Allowed

Sri Somashekaraiah v. City Improvement Trust Board

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2021WP/8228/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking enforcement of an old site allotment. It quashed an order declining the claim and remitted the matter with a direction to execute the sale deed based on the property value as of November 19, 2013, finding no case for dismissal due to delay since the allotment was never cancelled.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 05.05.2014 quashed; matter remitted to respondent to reconsider and execute sale deed on value as of 19.11.2013.

Sri Somashekaraiah Vs City Improvement… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 8228/2015 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SOMASHEKARAIAH SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LR'S

¶9

1(a) K. S. SUMATHI W/O. LATE SOMASHEKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶10

1(b) S. TARUN S/O. SOMASHEKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶11

1(a) AND 1(b) ARE RESIDENT OF NO. 634, 10^TH CROSS RUPA NAGARA, MYSURU-570026.

¶12

1(c) PRATHIBA D/O. LATE SOMASHEKARAIAH W/O. HARSHA R SHINGE # 11/1, RENUKA NILAYA, 4^TH CROSS, DHANALAKSHMI LAYOUT, VIRUPAKSHAPURA, KODIGEHALLI, BENGALURU NORTH, VIDYARANAYAPURA, BENGALURU-97.

¶13

... PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. K. R. LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶15

¶16

AND:

¶17

CITY IMPROVEMENT TRUST BOARD, MYSURU NOW MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JHANSI LAKSHMIBAI ROAD, MYSURU - 570005. BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶18

THASILDHAR MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MYSURU, JHANSI LAKSHMIBAI ROAD, MYSURU 570 005.

¶19

MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JHANSI LAKSHMIBAI ROAD, MYSURU - 570005 BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R3; SRI. NITHYANANDA K.R., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO ALLOTMENT OF SITE NUMBER 960 IN S.W.T. KOPPAL EXTN. LAYOUT FORMED BY R-1 AND ALL CONNECTED PAPERS PERUSE THE SAME; DECLARE THAT THE ORDER DATED 05.05.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE - E PASSED BY R-1 IN RESPECT OF SITE NO.960, 4^TH STAGE, S.W.T. KOPPAL LAYOUT, MYSORE AS VOID AND IN-OPERATIVE AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 05.05.2014 declining the claim of the petitioner as made in his representation dated 19.11.2013 for execution of a lease cum sale agreement to be executed in favor of petitioner.

¶27

The brief facts leading the filing of petition as

¶28

borne out from the pleadings are as follows:

¶29

The City Improvement Trust Board (for short 'CITB) erstwhile wing of Mysuru Urban Development Authority (for short 'MUDA') issued a notification calling for applications for allotment of sites. The petitioner was an applicant pursuant to the said notification and was also in receipt of an allotment made by then CITB on 30.10.1979. The entire consideration that was sought to be made in favor of such allotment was also fulfilled by the petitioner. Though the learned counsel

¶30

¶31

for the petitioner submits that was not within the time. The original allotee during his life time did not choose to even represent to the 2nd respondent-MUDA to execute the lease cum sale in his favor on account of fulfillment of the conditions of the allotment.

¶32

It transpires that on 19.11.2013, the

¶33

husband and father of the present petitioners gave a representation on 19.11.2013 seeking execution of a lease cum sale deed in his favour. This is turned down by the 2^nd respondent on 21.10.2014 which is called in question in this writ petition. This Court had directed the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent to know the status of the allotment made and the status of the site allotted.

¶34

The learned counsel appearing for 2^nd respondent would submit that there is no order of cancellation passed or communicated to the petitioner or his legal representatives or even to his original

¶35

¶36

allottee and the status of the site still remains vacant. The said submission is placed on record.

¶37

Though the petitioners would not be entitled

¶38

to the benefit of the allotment or price of the allotment

¶39

that was made in the year 1983, but in the light of the 2^nd respondent having not cancelled the allotment and

¶40

the site remaining vacant even as on date, the writ petition cannot be turned down on ground of delay or laches on the part of the petitioners, as petitioners have fulfilled the conditions of the allotment by making a requisite payment that was needed at the time when such allotment was made, but cannot claim the consideration given would be adequate. Therefore, the 2^nd respondent is directed to re-consider the case of the petitioners and execute sale deed on the value of the property that was obtained as on the date of submission of the representation, by the husband and father of the petitioners as on 19.11.2013.

¶41

¶42

It is apposite to refer to the judgment of this Court in identical circumstances in W.P No.48939/2012, where there was an order of

¶43

cancellation on the ground of delayed payment, has observed as follows:

¶44

"3. In the above background, when in similar set of circumstance, yet another allottee was before this Court in W.P. No.13386/2011 disposed of on 11.08.2011, this Court had directed that the sale deed be executed. In similar other matters also, this Court while considering the direction issued by the Government was of the opinion that the sale deed is to be executed. Hence, insofar as the instant case also, similar direction requires to be issued.

¶45

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would however point out that the object of such allotment is that the allottees should put up construction and therefore, a condition be imposed on the petitioner to execute the leasecum-sale deed at this juncture. Though the said contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 appears to be just, in the instant facts, I do not see any reason to impose such condition. The reason being that the allotment was made as far back as on 25.02.2001 and the entire amount had been paid by the petitioner as far back as on 11.02.2002. Therefore, if at that juncture

¶46

¶47

itself, the lease-cum-sale agreement had been executed, the period of lease in any event would be over. Therefore, to once again impose such condition, it would not be fair to the petitioner. Hence, I am of the opinion that the sale deed itself requires to be executed.

¶48

5. Accordingly, the cancellation order dated 07.12.2002 is quashed. A direction is issued to respondent No.2 to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner and put the petitioner in possession of the property concerned. The petitioner shall file a copy of this order with respondent No.2 within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter respondent No.2 shall conclude the process as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of furnishing the copy.

¶49

Disposed of in the above terms. No costs."

¶50

Therefore, in the light of the facts obtained in case

¶51

on hand as narrated hereinabove and judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench, the writ petition deserves to succeed in part.

¶52

ORDER

¶53

i) Writ Petition is allowed.

¶54

ii) The impugned order dated 05.05.2014 vide Annexure - E is quashed.

¶55

¶56

iii) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the 2^nd respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioners bearing in mind the observation made in the course of the order and execute necessary documents taking the value of the site as obtained on 19.11.2013.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

UN/SMM

Sri Somashekaraiah v. City Improvement Trust Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Somashekaraiah v. City Improvement Trust Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Rathnamma Vs the Commissioner

We Work India Management Private Limited Vs Consultadd Services Private Limited

Sri. R. Ranganath Vs the State of Karnataka

Muthoot Finance Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Muthoot Finance Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Muthoot Finance Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka