Dismissed

Progressive Liberal Education Foundation v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC19 Jun 2024WP/107845/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A society whose civic amenity site allotment by BUDA was cancelled for failing to deposit the balance lease amount within 90 days challenged the cancellation and sought further lease reduction to 25% of market value. Holding the 50% concession under Rule 8(4)(b) had already been extended and forfeiture followed automatically under Rule 10, the High Court dismissed the writ petition with liberty to

What did the court decide?

None granted; liberty reserved to petitioner to apply afresh when applications are invited.

Progressive Liberal Education Foundation Vs the… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8212 WP No. 107845 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 107845 OF 2016 (LB-RES)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

PROGRESSIVE LIBERAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI, A REGISTERED SOCIETY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SHRI. SUSHILKUMAR S/O. SHIVABAL KHOKATE, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: 6^TH CROSS, DR. R.K. MARG, HINDWADI, BELAGAVI.

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

THE COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BELAGAVI.

¶10

ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶11

TAHE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.

¶12

(BY SRI. M.A. HULYAL, ADV. FOR R1; SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R2)

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

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 APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER SANKE:BENAPRA/NA.SOU.NI/RI.SA.NA.14/2013-14/2199 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1, THE COMMISSIONER, BUDA DATED:26.08.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-H; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED:18.03.2013 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8212 WP No. 107845 of 2016

¶16

2 TO THE COMMISSIONER, BUDA AND THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REDUCE THE LEASE AMOUNT TO 25% OF THE MARKET VALUE.

¶17

THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The captioned writ petition is filed assailing the order passed by respondent No.1/Commissioner of BUDA cancelling the allotment made in favour of petitioner on the ground that the Civil Amenities sites allotted to the petitioner-society has failed to deposit the balance lease amount within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of notice of allotment. The petitioner is also seeking a mandamus to respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation as per Annexure-D and accordingly, grant 50% exemption on the ground that petitioner-society intends to run the educational institution for weaker section.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned standing counsel appearing for 1^st respondent and learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.2.

¶21

The petitioner-society applied for allotment of land for establishment of an educational institution. Respondent No.1 vide order dated 28.07.2007 allotted on lease an area

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8212 WP No. 107845 of 2016

¶23

measuring 4916.5 Sq.Mtrs for Sy.No.14 in scheme No.51, Laxmi Tekdi, Belagavi by fixing the lease amount at Rs.46,61,345/- for a period of 30 years.

¶24

The petitioner by placing reliance on the Government Order bearing No.NAE/129/TMD/2002, Bengaluru dated 02.06.2023 sought allotment of Civil Amenities site by charging 25% of the lease amount determined for allotment. Respondent No.1 vide impugned order has declined to exempt the petitioner-society and since petitioner-society failed to deposit the lease amount within a period of 90 days has proceeded to cancel the allotment vide impugned order dated 26.08.2016 as per Annexure-H.

¶25

As rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, the Government Order as per Annexure-E clearly runs contrary to the Rule 10 of The Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Allotment Of Civic Amenity Sites) Rules, 1991 (For short ‘the Rules’).

¶26

Rule 8 of the Rules is extracted, which reads as

¶27

under;

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8212 WP No. 107845 of 2016

¶29

8. Lease amount of Site allotted to the Institutions:-

¶30

(1). The lease amount of the site to be allotted on lease basis shall be fixed by the authority provided the value of the Site per Sq.Mtr. is fixed at not less than the value per Sq.mtr. of the largest residential site in that area.

¶31

(2). The lease amount may be paid in the lump sum or in annual installments during the lease period. If the lease amount is paid in 5 annual installments, the rate of interest to be charged will be 12 per cent and if the lease amount is paid in more than five annual installments the interest rate will be 18 percent for the sixth and subsequent installments.

¶32

(3). The lease amount of a site notified while inviting applications may be altered by the authority and the institutions may accept the site at the altered rate or decline allotment.

¶33

(4). Allotment may be made at fifty per cent of the lease amount fixed by the authority in the following cases:-

¶34

(a) Institutions established for the welfare of physically handicapped and mentally retarded.

