Quashed

Sri. Bhojraj K.G. v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Aug 2024WP/8153/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A development authority cancelled a petitioner's site allotment under a lease cum sale agreement after nine years, without notice. The court held this violated natural justice, quashed the cancellation order, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration with notice and hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned cancellation order quashed; matter remitted to respondent No.2 for reconsideration with show cause notice, opportunity for objections and hearing.

Sri. Bhojraj K.G. Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:34322 WP No. 8153 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 8153 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. BHOJRAJ K.G. S/O K G PRABHAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/A KALMANE, SHIKARI PURA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. MADHUKAR NADIG, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND LOCAL BODIES, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001

¶15

BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶16

SHIVAMOOGGA-BHADRAVATHI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (SUDA) SHIVAMOGGA 577201

¶17

REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶18

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R1

¶19

SRI. SHIVAJI H. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 18.10.2021 PASSED BY THE R-2 WITH RESPECT TO SITE NO. D-298 MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF EAST TO WEST 12 METERS AND NORTH TO SOUTH 18 METERS

¶21

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:34322 WP No. 8153 of 2024

¶22

EAST BY SITE NO. D-297, EAST BY SITE NO. D-299, NORTH BY SITE NO.D-322 AND D-323, SOUTH BY 12 METERS ROAD (ANNX-C) AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 18.10.2021 vide Annexure-C with respect to site No.D-298 and sought for mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to reconsider the matter of cancellation of allotment of site and pass the order afresh by giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to file objection and place documents and personal hearing and without being influenced by the findings of the Lokayuktha or the State Government and take a decision by the Authority.

¶27

Brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ petition are as under:

¶28

Respondent No.2 vide notification had allotted sites of Mallegenahalli, Shivamogga taluk, in the name of Atal

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:34322 WP No. 8153 of 2024

¶30

bihari Vajpayee layout for general public. However, the petitioner had applied for the site measuring to an extent of east to west 12 meters and north to south 18 meters by submitting the application. Respondent No.2, has executed the registered lease cum sale agreement dated 30.11.2012 in favour of the petitioner with respect to site

¶31

block No.D.298, measuring east to west 12 meters and north to south 18 meters. Respondent No.2 without issuing any notice nor calling for any explanation from the petitioner, passed the order for cancellation of allotment of site. Respondent No.2 unilaterally cancelled the allotment of site in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the endorsement vide Annexure-C filed this writ petition.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶33

also learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶35

respondent No.2 without issuing show cause notice has cancelled the lease cum sale agreement . He submits that

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:34322 WP No. 8153 of 2024

¶38

impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is in violation of the principles of natural justice and further he also placed reliance of the order passed by the Co-ordinate bench of this court in the writ petition Nos.14430/2022 connected with other writ petitions disposed of on 23.06.2023. He submits that the petitioner is also entitled for similar relief. Hence, on these grounds he prays to dispose of the writ petition in terms of aforesaid writ petitions.

¶39

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 supports the impugned order and prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶40

Perused the records and considered the submission s of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶41

It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 executed the registered lease cum sale agreement in favour of the petitioner allotting site No.D.298 vide lease cum sale agreement dated 30.11.2012. The respondent

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:34322 WP No. 8153 of 2024

¶43

No.2 without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner after lapse of more than 9 years passed the order canceling the site allotted in favour of the petitioner. The order passed by the respondent No.2 is in violation of principles of natural justice and further respondent No.2 has not produced any records to establish that, before passing the impugned order respondent No.2 has heard the petitioner and pass the order. In an identical matters this court allowed the writ petitions and the petitioner is also entitled for the same benefit.

¶44

8. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶47

The impugned order of cancellation of allotment of site passed by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶48

The matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 for reconsideration.

¶49

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:34322 WP No. 8153 of 2024

¶50

Respondent No.2 shall issue show cause notice to the petitioner indicating the ground for cancellation of allotment of site. The petitioner shall be permitted to file his reply or objection and an opportunity of hearing shall be given to the petitioner.

¶51

Respondent No.2 shall consider every legal contention without being influenced by the findings of the Lokayukta or the State Government. Therefore, the decision shall be taken by the Authority by way of reasonable order .

¶52

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶53

SKS

Sri. Bhojraj K.G. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Bhojraj K.G. v. 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

Sri Doddananjappa Vs the Sub Registrar

Sri Avinashgowda D. M., Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Lakshmamma Vs Sri Appanna

Sri Honnegowda Vs the Chief Commissioner

Palegowda G B Vs State of Karnataka

S Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka