Allowed

Sudarshan Ramachandra Patil, v. the Housing Commissioner

Karnataka HC24 Aug 2021WP/104365/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Karnataka directed housing board officials to allot an alternative Low Income Group (LIG) site to a retired employee whose original site had been allotted to another party, enforcing execution of documents within three months.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 1 to 4 are directed to allot an alternative site from a specified list in Sattur village and execute necessary documents within three months.

Sudarshan Ramachandra Patil, Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

W.P. No. 104365/2016 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SUDARSHAN RAMACHANDRA PATIL, AGED 61 YEARS, RETIRED BSNL EMPLOYEE, R/O NARASIMHA NAGAR, BEHIND MARUTI COLONY, TORVI ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586 10

¶9

PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE HOUSING COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶13

THE DEPUTY CHIEF MANAGER (C.S), KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, SUB-DIVISION, HUBBALLI-580 020.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, SUB- DIVISION, HUBBALLI-580 020.

¶16

SRI SHRIDHAR S/O MAHADEVI BHAT JOSHI, AGE: 50 YEARS, R/AT C/O SRI B.C. JOSHI, H. NO. 33B, VIKAS NAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶17

RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.R. GUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 & R4, SRI SHIVARAJ S. BELLAKKI, ADVOCATE FOR R5, NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

¶18

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ALLOT SITE NO. 34 IN LIG FORMED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 & ETC.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:

¶23

Wherefore, the petitioner humbly prays, after securing records from the respondents, that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to allot the site No. 34 in LIG formed by the respondents (respondent No.4) in Sy. Nos. 65, 66, 67, 73, 74, 75, 76 at Sattur site and service site or alternatively any site in the Dead End site in 433, 444, 445, 456, 470, 483, 497, 513, 532 in Sattur Site and Service Site, by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other writ or any other order or direction that deemed fit in the circumstance of the case and equity.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶25

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the documents

¶26

¶27

produced by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Nos.1 to 4/KHB allotted site No.34 in favour of the petitioner pursuant to which they executed registered sale deed dated 15.02.2000 in favour of the petitioner; however without canceling the said allotment and sale deed in favour of the petitioner, the respondent No.4 executed another registered sale deed dated 28.06.2003 in favour of respondent No.5. After coming to know about the said sale deed in favour of respondent No.5, the petitioner submitted several representations and also requested the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to allot an alternative site in favour of the petitioner pursuant to which the petitioner was directed to file an affidavit which he had done vide Annexure-F dated 06.11.2013. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the aforesaid facts and circumstances, respondent Nos.1 to 4 have not taken any steps to allot an alternative site in favour of the petitioner nor executed necessary documents

¶28

¶29

in this regard in his favour and as such, the petitioner is

¶30

before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶31

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submit that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the material on record indicates that having executed registered sale deed dated 14.02.2000 in favour of the petitioner in respect of site No.34 and having obtained an affidavit dated 06.11.2013 from him for the purpose of allotment of an alternative site since the said site No.34 had been allotted in favour of respondent No.5 by executing registered sale deed dated 28.06.2003 in favour of respondent No.5, respondent Nos.1 to 4 were not justified in not taking any steps to allot an alternative site in favour of the petitioner and the inaction on their part in this regard warrants issuance of directions against respondent Nos.1 to 4 by this Court in the present petition by holding that the

¶33

¶34

concerned respondent Nos.1 to 4 are obliged and liable to allot an alternative site and execute necessary documents thereof in favour of the petitioner within a stipulated time frame.

¶35

In the result, I pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

i) Writ petition is hereby disposed of.

¶38

ii) Respondents No.1 to 4 are directed to allot an

¶39

alternative site from among site No. 433, 444, 445, 456, 470, 483, 497, 513, 532 in Sattur village, Dharwad District in favour of the petitioner and execute necessary documents in this regard within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶40

iii) It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled

¶41

to allotment of site no. 34, already allotted in favour of respondent No.5.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

bvv

Sudarshan Ramachandra Patil, v. the Housing Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudarshan Ramachandra Patil, v. the Housing Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shantavva @ Savitravva W/O Hanumantappa Vs Hirur Gram Sabha

Sri.P.G. Ravindranath S/O P. Gurunath Setty Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Veerabhadrappa Narayanappa Mannapur Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Kanti Veeresh Vs the State of Karnataka

Prathamika Krushi Pattina Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Society

Sri.Satish Vs S.Y. Ullagaddi