Karnataka High Court
The Gulbarga Urban Development ... vs Sri Sadananda And Anr on 6 March, 2024
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1982-DB
WA No.200032 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO.200032 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE GULBARGA URBAN
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI ANANTH S. JAHAGIRDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI SADANANDA
S/O SHIVANAND HIREMATH
Digitally signed by
VARSHA N AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RASALKAR
Location: HIGH
R/O C/O BAPUGOUDA BIRADAR,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HOUSE NO.1-791, OPP: P.W.D. OFFICE
OLD JEWARGI ROAD
KALABURAGI - 585 101.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKAS SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RATNA N. SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI VIRANAGOUDA M. BIRADAR, AGA FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1982-DB
WA No.200032 of 2021
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER DATED 03.08.2020
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
W.P.NO.201471/2019 (GM-RES).
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the Gulbarga Urban
Development Authority under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act, challenging the order dated 03.08.2020
passed in W.P.No.201471/2019 whereby the Writ Petition
filed by the respondent No.1/petitioner is allowed directing
the appellant authority to execute the lease cum sale deed
in respect of site No.121 measuring 9x12 meters at MSK
Mill II-Stage Residential Layout (Madarasanahalli),
Kalaburagi city within 30 days from the date of receipt of
copy of the order dated 03.08.2020.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1982-DB
2. The brief facts of the case are that:
The appellant had allotted a residential site at MSK
II-Stage (Madarasanahalli) Layout to the respondent
No.1/petitioner in terms of letter of allotment dated
02/19.09.2011 at an allotment price of Rs.2,40,000/-. The
respondent No.1/petitioner had paid initial deposit of
Rs.9,600/- and Rs.50/- towards lease cum sale
agreement. As per Rule 19(1) of the Karnataka Urban
Development Authorities (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites)
Rules, 1991 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the
Rules, 1991'), the balance allotment price of Rs.2,30,350/-
was to be paid within 90 days. The respondent
No.1/petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on
16.11.2011 followed by another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on
15.12.2011. The respondent No.1/petitioner sought time
of further two months to pay the balance of Rs.30,350/-.
Later the respondent No.1 has paid Rs.31,250/- including
interest on 23.02.2012. Thereafter, the respondent No.1
requested the appellant authority to execute the deed of
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1982-DB
sale in respect of site allotted to him. Since his request is
not considered, he has approached this Court by filing the
Writ Petition in W.P.No.201471/2019. Learned Single
Judge vide order dated 03.08.2020 allowed the Writ
Petition directing the appellant to execute the deed of sale
in favour of respondent No.1/petitioner within 30 days
from the date of receipt of that order. Being aggrieved by
the same, the appellant has filed this appeal.
3. Sri.Ananth S. Jahagirdar, learned counsel for
the appellant has contended that after the initial deposit
has been made pursuant to the allotment of the site, the
allottee has to pay remaining amount within 90 days as
per Rule 19(1) of the Rules, 1991. Since allottee has not
paid the entire allotment price within 90 days, the
authority has not executed the lease cum sale agreement
in favour of respondent No.1. He further contended that
even if the allottee has paid the entire amount within 90
days, or over an extended period of 30 days, he is only
entitled to seek for execution of lease cum sale
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1982-DB
agreement, the learned Single Judge erred in directing the
authority to execute the deed of sale. The same is
contrary to Rule 19(1) of the Rules, 1991. Hence, he
sought for allowing the Writ Appeal.
4. Per contra, Smt.Ratna N.Shivayogimath,
learned counsel for respondent No.1/petitioner contended
that immediately after the allotment, the respondent
No.1/petitioner has deposited initial deposit of Rs.9,600/-.
Within 90 days he has deposited Rs.2,00,000/- with due
balance of only Rs.30,350/-. Thereafter, the respondent
No.1 has given a representation for extension of time. On
23.02.2012, he has paid the entire balance amount with
interest. Therefore, she contended that respondent No.1 is
not in default of payment of allotment price. Therefore,
the learned Single Judge has rightly directed the authority
to execute the sale deed in favour of allottee. Hence, she
sought for dismissal of the appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the writ papers.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1982-DB
6. It is not in dispute that the appellant has
allotted a residential site in favour of respondent
No.1/petitioner on 02/19.09.2011 at an allotment price of
Rs.2,40,000/-. As per Rule 19(1) of the Rules, 1991, the
allottee has to pay the allotment price within 90 days from
the date of allotment. The allottee has paid Rs.2,00,000/-
along with initial deposit of Rs.9,600/- within 90 days from
the date of allotment. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 has
submitted a representation for extension of further time
for payment of balance amount of Rs.30,350/-. The
respondent No.1 has not produced any document to show
that the appellant authority has passed the order on the
application for extension of time. However, remaining
amount of Rs.31,250/- has been paid on 23.02.2012 along
with interest. The same has been accepted by the
appellant authority. As per the Rules, 1991, the entire
allotment price has to be paid within 90 days or if the
authorities have extended the time, within 30 days. In the
case on hand, the respondent No.1 has paid Rs.2,00,000/-
within 90 days. It is submitted that there is request for
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1982-DB
extension of time for payment of balance amount of
Rs.30,350/-. But no document is produced to show that
the appellant authority has passed the order for extension
of time for payment of balance amount. Later respondent
No.1 has paid Rs.31,250/- including interest and the same
has been accepted by the appellant authority.
7. Under the facts and circumstances of this case,
the allotment made in favour of the respondent No.1 shall
be confirmed subject to he paying penalty of Rs.25,000/-
within two weeks, in addition to the amount already paid.
It is made clear that this cannot be applied as precedent in
any other case. Considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, the authority after collecting the penalty of
Rs.25,000/- execute the lease cum sale agreement in
favour of the allottee.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of.
9. The appellant is directed to execute the lease
cum sale agreement in favour of the respondent
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1982-DB
No.1/petitioner in respect of site bearing No.121
measuring 9x12 meters at MSK Mill II-Stage Residential
Layout (Madarasanahalli), Kalaburagi city in favour of the
respondent No.1/petitioner within one month from the
date of payment of penalty of Rs.25,000/- by the
respondent No.1/petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
VNR
Ct;Vk
