Allowed

Smt. T. N. Manjula v. the Government of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2024WP/18922/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TP filed under Articles 226/227 directed MUDA to refund Rs.1,08,480/- including registration fees and stamp duty paid for allotments later found unavailable, holding the petitioner cannot be penalized for the authority's error in site allocation.

What did the court decide?

Directed 3rd respondent MUDA to refund Rs.1,08,480/- to petitioner and granted liberty to seek set-off for other payable fees.

Smt. T. N. Manjula Vs the Government of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:49927 WP No. 18922 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 18922 OF 2022 (LB-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT. T. N. MANJULA W/O. SRI. G. E. NARAYANA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO. 186, 7^TH C MAIN, 18^TH CROSS, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 079.

¶7

PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI.SANCHAN JAI NANDAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDRA MOULI B G., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶12

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER THE MYSORE URBAN

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:49927 WP No. 18922 of 2022

¶16

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MYSORE-570 001.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT.CHANDINI S., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SMT. VIDYA R GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. G.B. SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-M AND N DATED 15.12.2021 AND 31.12.2021 RESPECTIVELY WHEREIN THE PETITIONER HAS REQUESTED THE RESPONDENT MUDA AUTHORITIES FOR REFUND OF A TOTAL SUM OF RS.1,08,480/- WHICH WAS PAID BY THE PETITIONER TOWARDS REGISTRATION CHARGES AND STAMP DUTY ON LEASE CUM SALE AGREEMENT DATED 21.06.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND DEED OF CANCELLATION OF LEASE CUM SALE AGREEMENT DATED 10.11.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-K WHICH WAS WRONGLY ALLOTTED BY RESPONDENT MUDA AUTHORITIES.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:49927 WP No. 18922 of 2022

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner has sought for directions to the Mysore Urban Development Authority [ the third respondent ] to consider her different representations and refund a total sum of Rs.1,08,480/-. The petitioner's representations are in the following circumstances which remain mostly undisputed.

¶26

The petitioner is allotted a site in No.1207

¶27

in Lalithadrinagar Layout, Mysuru resulting in the execution of the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement dated 21.06.2013. The petitioner is also issued with the Possession Certificate and Katha . Ultimately, the MUDA has accepted that the site in No.1207 is not available and therefore has allotted alternative site in No.24 in Lalithadrinagar [South], Mysuru. The petitioner is called upon to pay both stamp duty and registration fee [in a sum of Rs.52,240/-] at the time of execution of the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement dated 21.06.2013 with the petitioner paying similar amount

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:49927 WP No. 18922 of 2022

¶30

second time for the cancellation of the Lease-cumSale Agreement dated 21.06.2013.

¶31

The petitioner has also paid similar

¶32

amounts for the alternative site. The petitioner's case for refund total sum of Rs.1,08,480/- [Rs.52,240 + Rs.52,240/- as cost of registration of Lease-cum-Sale Agreement and Cancellation Agreement and the remaining amount as tax] rests on the assertion that the MUDA has resolved as way back as on 31.10.2001 to refund both the registration fee and the stamp duty when ultimately the allotment is cancelled because of its fault.

¶33

Sri Sanchan Jainandan, the learned

¶34

counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is compelled to pay Rs.1,08,480/- [including tax] for the first site needlessly and therefore there must be a refund. Smt. Vidya R Gowda, the learned counsel for the MUDA, submits that this Court at the most may direct the MUDA to refund the tax paid for the site

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:49927 WP No. 18922 of 2022

¶37

first allotted and reserve liberty to the petitioner to file a representation with the State Government for refund of the registration fee and stamp duty as these funds are credited to the treasury of the State Government. Smt. Chandini S, a learned High Court Government Pleader, is heard in the light of these submissions and circumstances.

¶38

This Court is persuaded to direct the

¶39

MUDA to refund Rs.1,08,480/-. The petitioner is constrained to pay at the rate of Rs.52,240/- firstly when the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement dated 21.06.2013 is executed and secondly on 10.11.2021 for the execution and registration of the Cancellation Agreement. The petitioner is compelled to pay these amounts as a direct consequence of the petitioner being allotted a site that was not available, and if the MUDA can fix the responsibility on a particular Officer or set of Officers who have brought about this outcome resulting in the loss to the

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:49927 WP No. 18922 of 2022

¶42

MUDA's office, it should be initiating action against such Officer/s, but it must refund the amount as the petitioner cannot be penalized. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

[a] The petition is allowed directing the third respondent-MUDA to refund Rs.1,08,480/- to the petitioner observing that, if the petitioner seeks instead of refund/set off towards Building Licence Fee or such other Fee payable for construction, to extend such benefit.

¶45

[b] The petitioner is reserved liberty to file a representation seeking refund/set off as aforesaid within a period of eight [8] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, and the MUDA shall consider the same and communicate its decision to the petitioner within a period

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:49927 WP No. 18922 of 2022

¶48

of three [3] months from the date of receipt of such representation.

¶49

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶50

AN/-

Smt. T. N. Manjula v. the Government of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. T. N. Manjula v. the Government 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

Smt.M.Lakshmidevamma Vs the Chief Officer

B. Chandrashekar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Muthyala Karthik Vs the Commissioner

M/S G M Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Vyvasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamita Vs State of Karnataka

Abdul Rasheed Vs the Commissioner