Sri Umashankar G S Vs Mysuru Urban Development Authority

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:4401 WP No. 11659 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 11659 OF 2020 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI UMASHANKAR G S S/O LATE G SHIVA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/O NO 32/1, VCN AMOGH FLATS, BLOCK A HOUSE NO 401, 4TH FLOOR, 3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS, BEML LAYOUT, BASAVESHWARANAGAR 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU 560079

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. K R LINGARAJU., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER JLB ROAD, MYSURU 570005

¶13

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE SPECIAL TAHASILDHAR ZONAL OFFICE NO 5A AND B, MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JLB ROAD, MYSURU 570005

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY DR.PRAJWAL.K.ARADHYA., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENTS DATED 28.04.2020 AND ANOTHER ENDORSEMENT DATED 24.06.2019 BOTH THE ENDORSEMENTS HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B RESPECTIVELY, ETC.

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:4401 WP No. 11659 of 2020

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The prayer in this writ petition is to quash the Endorsements dated 28.04.2020 and 24.06.2019 by which the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (for short, “ the MUDA ”) has stated that since the petitioner has not furnished the proof for payment of balance sital value, the site in question could not be conveyed to the petitioner.

¶22

The undisputed facts of this particular case are that on 22.03.1989, the petitioner had made a payment of Rs.4,538/- and made an application for allotment of site.

¶23

On 27.09.1991, the site bearing No.1398 of Devanur 2^nd Stage was allotted to the petitioner and the petitioner was called upon to deposit a sum of Rs.39,902/- within a period of ninety days.

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4401 WP No. 11659 of 2020

¶25

The petitioner has placed on record the receipt for having remitted a sum of Rs.1,400/on 29.10.1991 being a part of the sital value and also

¶26

a xerox copy of the demand draft dated 26.12.1991 whereby a further sum of Rs.5,000/was paid.

¶27

The receipt of these amounts by MUDA is not in dispute.

¶28

Thus, the petitioner, after the allotment has admittedly paid a sum of Rs.6,400/- out of the balance of Rs.39,902/-.

¶29

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has in fact paid a sum of Rs.35,000/- by way of cash and he placed reliance on the receipt issued by Vijaya Bank in proof of payment of said amount. The learned counsel also places on record the original receipt dated 01.01.1992 to indicate that the payment was in fact made. The petitioner therefore,

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:4401 WP No. 11659 of 2020

¶32

contends that the entire sital value was paid way back in the year 1992 and yet the authority is contending that they have no proof of the payment made by the petitioner.

¶33

MUDA has entered appearance and contested the matter on the ground that as per the records available with it, they are unable to establish that the petitioner did in fact make the last payment of Rs.35,000/-.

¶34

The learned counsel appearing for MUDA also places on record a noting of the MUDA in which it is stated that the Accounts Department had informed the Allotment Division that they did not have the relevant entry regarding the receipt of Rs.35,000/- and when the Bank which had issued the receipt was contacted, they had responded stating that the Bank had undergone computerization and all the earlier records which were maintained manually were unavailable. The

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4401 WP No. 11659 of 2020

¶36

MUDA therefore contends that there is no proof of said payment at all.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.35,000/- in the year 1992 i.e., more than 32 years ago, in order to give a quietus to the matter, the petitioner, on his own, would unconditionally pay the sum of Rs.35,000/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that this amount may be accepted without prejudice to his stand that he has already made the payment since the petitioner is in fact making a double payment.

¶38

In my view, after perusing the original challan that is produced by the petitioner’s counsel and taking note of the noting made by the authorities that Vijaya Bank was unable to furnish the proof regarding receipt of Rs.35,000/-, because manual entry records were unavailable, it will have to be

¶39

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4401 WP No. 11659 of 2020

¶40

held that the petitioner had complied with the requirement of paying the balance consideration of Rs.35,000/- as contended by him.

¶41

It is also pertinent to notice here that the allotment in question was made in the year 1989 and if, as a matter of fact, the MUDA has not received the balance sale consideration amount, obviously they would not have kept quiet for decades and not taken action for cancellation of the allotment of site. The fact that the MUDA has not cancelled the site despite lapse of several decades itself goes to show that the MUDA had received the amount.

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the entire original records relating to the allotment in his possession, which indicate the payment of Rs.35,000/- and also the earlier amounts were paid. This would therefore indicate that the amounts had been paid by the petitioner.

¶43

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4401 WP No. 11659 of 2020

¶44

Be that as it may, since the petitioner had volunteered to pay sum of Rs.35,000/-, in the larger interest of justice and equity, in my view, it would be appropriate to direct the MUDA to convey the property to the petitioner on receipt of sum of Rs.35,000/-, which shall be paid by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today.

¶45

On receipt of Rs.35,000/-, the MUDA shall execute the necessary sale deed within a period of eight weeks thereafter.

¶46

The writ petition is accordingly allowed .

¶47

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶48

RK

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68

Sri Umashankar G S v. Mysuru Urban Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Umashankar G S v. Mysuru Urban Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri R Kemparaju Vs the Regional Commissioner

Zuri Hospitality Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K Murli Reddy Vs the Principal Secretary

N Chidananda Vs Channapatna City Municipal Council

Sri Nagesh K M Vs the Secretary

Sri Ravi S Vs State of Karnataka