Bovi Naukarara Samskruthika Sangha (R) Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:49394 WP No. 14159 of 2021

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 14159 OF 2021 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

BOVI NAUKARARA SAMSKRUTHIKA SANGHA (R) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI. B.V. SREENIVASA, NO.79, LIC COLONY, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, SRIRAMAPURA, MYSURU-570023

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. K. SHIVASHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY IT'S UNDER SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKHAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶13

Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER J.L.B. ROAD, MYSURU-570005

¶15

PRESIDENT MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY J.L.B. ROAD, MYSURU-570005

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. B. BOPANNA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶18

SMT. POONAM PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3)

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:49394 WP No. 14159 of 2021

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO.V.THA-3/LP-25, VOLUME-03 DATED 06.07.2021 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2, CANCELLATION ALLOTMENT OF ALTERNATE OF CA SITE BEARING CA SITE NO.5, VIJAYANAGAR 3^RD STAGE, 'C' BLOCK, MYSORE VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner has challenged an order passed by the respondent No.2 bearing No� �� dated 06.07.2021 by which allotment of the Civic Amenity site bearing No.CA-05 in 'C' block, Vijayanagar 3^rd Stage, Mysuru, measuring 33 m x 36 m totally 1188 sq. m. made in its favour for the purpose of establishment of a cultural Central Library was cancelled for violation of Rule 10(4) and Rule 10(5) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Allotment of Civic Amenities) Rules, 1991 (for short, 'the Rules, 1991'). Further,

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:49394 WP No. 14159 of 2021

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

it was ordered that 25% of the lease amount paid by the petitioner to respondent No.2 stood forfeited.

¶31

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, the petitioner is an Association comprised of persons belonging to scheduled caste. The petitioner was allotted a civic amenity site, namely, CA-02 situate at Bogadi Asha Mandira, 2^nd Stage, Mysuru, measuring 960 sq. m., by the respondent No.2 for lease amount of Rs.76,800/-. The petitioner paid the lease amount of Rs.76,800/- consequent to which a lease agreement was executed on 02.11.1993. The respondent No.2 issued a possession certificate dated 16.03.1994 in favour of the petitioner and the khata of the property was made over to the name of the petitioner. It is claimed that the civic amenity site allotted to the petitioner was embroiled in some litigation between the respondent No.2 and the owner of the land. The petitioner was therefore, forced to submit a representation dated 21.05.1999 to the respondent No.2 seeking allotment of an alternate site. Following this, the respondent No.2 addressed a letter dated 04.11.2000 to the petitioner allotting an alternate Civic Amenity site bearing No.CA-05 situate at 'C'

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:49394 WP No. 14159 of 2021

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

block, Vijayanagara 3^rd Stage, Mysuru, measuring 33 m x 36 m i.e., is 1188 sq. m. The Secretary of the respondent No.2 had addressed a letter dated 23.07.2001 to the petitioner calling upon it to pay the difference amount of Rs.765/- per sq. m. for the excess extent i.e. 228 sq. m. of the civic amenity site allotted. The petitioner paid the excess amount of Rs.1,97,952/- on 19.04.2007 to the respondent No.2. Later, the respondent No.2 addressed a letter dated 18.11.2010 to the respondent No.1 inter alia seeking approval from it to hand over possession of the Civic Amenity site bearing No.CA-05 situate at ‘C’ block, Vijayanagara 3^rd stage, Mysuru, to the petitioner. The petitioner then submitted a representation dated 02.03.2015 requesting the respondent No.2 to hand over the possession of civic amenity site allotted to it. However, the said request was not considered by the respondent No.2 which compelled the petitioner to again request the respondent No.2 by a representation dated 23.06.2017. The respondent No.2 did not consider the said representation which again compelled the petitioner to file further representations, both dated 27.11.2018 before the respondent Nos.2 and 3 which also did not bear any fruit. The petitioner was again compelled to file

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:49394 WP No. 14159 of 2021

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

another representation dated 04.01.2021 before the respondent No.3. While the petitioner was eagerly awaiting that the respondent No.2 would favourably consider and hand over possession of the Civic Amenity site bearing No.CA-05, it received an order dated 06.07.2021 passed by the respondent No.2 cancelling the allotment of Civic Amenity site bearing No.CA-05 in its favour on the ground that the petitioner had violated Rule 10(4) and Rule 10(5) of the Rules, 1991. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Rule 10(4) and Rule 10(5) of the Rules, 1991 are not applicable to the petitioner as they are applicable only when an agreement is executed in favour of an allottee. He contends that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.1,97,952/- on 19.04.2007 itself to the respondent No.2 and therefore, the impugned order which is issued after several years is liable to be set at nought. He also contends that the Rules, 1991 admits payment of the lease amount in yearly installments and the maximum interest payable is 18% for the sixth and subsequent installments if the lease amount is paid in more than five installments. He, therefore, contends that the

¶39

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:49394 WP No. 14159 of 2021

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

petitioner is willing to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date the amount became payable. He further contends that the initial allotment of the Civic Amenity site No.CA-2 was made to the petitioner by the respondent No.2 on 01.10.1992 and the petitioner had paid the entire lease amount of Rs.76,800/- within the time prescribed therein and presently, the petitioner is expected to pay the difference in the value of the excess area allotted to the petitioner. He, therefore, contends that the petitioner has complied with the terms stated in the allotment letter dated 01.10.1992 when the Civic Amenity site No.CA-2 was initially allotted and therefore, allotment of the alternate site to the petitioner is outside the purview of the Rules, 1991 and hence, respondent No.2 is bound to receive interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the delayed period and it cannot cancel the allotment of Civic Amenity site No.CA-05 to the petitioner. He also contends that the possession of the site is not handed over to the petitioner till date and therefore, prays that a direction be issued to the respondent No.2 to hand over possession of the Civic Amenity site No.CA-05 and execute the required documents to conclude the allotment. He contends that the civic amenity site allotted

¶42

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:49394 WP No. 14159 of 2021

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

to the petitioner, which is comprised of members belonging to the scheduled castes, would serve a larger section of the people belonging to the scheduled castes and depriving the petitioner of the Civic Amenity site would tantamount to depriving a community of the benefit of allotment. He, therefore, contends that the case may be considered sympathetically having regard to the fact that the petitioner was not at fault but it was the respondent No.2 which was at fault in allotting a site which had defective title in the first instance.

¶45

The writ petition is opposed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3. They have filed statement of objections inter alia contending that it is the petitioner who gave a representation to the respondent No.2 seeking allotment of an alternate site. It is claimed that the respondent No.2 after considering the representation of the petitioner allotted an alternate site bearing No.5, 'C' Block, Vijayanagara 3^rd Stage, Mysuru, measuring 1188 sq. m. and an allotment letter was issued to the petitioner on 04.11.2000. It is admitted that the area of the Civic Amenity site No.CA-2 earlier allotted to the petitioner was 960 sq. m. while the alternate Civic Amenity site No.CA05 measured 1188 sq. m. Therefore, the respondent No.2

¶46

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:49394 WP No. 14159 of 2021

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

demanded the petitioner to pay the difference for the excess area vide letter dated 23.07.2001. It is contended that the letter of allotment issued by the respondent No.2 particularly mentioned that the petitioner had to pay the lease amount within 90 days and failure to do so would result in cancellation of the allotment of the Civic Amenity Site. The respondent No.2 thereafter issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 21.11.2006 calling for an explanation for non-payment of the lease amount. It is alleged that the petitioner did not respond to the said notice. However, the petitioner had paid the balance lease amount beyond the statutory period and hence, an endorsement dated 03/07.05.2007 was addressed to the petitioner to accept refund of the amount paid belatedly. Respondent No.2 also sought approval of the State Government to issue a possession certificate to the petitioner as the petitioner made delayed payments since there was no provision to extend the time prescribed under the Rules, 1991. The State Government rejected the request on 06.12.2010 on the ground that the petitioner had violated the Rules, 1991 in not depositing the lease amount in time. However, the petitioner continued to submit repeated representations to the

¶49

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:49394 WP No. 14159 of 2021

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

respondent No.2 to issue possession certificate. The respondent No.2 issued an endorsement dated 19.05.2015 to the petitioner informing it that the State Government had rejected its request and advised it to take back the amount deposited. The respondent No.2 then issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 11.04.2017 but the petitioner chose not to reply. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 was perforced to pass the impugned order cancelling the allotment of the Civic Amenity site No.CA-05. It is thus contended that the cancellation of the Civic Amenity site No.CA-05 in favour of the petitioner is in accordance with the procedure provided under the Rules, 1991.

¶52

Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 reiterated the above contentions and submitted that it was the petitioner who was at fault in not depositing the amount as per the letter of allotment and therefore, no indulgence can be shown to the petitioner.

¶53

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶54

counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶55

10 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:49394 WP No. 14159 of 2021

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was earlier allotted a Civic Amenity site bearing No.CA-2 measuring 960 sq. m. situate at Bogadi Asha Mandira, 2^nd Stage, Mysuru, in terms of a letter of allotment dated 01.10.1992. Following this, a lease agreement was executed on 02.11.1993. The petitioner had paid the entire lease amount of Rs.76,800/-. It appears that there was some dispute between the land owner and the respondent No.2 in respect of the area where Civic Amenity site No.CA-2 situate at Bogadi Asha Mandira, 2^nd Stage, Mysuru was formed. This prompted the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondent No.2 requesting for allotment of an alternate site. The respondent No.2 did allot an alternate site on 04.11.2000. The terms of allotment of alternate site contemplated that the petitioner should pay the annual lease at the rate of Rs.11,802/- and an additional sum of Rs.1,188/-. However in another breath, it was mentioned in the allotment letter dated 04.11.2000 as follows:

¶59

�� !�"�#"� ��$%&'(�)*��+�� &�

¶60

,�-�.� ��"��/�0�0�"��12 3�"��/*�4��

¶61

11 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:49394 WP No. 14159 of 2021

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

The Rules, 1991 do not contemplate a situation where an alternate site is allotted to an allottee. When the petitioner had already paid the balance payable towards the excess area of the Civic Amenity site allotted, the respondent No.2 could not have fallen back upon the Rules, 1991 to contend that the petitioner had belatedly paid the money. The tenure of the lease of the Civic Amenity site bearing No.CA-05 was 30 years from the date of allotment i.e. 04.11.2000 and the petitioner had an option of paying the lease amounts at the rate of Rs.11,802/- + Rs.1,188/- every year. However, the petitioner has chosen to pay the entire amount in one lumpsum within six years from the date the demand was made by the respondent No.2. Therefore, respondent No.2 could not have invoked Rule 10(3) and Rule 10(4) of the Rules, 1991 to contend that the petitioner had violated the Rules, 1991 in not depositing the lease amount in time. Therefore, this is one such case where this Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to restore the allotment of Civic Amenity site No.CA-05 made in favour of the petitioner having regard to the fact that the petitioner is an Association of persons belonging to scheduled castes and the benefit of such allotment would flow

¶65

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:49394 WP No. 14159 of 2021

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

to the people belonging to the underprivileged section of the society. However, this Court cannot ignore the fact that the petitioner despite receiving a communication dated 23.07.2001 from the respondent No.2, slept over the matter and did not deposit the balance amount payable. The petitioner is, therefore, bound to make amends for not depositing the amount in time.

¶68

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that one of the reasons for cancelling the allotment of the Civic Amenity site No.CA-05 in favour of the petitioner seems to be that the petitioner had not used the said property for the purpose for which it was allotted. However, it is seen that the possession of the said property was not handed over to the petitioner by the respondent No.2 and therefore, the petitioner could not have constructed any building or put to use the said property for the purpose for which it was allotted.

¶69

In view of the above, the ends of justice would be met by directing the petitioner to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the balance amount payable towards excess area of the Civic Amenity site No.CA-05 from the date

¶70

13 -

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC:49394 WP No. 14159 of 2021

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

when it became due till the date the said amount was paid. Hence, the following:

¶74

ORDER

¶75

i. The writ petition is allowed.

¶76

ii. The impugned order bearing No. ��

¶77

�� dated 06.07.2021 passed by the respondent No.2 is quashed. The respondent No.2 is directed to restore the allotment of the Civic Amenity Site No.CA-05 to the petitioner and hand over its possession to the petitioner and execute necessary documents required for that purpose and permit the petitioner to put the said property to use for which it was allotted. The petitioner shall pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the balance amount payable from the date it became due till the date the amount was paid.

¶78

It is needless to mention that this order is passed in the

¶79

peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and shall not be treated as a precedent.

¶80

SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Bovi Naukarara Samskruthika Sangha (R) v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bovi Naukarara Samskruthika Sangha (R) v. State of Karnataka

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. B. S. Suresh Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Subramani D N Vs the Commissioner

K a Thammaiah Vs the Mysore Urban Development Authority

Smt. Chikkahanumakka Vs the Municipal Commissioner

Sri Muthu C Vs Greater Bangalore Authority (Formerly Bbmp)

Sri K S Rajesh Vs the Commissioner