M Mukambika Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO ALLOT ALTERNATIVE SITE IN SAME LAYOUT AND SAME DIMENSION IN LIEU OF SITE BEARING NO. 12017 OF VIJAYANAGARA 4^TH STAGE, MYSORE AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent No.2 to allot alternate site in the same layout in lieu of the site bearing No.12017 situate at Vijayanagara 4^th Stage, Mysuru.

¶24

The petitioner contends that she was allotted a site

¶25

bearing No.12017 measuring 50 feet x 80 feet situate at Vijayanagar 4^th Stage, 2^nd phase, Mysuru on 28.08.1998.

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:51096 WP No. 19910 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

The petitioner claims that she submitted a representation in the year 2001 to the respondent No.2 alleging that the aforesaid site did not exist and therefore, requested for an alternate site and the office of the respondent No.2 had recommended for allotment of an alternate site. However, no steps were taken for allotment of the same. The petitioner claims that she is unable to use the site allotted to her even after 27 years as there is an ongoing litigation in respect of the land bearing Sy. No.90 of Basavanahalli where the site is formed. Therefore, she submitted the representation to the respondent No.2 on 30.05.2024 for allotment of an alternate site. She contends that the said representation is not considered and therefore, prays that a direction be issued to the respondent No.2 to allot an alternate site.

¶30

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that

¶31

the site in question is allotted to the petitioner and the sale deed is already executed. He contends that there is no reason why an alternate site has to be allotted to the petitioner more particularly when her neighbours have constructed residential houses. He, therefore, contends that the petitioner does not

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:51096 WP No. 19910 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

have any right to compel the respondent No.2 to allot an alternate site. He submits that alternate sites can be allotted only in circumstances as provided under Rule 16 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1991. He contends that the claim of the petitioner that she is entitled to an alternate site is not one of the grounds on which an alternative site could be allotted. Nevertheless, he contends that representation of the petitioner would be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders will be passed.

¶36

In view of the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2, this Court without expressing any opinion on merits of the case of the petitioner, deems it appropriate to dispose off this writ petition directing the respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. Hence, the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38