Allottee failed to construct a house on an allotted MUDA site within the lease-cum-sale agreement period; authority refused to execute sale deed. Court extended time on petitioner's undertaking to complete construction within 1½ years and directed execution of sale deed thereafter.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 27139 OF 2023 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
B R VENKATESH SON OF B N RAJAGOPALA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, NO 2007/A, SOUTH END E ROAD, NEAR RAGIGUDDA TEMPLE, JAYANAGARA 9TH BLOCK, BENGALURU 560069
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANGAMESH R B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. BOPANNA, AGA FOR R1
SRI. T.P. VEVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
NC: 2024:KHC:39204 WP No. 27139 of 2023
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOQUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DTD 03/11/2023 BEARING NO. MY.NA.PRA/VI.TA.6/2023-24 ISSUED BY THE R-3 (ANNEXURE-A) AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 AND 3 TO EXECUTE REGISTERED SALE DEED TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF SITE BEARING NO. 2721, MEASURING 12 X 18 SQ. MTRS., SITUATED AT LALBAHADDUR SHASTRY NAGAR, MYSURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking writ of certiorari to quash the impugned endorsement dated 03.11.2023 vide Annexure-A and also sought for writ of mandamus, directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to execute the registered sale deed to the petitioner in respect of site bearing No.2721, measuring 12 X 18 sq.mtrs., situated at Lalbahaddur shastry Nagar, Mysuru.
The petitioner applied for allotment of a site and allotment letter was issued on 01.09.2007. Thereafter, Mysore Urban Development Authority (for short 'MUDA') executed lease-cum-sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 04.07.2008. The possession certificate was issued and on the basis of lease-cum-sale deed and possession certificate, khata was issued in the name of the petitioner and petitioner paid the property tax till the year 2023. The petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents to execute the registered sale deed in respect of site in question. Respondent No.3 issued an endorsement stating that, after execution of the lease-cum-sale deed, the petitioner has not put up construction of a residential house in the said site. Since, the petitioner failed to construct residential house, the respondent authorities cannot execute a registered sale deed and the letter was written to the Government seeking permission to execute
such sale deed by imposing fine. The petitioner, aggrieved by the endorsement dated 03.11.2023, filed this writ petition.
objections contending that the petitioner has not complied the terms and conditions of the lease-cum-sale agreement and he has not constructed the building within 5 years in terms of clause 3 of the lease-cum-sale agreement. Hence, respondents were justified in issuing impugned endorsement. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition.
the site in question was allotted in favour of the petitioner and possession was delivered by issuing the possession certificate and it is submitted that, due to financial constraint, the petitioner could not able to construct the building within 5 years from the date of execution of lease
cum sale agreement. He submits that if reasonable time is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner will construct the building in terms of clause 3 of the lease-cum-sale agreement. Hence, also submits that the petitioner filed an affidavit undertaking to construct the building within 1½ years. Hence, prays to allow the writ petition.
have not considered the representation. Hence, the petitioner filed an affidavit undertaking to construct the building in terms of clause 3 of the agreement of sale within 1½ years from today.
NC: 2024:KHC:39204 WP No. 27139 of 2023
out a ground to extend the time for constructing the building.
ORDER
The writ petition is allowed.
The impugned endorsement vide
Annexure-A is set aside.
Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make an application for seeking sanction permission within one month from today and thereafter to make application to the competent authority and the petitioner shall complete the building within 1½ years from the date of approval of sanction plan, failing which, the petitioner will not be entitled for the benefit of this order.
After constructing the building by the petitioner, the petitioner shall make a representation for execution of registered sale deed. The respondents are directed to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner
NC: 2024:KHC:39204 WP No. 27139 of 2023
within one month from the date of submitting the completion certificate.
Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE
SKS
2 issues framed by the court
Was MUDA justified in refusing to execute a registered sale deed because the allottee had not constructed a house within five years as required by clause 3 of the lease-cum-sale agreement?
Should time for construction be extended given the petitioner's undertaking to build within 1½ years?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
B R Venkatesh
State of Karnataka, Department of Urban Development
Mysore Urban Development Authority
Special Tahsildar, Mysore Urban Development Authority
Ashok S. Kinagi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
