Karnataka High Court
Mysore Urban Development ... vs Smt Saraswathamma on 22 November, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A. NO.1403 OF 2021 (LB-RES)
IN
W.P.No.31728 OF 2013 (LB-RES)
C/W
W.A. CROB. NO.1 OF 2022
IN
W.A. NO.1403 OF 2021 (LB-RES)
IN W.A. No.1403 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REP. BY ITS COMMISIONER
J L B ROAD, MYSORE.
... APPELLANT
(BY MS/MRS. POONAM S. PATIL, ADV.,)
AND:
SMT. SARASWATHAMMA
W/O (L) RAMADASU
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT NO.E.W.S. 106
1ST STAGE, K.H.B. COLONY
KUVEMPUNAGR, MANDYA-571401.
... RESPONDENT
(BY MR. K.R. LINGARAJU, ADV.,)
2
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 21.10.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.31728/2013 VIDE ANNEXURE - A
TO THE EXTENT OF DIRECTING THE APPLICANT AUTHORITY
TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE RESPONDENT FOR
ALLOTMENT OF SITE ON SYMPATHETIC GROUNDS. GRANT
SUCH OTHER ORDER AND FURTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON
BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
IN W.A. CROB. NO.1 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SMT. SARASWATHAMMA
W/O LATE RAMADASU
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT NO.E.W.S. 106
1ST STAGE, K.H.B. COLONY
KUVEMPUNAGAR, MANDYA 571401.
... CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY MR. K.R. LINGARAJU, ADV.,)
AND:
THE COMMISSIONER
MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
J.L.B. ROAD, MYSURU-570005.
... RESPONDENT
(BY MS/MRS. POONAM S. PATIL, ADV.,)
---
THIS W.A. CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22
OF CPC., R/W SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
21/10/2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
WRIT PETITION NO.31728/2013 (LB-RES) AND BY ALLOWING
THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR. GRANT SUCH OTHER
3
RELIEF OR RELIEFS INCLUDING THE COSTS OF THE
PROCEEDINGS.
THIS W.A. C/W W.A. CROB COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Smt.Poonam S.Patil, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Mr.K.R.Lingaraju, learned counsel for the
respondent.
This intra Court appeal as well as cross-
objection arises from a common order dated
21.10.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in a
writ petition.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal as well
as cross-objection in a nutshell are that on
05.08.1991, the husband of the respondent / cross-
objector submitted an application for allotment of site
measuring 40 x 60 feet to Mysore Urban Development
Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority').
Thereafter, the husband of the respondent / cross-
objector expired on 24.12.1999. The Authority, by a
communication dated 08.09.2000, called upon the
husband of respondent / cross-objector to produce
the caste certificate. Instead of bringing the factum of
death to the notice of the Authority, the son of the
respondent by suppressing the fact that husband of
respondent was no more, filed a representation
enclosing the caste certificate for issuance of letter of
allotment. On the basis of the reminders sent by post
to the husband of the respondent, the Authority learnt
that the husband of the respondent infact has expired
as endorsement was received in the postal shara that
addressee has expired. The Authority, by an order
dated 31.01.2005, cancelled the allotment made in
favour of husband of the respondent on the ground
that the entire balance amount of Rs.1,43,650/- was
not paid to the Authority.
3. The respondent filed a writ petition on
16.07.2013 in which order of cancellation of allotment
which was passed on 31.01.2005, was challenged
after an inordinate delay of 8 years. The learned
Single Judge, however by an order dated 21.10.2020,
has disposed of the writ petition with a direction to
the Authority to sympathetically consider the case of
the respondent for allotment of site subject to
respondent's complying with the schedule of payment.
In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal as
well as cross-objection have been filed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties at length. The conduct of the respondent
infact does not entitle to any relief. After the death of
her husband, the respondent ought to have brought
the factum of death to the notice of the Authority.
However, instead of doing so, her son, without
disclosing the factum of death of his father, submitted
a caste certificate. The Authority noticed from the
subsequent reminders issued for making balance of
payment, that the husband of respondent has expired.
Thereafter, on account of non-payment of balance
amount of Rs.1,43,650/-, the allotment made in
favour of the husband of respondent was cancelled by
an order dated 31.01.2005. The aforesaid allotment
was challenged belatedly by the respondent in a writ
petition after a period of 8 years. The conduct of the
respondent therefore disentitles her to any relief in
exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. However, despite the
aforesaid fact, the learned Single Judge had shown
indulgence and had directed the Authority to consider
the claim of the respondent sympathetically. In
compliance of the aforesaid directions issued by the
learned Single Judge, the Authority has already
issued an order dated 16.12.2021. The aforesaid
order has not been assailed by the respondent.
Therefore, in view of aforesaid subsequent event, no
effective relief can be granted to the respondent either
in this appeal or the cross-objection preferred by her.
5. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal as
well as cross-objection is disposed of with liberty to
the respondent to assail the order dated 16.12.2021 if
so advised, in accordance with law.
6. In view of disposal of the appeal, the pending
interlocutory application does not survive for
consideration and is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RV
