The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a government communication suppressing lease allotments due to non-payment of balances, holding no infirmity in the challenged order.
The writ petition for quashing the order and directing execution of lease was dismissed.
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.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13387 WP No. 111303 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO. 111303 OF 2014 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONERS
GIRIJA A BYAHATTI
Digitally signed by GIRIJA A BYAHATTI
AND:
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13387 WP No. 111303 of 2014
R/AT: KHB COLONY, HALIYAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ASHOK KATTEMANI, AGA FOR R1; SRI ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R2; SRI ROHIT L. SHEELVANT, ADV.FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEARING NO.NAAAE/108/ACB/2004 DATED 27.01.2006, COPY AS PER ANNEXURE-J INSOFAR AS IT RELATES THE PETITIONERS, AS ARBITRARY AND UN-REASONABLE AND OPPOSED TO ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND CONTRARY TO THE ORDERS OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND/OR; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO EXECUTE LEASE CUM SALE INFAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF PLOT NO.1283, MEASURING 40 X 60 FEET SITUATED AT MALMARUTI EXTN., BELGAUM BY RECEIVING BALANCE AMOUNT, BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.04.2006 AND 16.01.2014, COPIES AS PER ANNEXRUES B AND D.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners in the instant case have challenged
the communication issued from Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Urban Development Department to the 2nd respondent, wherein it is stated that it is found that 292 sites in the year 1999 and 363 sites in the year 1994 were developed in Malmaruti Extension of Belagavi and distributed to the public on lease cum sale basis and out of the allottees, 31 allottees of 1994 and 121 allottees of 1999 have paid only about 10% of the amount and the rest 90% has not been paid. Further respondent No.2 was directed to forfeit the advance amount and cancel the allotments in such cases.
the communication that is under challenge or the action
sought to be initiated by the respondents.
For the said reasons, the writ petition is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
RSH / Ct-mck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the communication directing forfeiture of advance and cancellation of lease-cum-sale allotment for non-payment of balance is arbitrary and opposed to Article 14.
Whether the writ petition challenging the cancellation of allotment should be allowed or dismissed.
Smt. Shanta
Sri Raju
The State of Karnataka
The Commissioner, Corporation of City of Belgaum
Smt. Geeta
M.I. Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
