Smt Renukadevi D.O. Basappa Baragi Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Smt Renukadevi D.O. Basappa Baragi Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of on the basis of submissions of learned counsel for the respondents: petitioner to furnish loan and financial-constraint details within one week; respondents to consider the application sympathetically and leniently, including Rule 10 of the BTDA Rules, completing the exercise within three weeks from submission of the application. No NOC or quashing ordered at this stage.

Issue for consideration

Whether the endorsement dated 15.02.2025 bearing Order No. KRA.SAM:PU.A:BAA.PA.A.PRA:SI.AAR:2024-25/2787 passed by respondent No.3 refusing the petitioner permission to alienate the allotted property is liable to be quashed by writ of certiorari. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The petition is disposed of, with the petitioner directed to furnish and provide the details of her loan and the financial constraint encountered to the respondent-authorities within a week from receipt of a copy of the order.

Key takeaways

The respondents shall consider the petitioner's representation/application taking a sympathetic and lenient view, including taking into consideration Rule 10 of the BTDA Rules, and the application shall be considered leniently.ratio¶40
The entire exercise of consideration of the petitioner's application shall be completed within a period of three weeks from the date of submission of the application.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-RES) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench (Pradeep Singh Yerur, J.), decided 01.07.2025. Petitioner, a physically handicapped HESCOM employee who purchased Plot No.153, Unit No.1, Sector Nos.50 and 63 South, 'A' class, Navanagar, Bagalkot in auction for Rs.19,00,000/- and constructed a house with loan, applied on 24.01.2025 to respondent Nos.2 and 3 (BTDA) for permission to sell the house due to financial constraints. Respondent No.3 refused by endorsement dated 15.02.2025 (Order No. KRA.SAM:PU.A:BAA.PA.A.PRA:SI.AAR:2024-25/2787) citing the condition prohibiting alienation. Petitioner relied on the Bagalkot Town Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules 1993, contending that on insolvency or economic/financial crisis the property may be sold with the authorities' permission, and that Rule 10 was not considered. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that a fresh representation along with financial dues and loan details would be considered in accordance with law under Rule 10 of the BTDA Rules. HELD: Petition disposed of - petitioner to furnish loan and financial-constraint details within a week; respondents to consider the application taking a sympathetic and lenient view including Rule 10 of the BTDA Rules and complete the exercise within three weeks from submission of the application.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8233 WP No. 103799 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 103799 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT. RENUKADEVI D/O. BASAPPA BARAGI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. JOB, R/O. JANAMATTI, TQ: BILAGI, NOW R/O. SECTOR NO.50 AND 63 SOUTH SIDE, PLOT NO.153, A MODEL, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587 103.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE COMMISSIONER (R & R) UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT (UKP), NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587101.

VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

THE CHIEF ENGINEER, BAGALKOT TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BTDA), NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT - 587 101.

THE REHABILITATION OFFICER, BAGALKOT TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BTDA), NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587101.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1; SRI. SANJAY CHANAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

i. ISSUE A WRIT, OR DIRECTION OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ANNEXURE-L DATED 15.02.2025 VIDE ORDER BEARING KRA.SAM:PU.A:BAA.PA.A.PRA:SI.AAR:2024-25/2787, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3.

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8233 WP No. 103799 of 2025

HC-KAR

ii. ISSUE A WRIT, OR DIRECTION OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 TO ISSUE THE NOC TO SALE THE PROPERTY.

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

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

This petition is filed by the petitioner, who is a physically handicap person working in HESCOM, Bagalkot. She purchased a plot bearing No.153, Unit No.1, Sector Nos.50 and 63 south, ‘A’ class, Navanagar, Bagalkot, in the auction sale for a sum of Rs.19,00,000/-. Thereafter, she has been residing in the property by constructing a house. She obtained loan for construction of the house and now due to financial constraint, difficulties and the handicap of the petitioner, added to the woes, has become difficult for her to repay the loan and she has a daughter aged 5 years and thereby she is financially constraint to take care of the daughter and herself thereby making it difficult for her to repay the loan.

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8233 WP No. 103799 of 2025

HC-KAR

In view of her financial constraint, she made a request to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to sell the house. An application was submitted on 24.01.2025. Respondent No.3 on receipt of the application issued an endorsement dated 15.02.2025 stating that the petitioner cannot alienate the property to 3^rd parties in view of the condition stipulated therein. Hence, the petitioner being aggrieved by the same, is before this Court contending that respondent No.3 ought to have considered the representation positively and should have permitted the petitioner to sell the plot considering her financial constraint. It is also contended that it has become very difficult financially and mentally depressing for the petitioner to meet the ends. Hence, she intends to sell the house to take care of herself and the minor child. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the Bagalkot Town Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BTDA Rules), if there is insolvency or suffering from economic or financial crisis, the property may be sold with the permission of the authorities. This aspect has not been considered by

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8233 WP No. 103799 of 2025

HC-KAR

the respondents and has mechanically issued the endorsement rejecting the application of the petitioner to sell the property. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

Learned HCGP representing the respondentsAuthorities contends that if a fresh representation is made along with the financial dues and loan obtained by the petitioner including her difficulties and financial constraints, the same would be considered in accordance with law taking into consideration Rule 10 of the BTDA Rules within a reasonable time.

Under the circumstances, in view of the

submissions so made by the learned counsel for the respondents, I pass the following order:

This petition is disposed of. The petitioner is directed to furnish and provide the details of the loan and financial constraint encountered, to the respondent-authorities within a week’s from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The respondents shall consider the representation/application by

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8233 WP No. 103799 of 2025

HC-KAR

taking a sympathetic and lenient view including taking into consideration Rule 10 of the BTDA Rules. The application of the petitioner shall be considered leniently. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three weeks from the date of submission of the application of the petitioner.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

Kmv CT-MCK