Karnataka High Court
Smt. Parvathamma vs State Of Karnataka on 6 December, 2023
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44229
WP No. 16778 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 16778 OF 2023 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. PARVATHAMMA,
W/O LATE B.K. PARAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
PLOT NO. 3, OXIGEN HASIRU APARTMENT,
NO. 36, 2ND CROSS ROAD,
GOKULAM 3RD STAGE,
MYSURU - 570 002.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.R. LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
Digitally signed VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. B. R. AMBEDHKAR ROAD,
by
NARAYANAPPA BENGALURU - 560 001.
LAKSHMAMMA
Location: HIGH 2. THE CHAIRMAN,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
J.L.B. ROAD, MYSURU - 570 005.
3. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
J.L.B. ROAD, MYSURU - 570 005.
4. THE SPECIAL THASILDAR,
ZONAL OFFICE - 3,
MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTORITY,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44229
WP No. 16778 of 2023
J.L.B. ROAD, MYSURU - 570 005.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA , AGA FOR R1;
SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. MYNAPRA / VITHA-3/2023-24 DATED
13/06/2023 ISSUED BY R3 AND RESOLUTION DATED 13/03/2023
PASSED BY THE R2 AND R3 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
(a) Issue a Writ or Order in the nature of certiorari
quashing the endorsement bearing No.
MYNAPRA/VITHA-3/2023-24 dated 13/06/2023 issued
by respondent No.3 and Resolution dated 13/03/2023
passed by the respondent No. 2 and 3 vide Annexure A
and B.
(b) Issue a Writ or Order in the Nature of mandamus
directing the Respondent No.3 to execute registered
Sale deed of the site bearing No. 1269 measuring "50 *
80" feet in layout known as Vijayanagar 4th Stage, 2nd
Phase, Mysuru, absolutely in favour of Petitioner in
terms of orders in writ petition No. 29845/2014 and
connected cases dated 03/01/2017, which order is
affirmed in writ appeal No. 4111/2017 dated
20/06/2017, and in writ petition No. 10077/2021 dated
16/07/2021 vide Annexure - L2, L3 and L6.
(c) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case
including the cost of the proceedings, so as to meet the
ends of justice and equity.
NC: 2023:KHC:44229
2. The petitioner's husband had applied for allotment of a
site measuring "50 x 80" feet in the layout known as
Vijayanagar 4th Stage, 2nd Phase Mysuru, Mysuru Urban
Development Authority (MUDA) on 31.07.1998. Though
the petitioner's husband did not make payment of the
entire amount within the time prescribed, the submission
is made that the entire amount had been paid by
27.09.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner's husband had
called upon the MUDA to execute a sale deed in favour of
the petitioner, which was not acted upon. Subsequently,
it was contended that the allotment made in favour of the
petitioner had been cancelled, and as such, it is only the
Government which could take necessary action in respect
thereto, and as such, it is in that background that the
petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid
reliefs.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon a
decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated
18.01.2012 in W.P.No.34613/2010 and other connected
matters submits that this Court having taken cognizance
of the affidavit filed in W.A.No.499/2011, wherein it is
NC: 2023:KHC:44229
stated that the Government has issued necessary
instructions on 23.04.2007 and 04.03.2008 to the
Commissioner, MUDA to consider the allotment of a site
to the applicants who had paid full sital value along with
the interest on humanitarian ground as a one time
measure has came to a conclusion that where the sital
value along with interest had been paid prior to 2003 sale
deeds to be executed.
4. It is also stated that the Government vide order dated
10.12.2009 had directed the Commissioner, MUDA not to
consider and submit such proposal which were not in
confirmatory with Rule 19 of the Rules and further taking
into consideration the circular dated 04.02.2011 was
issued by the Government directing all the Urban
Development Authorities in Karnataka to strictly abide by
the provisions any such in the said rules had come to a
conclusion that the petitioners therein have paid the
entire amount along with interest prior to the year 2003
could not be denied with the benefit of a execution of a
sale deed and had therefore, directed the MUDA to
NC: 2023:KHC:44229
execute necessary sale deeds in respect of the petitioner
therein.
5. He submits that the said order would be equally
applicable to the petitioner whose husband had made
payment of the entire amount prior to the year 2002 and
stands in the same circumstances the petitioners in
W.P.No.34613/2010 and as such, on these grounds, he
submits that the petition is required to be allowed and
reliefs sought for to be granted.
6. Sri. T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for the
MUDA/respondent Nos.2 to 4 would submit that the
Commissioner, MUDA, does not have any power to
revoke the cancellation already made of the allotment
and it is for the State to pass necessary orders in relation
thereto. In that background, he submits that the letters
have been written to the State Government permitting
the MUDA to consider the request made by the petitioner
post the expiry of her husband. In that background, he
submits that it is for the State to take a decision, and
MUDA cannot take necessary decision on its own to
execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner.
NC: 2023:KHC:44229
7. Though at first blush the submission made by Sri.
T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel appears to be in terms
of the applicable law, this Court has considered these
very aspects in its judgment dated 18.01.2012 in
W.P.No.34613/2010 and come to a conclusion that
whenever payments have been made both of the
principal and interest prior to 2003, the same would have
to be considered on a humanitarian basis and the persons
who had made such payments cannot be denied the sites.
In my considered opinion, the said decision would be
equally applicable to the present case, the petitioner
having made payment of the amounts prior to 2002. As
such, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed, a certiorari is issued the
endorsement bearing No.MYNAPRA/VITHA-3/2023-
24 dated issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3 at
Annexures-A and B are quashed.
(ii) A Mandamus is issued directing respondent No.3 to
execute a registered lease cum sale agreement in
NC: 2023:KHC:44229
favour of the petitioner in respect of a site allotted
to him and on compliance with the requirements of
lease cum sale agreement to execute necessary
sale deed in favour of the petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GJM
