Allowed

Dayanand v. Belagavi

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2024WP/104038/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed the impugned order cancelling allotment of residential site by Belagavi Urban Development Authority lacking opportunity of hearing and directed allotment of alternate site as petitioner paid full consideration with delay condoned.

What did the court decide?

Impugned cancellation order quashed; Respondent No.1 directed to allot alternate site within three months.

Dayanand Vs Belagavi — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

W.P.No.104038/2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 104038 OF 2016 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

DAYANAND S/O. NARASING GALLE, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED, R/O. C/O. SMT. RAJASHRI KAMBLE, PLOT NO.33, SECTOR NO.5, M.M. EXTENSION, SHREE NAGAR, BELAGAVI, TQ: BELAGAVI-590016.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. C.V. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

BELAGAVI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ASHOK NAGAR, BELAGAVI-560016, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. S.B. SHAIKH, ADV. FOR R1; SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R2)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY SUITABLE WRIT OR ORDER, THEREBY QUASHING ORDER OF CANCELLATION OF ALLOTMENT BEARING NO�� /5190 BELAGAVI ��01.02.2006 (ANNEXURE-G) ISSUED BY R1 AND THE ORDER OF REJECTION ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 BEARING NO. � �� (ANNEXURE-J) AND ETC.

¶16

¶17

W.P.No.104038/2016

¶18

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 04.06.2024 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner, a retired schoolteacher and a handicapped person, submitted an application for the allotment of a residential site to Respondent No. 1- Authority. In response, Respondent No.1 allotted Site No.1533, measuring 30x40 ft², as per the allotment letter dated 14.05.2004. The total consideration amount was fixed at ₹69,600/-. The petitioner paid an advance amount of ₹1,800/- along with the application form and was required to pay the balance amount of ₹67,800/within 30 days. The petitioner subsequently paid ₹50,000/- on 05.06.2004 and the remaining amount of ₹17,900/- on 17.10.2004.

¶21

The petitioner has claimed that despite facing significant financial difficulties and the logistical challenges of being a government teacher who had to move frequently, he managed to mobilize the entire allotment price with great effort. However, Respondent No. 1, without giving

¶22

¶23

W.P.No.104038/2016

¶24

the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, issued an order of cancellation of the allotment on 01.02.2006.

¶25

Respondent No. 1 filed a statement of objection arguing that the petitioner was required to pay ₹67,800/- within 30 days of the allotment letter. Since the petitioner failed to deposit the amount within the stipulated timeframe, Respondent No.1 was within its rights to cancel the allotment. Respondent No.1 further stated that during a meeting held on 29.04.2006, a decision was made to reconsider the allotment, and the petitioner was called upon to pay an additional sum of ₹3,600/- within 30 days. Despite this extension, the petitioner did not pay the balance amount, and thus, Respondent No.1 contends that no interference by the court is warranted.

¶26

Upon hearing the counsel for both the petitioner and the respondent, and giving anxious consideration to the material placed on record, it is evident that the petitioner has paid the entire sital value. The records also show that the petitioner, being a government

¶27

¶28

W.P.No.104038/2016

¶29

teacher, faced extreme difficulties but managed to mobilize the sital value and paid it to Respondent No.1, which is not disputed.

¶30

The petitioner produced additional documents detailing the availability of sites with Respondent No. 1. The petitioner requested the court to take cognizance of these available sites. Respondent No.1 countered that the sites indicated by the petitioner are neither corner sites nor stray sites. The object of establishing the Urban Development Authority is to provide sites to needy individuals. In a cited case, in W.A.No.6213/2009 (LB-Res), the Division Bench took a lenient view when the allottee had deposited only 10% of the sale consideration and affirmed the judgment of the Single Judge, who set aside the order of cancellation of the allotment. In the present case, the petitioner is in a better position as he has deposited the entire sale consideration, with only a delay of 33 days in paying a portion of the amount. There is no rebuttal by Respondent No.1 regarding the availability of sites.

¶31

¶32

W.P.No.104038/2016

¶33

The housing projects for needy people initiated by Urban Development Authorities in Karnataka are instrumental in addressing the housing needs of economically weaker sections and low-income groups. By providing affordable, quality sites with essential amenities, these projects aim to improve the living conditions of the urban poor and promote inclusive urban development. Through continued efforts and innovative schemes, Urban Development Authorities strive to ensure that every citizen has access to a safe and decent home.

¶34

Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this court is bound to do substantial justice. Therefore, the order of cancellation of allotment issued by Respondent No.1 is liable to be interfered with. It is clear from the records that the petitioner has fulfilled his obligation by paying the entire sale consideration, albeit with a delay, which in the interest of justice, should be condoned. Respondent No.1 is directed to allot an alternate site to the petitioner within three months from the date of this order, thereby ensuring that the petitioner is not unduly deprived of his rightful allotment.

¶35

¶36

W.P.No.104038/2016

¶37

For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

i) The order of cancellation of allotment dated 01.02.2006 is hereby set aside.

¶40

ii) Respondent No.1 is directed to allot an alternate site to the petitioner within three months from the date of this order.

¶41

iii) No order as to costs.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

YAN

Dayanand v. Belagavi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayanand v. Belagavi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Irayya Virupaxayya Divate Vs the Panchayat Development Officer

Smt. Rukminibai Udayakumar Pawar Vs the State of Karnataka

The President, Gram Panchayat Yadur Village, Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Syed Yakhoob Hussaini Vs Election Officer

D.S.Mallaplur S/O. Singadeppa Vs State of Karnataka

Savitha Samaja (Kshourikara )Sangha(R) Vs Nijaguna Shree Hadapada Appannanavara