the year 1998 and the entire sale consideration has been paid
by the husband of the petitioner. In spite of the terms and
conditions of the allotment letter being already complied, the
KUDA has not executed the sale deed in favour of the
husband of the petitioner during his life time. The KUDA
should have been more diligent in such cases where there is
allotment, entire sale consideration paid and all the terms of
the allotment has been complied and it should not make a
citizen to fight by approaching this Court.
12. The widow having knocked the door of this Court
and in view of the undisputed fact and circumstances of the
case stated supra, we are of the considered view that the
order of the learned Single Judge does not call for any
interference by this Court and the present appeal filed by the
Kalaburagi Urban Development Authority is devoid of merits
and is liable to be dismissed.
13. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ appeal is dismissed.
ii) The order dated 19.11.2020 passed in
W.P.No.226671/2020 by the learned Single
Judge is hereby affirmed.
iii) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMP/LG
