Sri H R Vijay Kumar vs The Commissioner
2022 Latest Caselaw 4831 Kant

                            1




  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

       WRIT PETITION NO.55111 OF 2015(LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI.H.R.VIJAY KUMAR,
S/O SRI. H. RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1737, 6TH A MAIN,
HAMPPINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 104.               ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. M L GOWDA, ADVOCATE(ABSENT))

AND:

1. THE COMMISSIONER,
   MYSORE URBAN DEPARTMENT AUTHORITY(MUDA),
   JLB ROAD, MYSORE - 570 010.

2. THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
   MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
   MYSORE - 570 010.

3. THE PRESIDENT,
   MADHUVANA HOUSE BUILDING
   CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
   NO.23/A, PALACE MODEL HOUSE,
   INDIRANAGAR, MYSORE - 570 010.          ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SIDDARTHA H M, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
  R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
                                   2



     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE
PETITIONER AND TO EXECUTE THE REGISTERED SALE DEED IN
RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF
PETITIONER.

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING-B
GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                              ORDER

Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus for consideration of his

representations dated 4.3.2003, 19.9.2005 22.10.2005,

15.12.2005, 21.2.2006 and 20.11.2015 respectfully at Annexures

F1 to F8 wherein he has sought for execution & registration of the

Sale Deed at the hands of the respondent-MUDA; the said

representations having been remained unconsidered, he has filed

the Writ Petition on 7.12.2015.

2. After service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 & 2 have

entered appearance through their Panel Counsel and they chosen

not to file the Statement of Objections controverting the petition

averments; however, the learned Panel Counsel wants to make

some 'extempore speech' in the court which cannot be taken

cognizance of law being what it is; the third respondent Housing

Society has remained unrepresented despite service of notice;

strangely counsel for the petitioner is also absent; be that as it

may; this nearly seven years old matter was taken up for

consideration.

3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for MUDA

and having perused the Petition Papers, this court is inclined to

grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following

reasons:

(a) It has been a consistent view of the Apex Court and of

this court that when a citizen airs his grievance, the respondent-

authorities more particularly those which have been established

under the Statute are bound to consider the same, and inform him

the result of such consideration; this having not happened till date

i.e., for about two decades, petitioner has rightly approached this

court seeking redressal of his grievance.

(b) As already mentioned above, the respondent-MUDA

which admittedly has executed the Lease cum Sale and issued

Possession Certificate, has not executed the Sale Deed and orally it

is submitted that the subject site is in a Civic Amenity area of the

layout concerned and therefore, its hands are tied; there is

absolutely no material produced in support of the said contention.

(c) The contention that the site comprised in the Lease cum

Sale and Possession Certificate, is situate in the Civic Amenity area

of the layout, cannot be sustained inasmuch as the MUDA being the

Statutory Authority having swallowed money of the petitioner

citizen, cannot now turn around and refuse to grant sale deed

without taking any action for the cancellation of Lease cum Sale;

ours is a welfare governance; the acts of statutory authorities have

to reflect elements of justice; they cannot act as a band of robbers

in taking citizens money and keeping it under their pillow; even at

this stage, there is no suggestion that the MUDA would consider the

allotment of alternate site of equal market value; this compounds

the incongruity involved in the action challenged.

(d) The counsel for the respondent-MUDA was given an

opportunity to explain as to why exemplary cost should not be

imposed; he submits that the prayer of petitioner is only for

consideration of subject representations and that the MUDA is ready

& willing to do so; this court does not agree with this lame

explanation inasmuch as since 4.3.2003, this has not happened;

petitioner is put to tremendous trouble inasmuch as he is driven to

court unjustifiably and he has spent about more than seven years

in the pendency of his case for no fault of his; therefore, this court

is of a considered opinion that the respondent-MUDA should be

imposed with a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only,

which it should pay to the petitioner, forthwith and recover it from

it's erring officials since public money cannot be spent for the fault

of officials.

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds; a

Writ of Mandamus issues to respondent Nos.1 & 2 to consider

petitioner's subject representations and execute a regular Sale

Deed and register it within a period of four weeks from the date, a

copy of this judgment is filed in their office, failing which for delay

of each day, Rs.1,000/- shall be payable by the incumbent of the

office of the Commissioner to the petitioner personally.

The first respondent is levied with a cost of Rs.1,00,000/-

(Rupees One Lakh) only, which on payment to the petitioner, may

be recovered from the erring officials; time for payment is four

weeks, if delay is brooked, it will attract another sum of Rs.500/-

per day by way of additional cost.

Registry shall send a copy of this judgment to the petitioner

by Speed Post since petitioners' counsel is absent.

Sd/-

JUDGE

cbc