Disposed

G. T. Rangegowda v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC27 Sept 2021WP/6455/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged forfeiture of bid deposits after failing to remit the remaining 75% of the e-auction amount. The Court held the matter revisable under the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act and directed parties to approach the revisional authority instead of deciding the writ petitions on merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed; petitioners directed to file revisions before the Revisional Authority under Section 63 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987.

G. T. Rangegowda Vs the Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.6455 OF 2021 (LB-RES)

¶7

C/W

¶8

WRIT PETITION No.6453 OF 2021 (LB-RES)

¶9

IN WRIT PETITION No.6455 OF 2021

¶10

BETWEEN

¶11

G. T. RANGEGOWDA S/O THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUDURUGUNDI AT AND POST, DUDDA HOBLI HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201. ... PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SMT.SHARADAMBA A.R., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶13

AND

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY B.M.ROAD, HASSAN – 573 201.

¶15

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU – 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS

¶16

¶17

(BY SRI A.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (VIDEO CONFERENCING)

¶18

SRI NITHYANANDA K.R., HCGP FOR R2 (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD 27.02.2020 VIDE ANNX-A ISSUED BY THE R-1; DIRECT THE R-1 TO ISSUE SALE CERTIFICATE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER BY ACCEPTING THE REMAINING 75 PERCENT OF THE BID AMOUNT I.E., RS.13,49,703/- BY LIFTING THE ORDER OF FORFEITURE OF THE DEPOSIT AMOUNT OF RS.4,49,900/-.

¶20

IN WRIT PETITION No.6453 OF 2021

¶21

BETWEEN

¶22

K. R. SHESHAPPA S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT KUDURUGUNDI AT AND POST DUDDAHOBLI, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.

¶23

... PETITIONER

¶24

(BY SMT.SHARADAMBA A.R., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶25

AND

¶26

THE COMMISSIONER HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY B.M.ROAD, HASSAN-573201.

¶27

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶28

... RESPONDENTS

¶29

¶30

(BY SRI A.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (VIDEO CONFERENCING)

¶31

SRI NITHYANANDA K.R., HCGP FOR R2 (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD 27.02.2020 VIDE ANNX-A ISSUEDBY THE R-1; DIRECT THE R-1 TO ISSUE SALE CERTIFICATE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER BY ACCEPTING THE REMAINING 75 PERCENT OF THE BID AMOUNT I.E., RS.13,49,703/- BY LIFTING THE ORDER OF FORFEITURE OF THE DEPOSIT AMOUNT OF RS.4,49,900/-.

¶33

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

These petitions arise out of common action of the 1^st respondent - Hassan Urban Development Authority forfeiting 25% of the amount that was deposited pursuant to e-auction conducted by the 1^st respondent of the corner sites.

¶36

Heard Smt.Sharadamba.A.R., learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri.A.Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri.Nithyananda.K.R., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.2, in both the petitions.

¶37

¶38

The 1^st respondent/Hassan Urban Development

¶39

Authority (‘the Authority’ for short) notified and conducted an E- auction of corner sites bearing Nos.5499 and 5480 of S.M.K Nagara of Hassan measuring 12.60mts.x12.00mts and 12.65+12.60mts.x12.00mts on 11-07-2017. The petitioners participated in the said E-auction and were declared to be highest bidders in the said auction for a sum of Rs.17,99,603/and Rs.18,06,705/- respectively. In terms of E-auction notification, on the very same day, the petitioners paid 25% of the bid amount of Rs.4,49,000/- and Rs.4,51,676/- and the remaining bid amount of Rs.13,49,703/- and Rs.13,55,029/was to be remitted within 45 days from the date of E-auction i.e., 11-07-2017. The petitioners failed to deposit the remainder of 75% and on the ground that the petitioners have defaulted in repaying 75% of bid amount, the 25% of bid amount of Rs.4,49,900/- and Rs.4,51,676/- was forfeited. The petitioners demanded the said amount by submission of representations which were rejected by the impugned endorsement dated 27-02-2020.

¶40

¶41

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due

¶42

to unavoidable circumstances, 75% of bid amount that had to be paid could not be paid and have also made a request now for receiving 75% of the amount and allotting the sites for which they were declared to be successful bidders.

¶43

For all the remedies that the petitioners are now seeking

¶44

and the orders passed by the 1^st respondent/Authority are revisable under Section 63 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (‘said Act’ for short). Therefore, I deem it appropriate to relegate the petitioners before the revisional authority by filing revision petitions under Section 63 of the said Act.

¶45

Accordingly I pass the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

(i) Writ Petitions are disposed.

¶48

(ii) The petitioners are directed to file a revision before

¶49

the Revisional Authority as provided under Section

¶50

¶51

63 of the said Act, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶52

(iii) The 1^st respondent - Authority is directed to transmit the records pertaining to the case to the Revisional Authority within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶53

(v) The Authority on such filing of the appeal and receipt of records, consider the case of petitioners on merit and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within three months thereafter.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

bkp CT:MJ

G. T. Rangegowda v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. T. Rangegowda v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Purandara Hegde Vs Chief Administrative Officer

Sri Mohan Vs the State of Karnataka

Somavamshi Arya Kshatriya Muktadeva Mandali Vs Mysore Urban Development Authority

Sri M K Rajashekar Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs Mary Thannickal Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Madhavi Vs State of Karnataka