The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition seeking a direction to transfer a site allotment. The Court held that disputed questions of fact preclude writ intervention and stale claims cannot be reopened.
None. The petition was disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF APRIL 2013
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION No.6931/2012 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
MANJU SINGHAL AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, W/O VINOD SINGHAL VAIKAM R/AT NO.306, 2ND CROSS, 7TH MAIN BTM II STAGE, BANGALORE-560068 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI G PAPI REDDY, ADV.)
AND:
(BY SRI B J SOMAYAJI, ADV. FOR R1 TO R4)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO CALL FOR THE CONCERNED RECORDS & DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO TRANSFER/CONVEY THE SCHEDULE SITE IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER BY ISSUING NECESSARY ORDERS AND EXECUTING DOCUMENTS IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER IN PURSUANCE TO THE ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED 26.06.1992.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :
O R D E R
The petitioner is before this Court seeking for a direction to the respondents to transfer and convey the schedule site in the name of the petitioner by issuing necessary orders and to execute the documents in favour of the petitioner in pursuance to the allotment letter dated
26.06.1992.
application to the then Hinkal Mandal Panchayat, Mysore Taluk seeking allotment of site measuring 40ft X 60ft in Hebbalu Gramthana on 23.06.1992. The said area presently is within the jurisdiction of Koorgalli Village Panchayat. The petitioner contends that an initial deposit of Rs.9,000/- was made and subsequently by the allotment letter as at Annexure-A Site No.49 was allotted in favour
3
of the petitioner. The petitioner is stated to have approached the respondents to remit the balance amount towards the sital value. However, the same had not been accepted by the respondents. The petitioner therefore is stated to have got issued a legal notice dated 06.10.2011 calling upon the respondents to transfer the site No.49 in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner also contends that recently certain sale deeds have been executed in favour of certain similarly placed persons. It is in that circumstance the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the relief.
4
deposited any portion of the amount. It is therefore contended that the case as put forth by the petitioner cannot be accepted and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
seen at the outset that when the entire case as putforth by
the petitioner has been denied by the respondents by filing their objection statement, even to the extent of stating that no allotment whatsoever has been made in favour of the petitioner and that the petitioner has not deposited any amount, the petitioner was required to at least produce certain documents to prima facie indicate that the allotment letter was in fact issued by the respondents and the same was acted upon by the respondents subsequently. On the other hand, except for relying on the socalled allotment letter dated 26.06.1992 at Annexure-A, there is no other document to indicate as to whether the petitioner has responded to the same, even if the said allotment letter is accepted to be correct. Hence these disputed questions of fact in any event cannot be decided in a writ petition.
5
the petitioner claims that the allotment letter was issued as far back as on 26.06.1992. Though the petitioner in the pleadings contends that she had approached the respondents several times, there is no material to indicate as to whether any written representations were made or not. Be that as it may, such stale claims in any event cannot be reopened in a writ proceeding.
Hence, I am of the opinion that the relief as sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
akc/bms
2 issues framed by the court
Whether disputed questions of fact regarding allotment and payment can be decided in a writ petition.
Whether stale claims regarding an alleged allotment from 1992 can be reopened in writ proceedings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manju Singhal
Panchayat Development Officer Koorgalli Gram Panchayat, Mysore Taluk, Mysore District
Adhyaksha Koorgalli Gram Panchayat, Mysore Taluk, Mysore District
Secretary Koorgalli Gram Panchayat, Mysore Taluk, Mysore District
Chief Executive Officer Zilla Panchayat, Mysore District
A S Bopanna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
