Karnataka High Court
Dayanand vs Belagavi on 5 June, 2024
-1-
W.P.No.104038/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 104038 OF 2016 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
DAYANAND S/O. NARASING GALLE,
AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED,
R/O. C/O. SMT. RAJASHRI KAMBLE, PLOT NO.33,
SECTOR NO.5, M.M. EXTENSION, SHREE NAGAR,
BELAGAVI, TQ: BELAGAVI-590016.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C.V. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BELAGAVI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
ASHOK NAGAR, BELAGAVI-560016,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.B. SHAIKH, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY SUITABLE WRIT OR ORDER, THEREBY
QUASHING ORDER OF CANCELLATION OF ALLOTMENT BEARING
NO.¨É£À¥Áæ/¤ºÀ/AiÉÆÃ35/¤-1533:05-06/5190 BELAGAVI ¢.01.02.2006
(ANNEXURE-G) ISSUED BY R1 AND THE ORDER OF REJECTION
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 BEARING NO. ¨É£À¥Áæ/¤ºÀA/AiÉÆÃ35/
¤-1533/2015-16/5226 ¢.20.02.2016 (ANNEXURE-J) AND ETC.
-2-
W.P.No.104038/2016
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDER ON 04.06.2024 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner, a retired schoolteacher and a
handicapped person, submitted an application for the
allotment of a residential site to Respondent No. 1-
Authority. In response, Respondent No.1 allotted Site
No.1533, measuring 30x40 ft², as per the allotment
letter dated 14.05.2004. The total consideration amount
was fixed at ₹69,600/-. The petitioner paid an advance
amount of ₹1,800/- along with the application form and
was required to pay the balance amount of ₹67,800/-
within 30 days. The petitioner subsequently paid
₹50,000/- on 05.06.2004 and the remaining amount of
₹17,900/- on 17.10.2004.
2. The petitioner has claimed that despite facing significant
financial difficulties and the logistical challenges of being
a government teacher who had to move frequently, he
managed to mobilize the entire allotment price with
great effort. However, Respondent No. 1, without giving
the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, issued an
order of cancellation of the allotment on 01.02.2006.
3. Respondent No. 1 filed a statement of objection arguing
that the petitioner was required to pay ₹67,800/- within
30 days of the allotment letter. Since the petitioner
failed to deposit the amount within the stipulated
timeframe, Respondent No.1 was within its rights to
cancel the allotment. Respondent No.1 further stated
that during a meeting held on 29.04.2006, a decision
was made to reconsider the allotment, and the
petitioner was called upon to pay an additional sum of
₹3,600/- within 30 days. Despite this extension, the
petitioner did not pay the balance amount, and thus,
Respondent No.1 contends that no interference by the
court is warranted.
4. Upon hearing the counsel for both the petitioner and the
respondent, and giving anxious consideration to the
material placed on record, it is evident that the
petitioner has paid the entire sital value. The records
also show that the petitioner, being a government
teacher, faced extreme difficulties but managed to
mobilize the sital value and paid it to Respondent No.1,
which is not disputed.
5. The petitioner produced additional documents detailing
the availability of sites with Respondent No. 1. The
petitioner requested the court to take cognizance of
these available sites. Respondent No.1 countered that
the sites indicated by the petitioner are neither corner
sites nor stray sites. The object of establishing the
Urban Development Authority is to provide sites to
needy individuals. In a cited case, in W.A.No.6213/2009
(LB-Res), the Division Bench took a lenient view when
the allottee had deposited only 10% of the sale
consideration and affirmed the judgment of the Single
Judge, who set aside the order of cancellation of the
allotment. In the present case, the petitioner is in a
better position as he has deposited the entire sale
consideration, with only a delay of 33 days in paying a
portion of the amount. There is no rebuttal by
Respondent No.1 regarding the availability of sites.
6. The housing projects for needy people initiated by Urban
Development Authorities in Karnataka are instrumental
in addressing the housing needs of economically weaker
sections and low-income groups. By providing
affordable, quality sites with essential amenities, these
projects aim to improve the living conditions of the
urban poor and promote inclusive urban development.
Through continued efforts and innovative schemes,
Urban Development Authorities strive to ensure that
every citizen has access to a safe and decent home.
7. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this court
is bound to do substantial justice. Therefore, the order
of cancellation of allotment issued by Respondent No.1
is liable to be interfered with. It is clear from the records
that the petitioner has fulfilled his obligation by paying
the entire sale consideration, albeit with a delay, which
in the interest of justice, should be condoned.
Respondent No.1 is directed to allot an alternate site to
the petitioner within three months from the date of this
order, thereby ensuring that the petitioner is not unduly
deprived of his rightful allotment.
8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the
following:
ORDER
i) The order of cancellation of allotment
dated 01.02.2006 is hereby set aside.
ii) Respondent No.1 is directed to allot an
alternate site to the petitioner within
three months from the date of this
order.
iii) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
YAN
