Karnataka High Court

Karnataka Housing Board vs Sri Basavaraj S Gaddikeri on 18 November, 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE     18th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

                          PRESENT

      THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

                            AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

        WRIT APPEAL NO. 519 OF 2023 (GM-RES)


BETWEEN:

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD
K.G. ROAD
BENGALURU-560 009
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
                                          ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. ACHAPPA P.B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.    SRI. BASAVARAJ S. GADDIKERI
      S/O SRI. SHIVAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
      R/O. B.S. GADDIKERI
      B.T. PATLINAGAR
      KOPPAL-583 231
                               2




2.   THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
     HOUSING DEPARTMENT
     KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT
     VIKAS SOUDHA
     BENGALURU-560 001


                                            ...RESPONDENTS


(BY SRI. PRASHANTH CHANDRA S.N., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
     SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R2)


      THIS   WRIT   APPEAL    IS   FILED   U/S   4   OF   THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WP
No.9963/2016 (GM-RES) DATED 07.02.2023 PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE CAPTIONED APPEAL AND
CONSEQUENTLY ABIDE BY ALL OR ANY COMMUNICATIONS
OR    ORDERS    PASSED       IN    FURTHERANCE       OF   THE
GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 19.02.2016 AND CONFIRMED
IN WP Nos.8109-133/2013 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B.


      THIS   WRIT   APPEAL    HAVING   BEEN      HEARD    AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 13.11.2025 AND COMING
ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU
SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:


CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
       and
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
                                    3




                       CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the order dated

07.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ

Petition No.9963/2016 (GM-RES).

2. We have heard Shri. Achappa P.B, learned

counsel appearing for the appellant, Shri. Prashanth

Chandra S.N, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1

and Smt. Pramodhini Kishan, learned Additional Government

Advocate appearing for respondent No.2.

3. The writ petition had been filed by respondent

No.1 herein, cancelling the allotment of a site in his favour.

The learned Single Judge found that the order was passed

without hearing the petitioner and that the principles of

natural justice stood violated. It was held that since the

order had the effect of affecting the legal rights of the writ

petitioner, it could not have been passed without hearing the

petitioner. On these grounds, Annexure-A order dated

19.02.2016 passed by the appellant - Board was set aside.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant

submits that the Government of Karnataka had passed an

order dated 24.01.2013 allotting house sites in favour of 43

applicants at Suryanagar Phase-II under the discretionary

quota of the Government of Karnataka as enumerated in

Rule 9-A Category C of Karnataka Housing Board

(Allotment) Regulations, 1983 ('KHB Regulations' for short).

The name of respondent No.1 was included at serial No.41 in

the said order of allotment. Writ Petitions No.8109-

133/2013 was filed by one Shivakumar and others

challenging the Government Order dated 24.01.2013.

Respondent No.1 was Respondent No.43 in the said writ

petition. While so, a conditional deed for sale was registered

in favour of respondent No.1 by the appellant on

04.07.2013. However, on 07.11.2014 the Government

passed an Order withdrawing the order dated 24.01.2013.

The said fact was submitted before this Court considering

Writ Petitions No.8109-133/2013. On 10.11.2014, the writ

petitions were disposed of recording the submission that the

allotment dated 24.01.2013 had been withdrawn by

Government Order dated 07.11.2014. It is submitted that it

is in these circumstances that the appellant had taken a

decision to cancel the allotment. It is also submitted that

Annexure-A was only an office note and this was

consequential to the withdrawal of the allotment vide

Government Order dated 07.11.2014. It is submitted that

the writ petitioner had not challenged the Government Order

dated 07.11.2014. It is further submitted that by judgment

dated 18.10.2019, passed in Writ Petition No.8340/2018

(PIL), this Court had struck down Categories A and C in

Regulation 4 and Category C in Regulation 9-A of the KHB

Regulations along with Explanation-A thereto.

5. It is submitted that since the allotment granted to

the petitioner stood withdrawn by Government order dated

07.11.2014, there was no right whatsoever available to the

writ petitioner and there was no question of hearing him. It

is therefore submitted that the finding of the learned Single

Judge is completely unjustified and inapplicable to the facts

of the case and that the judgment is liable to be set aside.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant

has relied on the following citations:-

• Sarwan Kumar and Another v. Madan Lal Aggarwal, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 147; and

• The State of Manipur and Others v.

              Surjakumar      Okram       and   Others,    by    Order
              dated    01.02.2022     passed     in    Civil    Appeal
              Nos.823-827 of 2022.

7. The learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.1, on the other hand, contends that after the allotment

letter dated 25.01.2013 there was a conditional sale deed

registered by the appellant in favour of respondent No.1

herein and that the said Sale Deed had not been cancelled in

any manner known to law. It is therefore contended that

even if all the contentions of the appellant are accepted, the

finding of the learned Single Judge that respondent No.1

ought to have been put on notice and given a chance of

hearing before the allotment was cancelled by Annexures-A

and D was perfectly legal and valid.

8. We have considered the contentions advanced.

We notice that the allotment in favour of respondent No.1

and other similarly situated persons had been made by the

Government by its order dated 24.01.2013 in the

discretionary quota provided under Category C to Regulation

9 of the KHB Regulations. The said category in the

Regulations itself stands set aside by a judgment of this

Court dated 18.10.2019 in W.P.No.8340/2018 (PIL). It is

also clear that the Government Order of Allotment dated

24.01.2013 has been withdrawn by a later Government

Order dated 07.11.2014 which was produced as Annexure-E

in the writ petition. There was no challenge to the said

Government Order.

9. In the above view of the matter, it is clear that

the allotment of the house site to the writ petitioner stood

cancelled by the Government which had made the allotment

in the first instance. If that be so, the action which was

impugned before the learned Single Judge was only

consequential to the Government Order and there would

have been no purpose whatsoever in putting the writ

petitioner on notice and hearing him since there would be no

contention that the writ petitioner could have raised in the

absence of any allotment at all. The writ petitioner would

also have no right to seek any allotment or further the

impugned order have not dealt with any right of the writ

petitioner since the allotment already stood cancelled in the

year 2014. The fact that a conditional sale deed had been

executed before cancellation of allotment can make

absolutely no difference to the situation.

10. In the above factual situation, we are of the

opinion that any hearing which would have been afforded to

the petitioner would clearly be a useless formality and in the

absence of any allotment in his favour, the appellant could

not have taken any decision other than the one already

taken even if such hearing had been afforded.

11. In the above view of the matter, we are of the

opinion that the Order of the learned Single Judge cannot be

sustained and is liable to be set aside.

12. In the result:-

(i) The writ appeal is allowed.






      (ii)    The order dated 07.02.2023 passed by the
              learned   Single   Judge     in   Writ    Petition
              No.9963/2016 is set aside.