Allowed

Sri K Umapathi S/O K Ramaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2024WP/100828/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of an endorsement refusing his revocation of a Memorandum of Understanding with Ballari Urban Development Authority for development of his land into a residential layout. Holding Section 19 of the 1987 Act inapplicable to a simple MoU, the Court quashed the endorsement and directed acceptance of the revocation.

What did the court decide?

Endorsement dated 21.11.2022 (Annexure-E) quashed; respondent No.2 directed to accept revocation of the MoU dated 04.01.2017 and drop all further proceedings pursuant to it.

Sri K Umapathi S/O K Ramaiah Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:6272 WP No. 100828 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.100828/2023(LA-UDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI K. UMAPATHI S/O. K. RAMAIAH, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. DOOR NO. 8, WARD NO.1, SHARANAPPA COMPOUND, PARVATHI NAGAR MAIN ROAD, BALLARI – 583 103, TQ AND DIST: BALLARI.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001,

¶14

REP. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY.

¶15

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

THE BALLARI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, OLD NATIONAL HIGHWAY, COWL BAZAR, BALLARI – 583 104. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. RANJITA RADDI ALAGAWADI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 21.11.2022, BEARING NO. BNAAPRA/54/50.50 ANUPATDALI/2022-23/1525, VIDE ANNEXURE-E, PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO ACCEPT THE REVOCATION OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6272 WP No. 100828 of 2023

¶21

04.01.2017 AS HAVING BEEN REVOKED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE LETTER DATED 04.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-D. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.2 TO DROP ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 04.01.2017 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned endorsement dated 21.11.2022 produced as per Annexure-E passed by respondent No.2 and writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to accept the revocation of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 04.01.2017 which was revoked by the petitioner as per letter dated 04.08.2022 produced as per Annexure-D and to direct respondent No.2 to drop all the further proceedings pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding.

¶25

Heard learned counsel Sri.Shivaraj S. Balloli, for petitioner and Sri.P.N.Hatii, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel Smt.Ranjita Raddi Alagawadi, advocate for Sri.Lakshmikant Reddy, for respondent No.2.

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6272 WP No. 100828 of 2023

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is the absolute owner of various Survey numbers mentioned in the petition, totally measuring 15.555 acres, situated at Kollagallu Village, Ballary.

¶28

Respondent No.2 proposed to develop the said land into residential layout. The petitioner and respondent No.2 have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 04.01.2017 produced as per Annexure-B, wherein parties have agreed to apportion 50:50 ratio i.e. petitioner has agreed to take 50% of the property after the development, whereas respondent No.2 will keep the remaining 50%. In spite of the Memorandum of Understanding entered into on 04.01.2017, possession of the property was not taken over by respondent No.2 nor any further proceedings initiated for forming the residential layout. Therefore, the petitioner has issued letter dated 04.08.2022 revoking Memorandum of Understanding and calling upon the return of the documents. Respondent No.2 instead of returning the document issued an endorsement as per Annexure-E dated 21.11.2022 refusing to revoke the Memorandum of Understanding. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court.

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6272 WP No. 100828 of 2023

¶30

Learned counsel submitted that except entering into Memorandum of Understanding on 04.01.2017 there is no progress made in terms of the said Memorandum of Understanding. Absolutely there is no reason as to why respondent No.2 is not accepting the revocation of the Memorandum of Understanding. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash Annexure-E.

¶31

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 opposing the petition submits that in view of Section 19 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act, 1987 (for short, ‘Act 1987’) without the permission of the Government, the Memorandum of Understanding cannot be revoked. Under such circumstances, petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶32

Admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with respondent No.2 on 04.01.2017 produced as per Annexure-B. The terms of the said Memorandum of Understanding is not in disputed. It is also admitted that there is no further progress made in forming the residential layout by respondent No.2 nor the possession of the property was taken from the petitioner.

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6272 WP No. 100828 of 2023

¶34

In the mean time, the petitioner has sent letter dated 04.08.2022 as per Annexure-D revoking the Memorandum of Understanding. Pursuant to the same, the endorsement produced as per Section Annexure-E was issued. It is stated in Annexure-E that since the proposal for forming the residential layout is before the Government, same cannot be revoked.

¶35

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has placed reliance on Section 19 of the Act 1987 to contend that unless there is an order by government, the Memorandum of Understanding cannot be revoked. Section 19 of the Act 1987 refers to the acquisition proceedings under the development scheme as provided under Chapter 3 of the Act. Admittedly, it is not a development scheme, but it is a simple Memorandum of Understanding between two parties. There is absolutely no reason for not taking up the project as agreed in the Memorandum of Understanding. Under such circumstances, the petitioner has revoked the Memorandum of Understanding by issuing the letter issued as per Annexure-D. Under such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the defence taken by the respondent No.2.

¶36

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6272 WP No. 100828 of 2023

¶37

Annexure-E cannot be sustained in view of the facts

¶38

and circumstances discussed above. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the endorsement Annexure-E is liable to be quashed and the direction as sought for by the petitioner against respondent No.2 is to be issued. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

a) The petition is allowed.

¶41

b) Endorsement dated 21.11.2022 produced as per Annexure-E passed by respondent No.2 is quashed.

¶42

c) Respondent No.2 is directed to accept the revocation of Memorandum of Understanding and drop all further proceedings pursuant to the same.

¶43

AC/CT-ASC

¶44

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

¶45

SD/JUDGE

Sri K Umapathi S/O K Ramaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K Umapathi S/O K Ramaiah v. the State of Karnataka

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

Kwality Metals Vs the Branch Manager

Smt. Shanta Alias Bhagirathi W/O Hanumant Kamble Vs Parvati Alias Chandra W/O Irappa Kamble (Since Dead Represented by Her Lrs)

Shri.Ashish S/O. Ratnakar Hattangadi Vs Smt.Vinata W/O. Ashish Hattangadi

Sathyadhana Madvachar Malagi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. S. Gopala Reddy S/O S. Venkata Reddy Vs the Sub Registrar

Vijalaxmi W/O Late Suresh Jituri Vs the Assistant Commissioner