Karnataka High Court
The Kalab Urban Development Authority vs Sidharth And Anr on 19 February, 2024
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1615-DB
CCC No. 200217 of 2023
C/W WA No. 200032 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 200217 OF 2023
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 200032 OF 2024 (LB-RES)
CCC NO. 200217 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SIDHARTH S/O PARAMESHWAR,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: ARTIST,
R/O H. NO. 2-21/1 PLOT NO. 26,
RAMESHWAR NAGAR,
DIST: KALABURAGI-585104.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI. MAHESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
RAMESH
MATHAPATI 1. DAYANAND PATIL S/O NOT KNOWN,
Location: HIGH AGE: MAJOR, COMMISSIONER,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA KALABURAGI URBAN
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
NEAR MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
STATION ROAD, KALABURAGI-585102.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA FOR R2;
SRI. NARENDRA M. REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1615-DB
CCC No. 200217 of 2023
C/W WA No. 200032 of 2024
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT OF
COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR HAVING
COMMITTED CONTEMPT OF COURT IN NOT COMPLYING THE
ORDER DATED 19-09-2023 AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT
PETITION NO. 202573/2023 AND TO PUNISH THEM IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO
AWARD COST OF THE PROCEEDINGS.
WA.NO.200032 OF 2024:
BETWEEN:
THE KALABURAGI URBAN
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
REP. BY COMMISSIONER,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
KALABURAGI-585102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NARENDRA M. REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. SIDHARTH S/O PARAMESHWAR,
AGED ABOUT: 51 YEARS, OCC: ARTIST,
R/O H.NO.2-21/1, PLOT NO.26,
RAMESHWAR NAGAR, KALABURAGI-585104.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
RERPESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI. MAHESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.09.2023 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.202573/2023 BY
ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL AND REMAND THE MATTER TO
LEARNED SINGLE FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AND ETC,.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1615-DB
CCC No. 200217 of 2023
C/W WA No. 200032 of 2024
THE CONTEMPT AND WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY B.M.SHYAM PRASAD J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The intra-Court appeal is by the Kalaburagi Urban
Development Authority [for short, the Urban Development
Authority'] calling in question the writ Court's order dated
19.09.2023 in W.P.No.202573/2023, filed by the first
respondent and the contempt proceedings are by the first
respondent alleging deliberate disobedience by the
Commissioner of the Urban Development Authority. The
contesting parties to the proceedings, for reasons of
convenience, are referred to as the Urban Development
Authority and the first respondent.
2. It is undisputed that the Urban Development
Authority has allotted plot bearing No.309 measuring 9x12
mtrs, MSK Mill, Phase-II of Madarasanahalli Housing
Development Project, Kalaburagi in the year 2009 and that
the first respondent has deposited the entire allotment price
way back in the year 2012. The first respondent has filed
his writ petition in W.P.No.202573/2023 contending,
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1615-DB
amongst others, that notwithstanding the aforesaid
circumstances the impugned Endorsement dated
14/16.08.2023 is issued informing him that the allotment,
which is made in the year 2009, is cancelled. The writ
Court, considering the first respondent's grievance as
against this Endorsement dated 14/16.08.2023, has allowed
the writ petition quashing the same in the light of the
decision of a co-ordinate bench of this Court in
W.A.No.50350/2013 directing the Urban Development
Authority to execute the registered sale deed for the plot in
favour of the first respondent.
3. It is submitted in unison that the first
respondent, after the Writ Court's order dated 19.09.2023,
has remitted Rs.1,00,000/- on 13.10.2023. Sri. Mahesh
Patil, the learned counsel for the first respondent, submits
that because the writ Court has disposed of the writ petition
in terms of the orders in W.A.No.50350/2013, which is
disposed of confirming the order dated 31.07.2013 in
W.P.No.88040/2012, it was incumbent upon the first
respondent to deposit such amount.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1615-DB
4. Sri. Narendra Reddy, the learned counsel for the
Urban Development Authority, submits that the Authority is
aggrieved by the writ Court's order dated 19.09.2023
because the writ Court has failed to consider the first
respondent's liability to pay interest in the event the
allotment price is deposited belatedly, and he also fairly
submits that with the decision of a coordinate bench of this
Court on 06.12.2023 in W.A.No.200147/2019, the Urban
Development Authority cannot canvas that it is vested with
the necessary jurisdiction under Rule 19 of the Karnataka
Urban Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules,
2005 [Allotment of Site Rules] to cancel the allotment. Sri.
Narendra Reddy places on record a copy of the decision
dated 06.12.2023.
5. Indeed, this would be the resultant procedure,
but this Court, on reading of the provisions of Rule 19 of the
Allotment of Sites Rules, must also opine that the Urban
Development Authority is not entirely divested of the power
to cancel the allotment and such jurisdiction can be
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1615-DB
exercised after the lease-cum-sale agreement is executed
and if there is failure to comply with the terms of the
lease/Rules within the timelines contemplated under Rule
19(6). These provisions read as hereunder:
"(6) The allottee shall construct a building
within a period of five years from the date of
execution of the agreement or such extended period
as the authority may in any specified case by
written order permit. If the building is not
constructed within the said period the allotment
may after reasonable notice to the allottee be
cancelled, the agreement revoked, the lease
determined and the allottee evicted from the site by
the authority and after forfeiting twelve and half
per cent of the value of the site paid by the allottee
the authority shall refund the balance to the
allottee."
6. If the Urban Development Authority cannot
source its jurisdiction to the provisions under the Allotment
of Site Rules to cancel the allotment, it cannot be aggrieved
by the Writ Court's order especially because the first
respondent has admittedly deposited the allotment price way
back in the year 2012 without the Urban Development
Authority taking any action. This Court must also observe
that, notwithstanding any justification that could now be
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1615-DB
offered by the Urban Development Authority, in the absence
of notice to the first respondent to pay interest for belated
payment, the first respondent cannot be directed to pay
interest as now contended. Further the first respondent
would be better placed than the allottees in the proceedings
that has culminated with the corresponding orders of the
Division Bench in W.A.No.200147/2019 or in
W.A.No.50350/2013. The first respondent has also
established bonafides in depositing Rs.1,00,000/-
immediately after the Writ Court's order.
7. Sri. Mahesh Patil when queried submits that the
first respondent would ensure construction of the building
in the plot within five years if the sale deed is executed as
directed by the writ Court, and then this Court must also
observe that the direction for execution of the sale deed,
instead of a lease-cum-sale deed, is only in the peculiarities
of this case. As such, no interference is called for with the
writ Court's order dated order dated 19.09.2023 in
W.P.No.202573/2023. As regards compliance with the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1615-DB
directions to execute the sale deed in favour of the first
respondent, this Court is of the considered view that such
sale deed must be executed by the Urban Development
Authority in favour of the first respondent within a period of
[8] eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this order. It is needless to observe that the first respondent
will have to comply with all the formalities as may be
required.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
MSR
CT: CS