¶35

(b) Educational institutions running the schools in only Kannada medium:

¶36

(c) The departments of the Central Government or the State Government, Corporation or a body established by the Central Government or the State Government.

¶37

Though petitioner-society has placed reliance on the

¶38

Government Order vide Annexure-E, on reading the impugned order it is clearly evident that respondent No.2/State by its

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8212 WP No. 107845 of 2016

¶40

Communication bearing No.NaAE/260/BeMaPra/2013, dated 20.07.2016 has clearly indicated not to allot plot to petitionersociety by collecting 25% of the lease amount.

¶41

Be that as it may, petitioner having secured an allotment of Civil Amenities site has failed to deposit the lease amount within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of notice. The allotment is of the year 2017 and we are in 2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to persuade this Court by contending that a representation is given by petitioner as per Annexure-D on 18.03.2023 and therefore, he has tried to persuade this Court to issue appropriate mandamus to respondent No.2 to consider the representation and finalize the allotment of site on lease basis by reducing the market cost of site to 50%.

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued and contended that, petitioner-institution which intends to run a Kannada Medium School to the weaker section of the society is entitled for 50% exemption of the lease amount in terms of Rule 8(4)(b) of the Rules. This statement is equally countered by the counsel for respondent No.1 by placing reliance on Annexure-C, which is dated 28.07.2007. Referring

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8212 WP No. 107845 of 2016

¶44

to this document, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has pointed out that lease amount determined by the authorities is in terms of the Rule 8(4)(b) of the Rules and the amount determined is 50% of the lease amount, which comes to Rs.46,61,345/-. If this factual matrix is admitted, the petitioner-institution was required to deposit the balance amount strictly in terms of Rule 10(2) and (3) of the Rules.

¶45

On the contrary, it is forthcoming from the records that the petitioner-institution has made feeble attempt by submitting one more representation on 18.03.2013 requesting the respondents to reduce the market cost to 50% and pass appropriate orders in that regard. A request is also made to expedite the matter and finalize the issue. This representation is totally misconceived. The respondents vide communication dated 28.07.2007 as per Annexure-C called upon the petitioner-institution to pay the reduced market cost of the site at 50%. This demand raised in 2007. Therefore, the representation submitted in 2013 again requesting for reduction of 50%, which was already extended by the respondent-authorities cannot be considered.

¶46

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8212 WP No. 107845 of 2016

¶47

Rule 10 of the Rules clearly contemplates that institution to which civil amenity sites are allotted have to deposit the balance lease amount after deducting lease amount which is deposited along with the application within a period of 90 days. Under sub-clause (3) of Rule 10, the allottee however, is entitled to seek extension for further period of 60 days subject to payment 12% interest on the balance lease amount. Sub-clause (3) of Rule 10 further contemplates that, in the event the allottee fails to deposit the balance lease amount, there shall be forfeiture of initial deposit and allotment of site stands cancelled without any prior intimation.

¶48

On reading of these rules, this court is not inclined to accede to the contention of the petitioner-institution that allotment of site was unilaterally cancelled by the respondents without affording an opportunity. Rule 10 of the Rules clearly contemplates that, in the event the allottee fails to deposit the lease amount determined by the authority within the stipulated period that would incur not only cancellation of allotment but also forfeiture of the initial deposit. The fact that we are in 2024, no indulgence can be granted to the petitioner, at this juncture.

¶49

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8212 WP No. 107845 of 2016

¶50

For the forgoing reasons, this court is not inclined to interfere with the order under challenge. The writ petition being devoid of merits is accordingly, dismissed.

¶51

However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to apply afresh by submitting an application in the proper format along with requisite documents, in the event the applications are invited by the respondent-authorities.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

Para 1 to 8-AM Para 8 to end-MBS Ct-mck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

Progressive Liberal Education Foundation v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Progressive Liberal Education Foundation 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

Justice B Padmaraj (Retired) Vs the Union of India

D v Gopalappa Vs State of Karnataka

J K Suresh Vs Chikmagalur Kodagu Grameena Bank

Smt Saraswati W/O Vinayak Dhongadi Vs Regional Commissioner

Vinayak Hariyappa Bhatkal S/O Hariyappa Bhatkal Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramesh S/O Shrishail Bagewadi Vs Inspector General of Police