Dismissed¶10

M/S Chaitanya Education Institution v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Oct 2025WP/51528/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civic amenity site allotment cancellation for non-payment of balance lease amount; Rule 10 conditions of allotment (90-day payment, extension, forfeiture); Rule 8(4) 50% concession for Kannada Medium educational institutions; Chitradurga Development Authority; revision under Section 63 Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 dismissed; writ petition under Articles 226/227 dismissed; site subsequently allotted to Waqf Board; NC: 2025:KHC:40938.

What did the court decide?

Payment of the balance lease amount was not linked to the petitioner obtaining permission from the Education Department to establish a Kannada Medium school; the petitioner was bound to pay the balance within the time prescribed under Rule 10 of the Rules of 1991 and must have paid it forthwith. ¶9

M/S Chaitanya Education Institution Vs the State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 23.03.2017 passed by respondent No.1 (Annexure-N) dismissing the petitioner's revision petition should be quashed, and whether respondent No.2 should be directed to register the schedule property in favour of the petitioner. +1 more

¶prayer

Court's answer

The cancellation of the allotment of the civic amenity site to the petitioner and the rejection of the revision petition by respondent No.1 in the impugned order are just and proper and do not warrant interference.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (LB-RES) dismissed. The petitioner, an educational institution, was allotted a civic amenity site by the Chitradurga Development Authority (respondent No.2) at 50% concession rate under Rule 8(4) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites) Rules, 1991, conditional on running a Kannada Medium educational institution. Having deposited only 10% of the amount (Rs.74,488/-) on 14.02.2007, it failed to pay the balance lease amount (Rs.7,48,785/-) within the period prescribed by Rule 10 of the Rules of 1991, pleading delay in obtaining the education department's certificate of registration (issued 08.01.2010). The allotment was cancelled (decision of 13.07.2009) and the site was later allotted to the Waqf Board, Chitradurga (02.11.2017). The petitioner's revision petition under Section 63 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 was dismissed by respondent No.1 by order dated 23.03.2017. Holding (R. Nataraj, J.): payment of the balance lease amount was not linked to obtaining permission from the Education Department, and the petitioner must have paid the amount forthwith; the cancellation of the allotment and the rejection of the revision petition were just and proper and did not warrant interference. Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:40938 WP No. 51528 of 2017

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 51528 OF 2017 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S CHAITANYA EDUCATION INSTITUTION B.K.S LAYOUT, HOLALAKERE ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577501 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SMT. D.S.BHAGYA

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. GANAPATHY BHAT VAJRALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, NEAR AKASHVANI, KELAKOTE, CHITRADURGA-577501

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

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

¶18

SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN FILE NO.NAE.202.BRP.2012 DATED

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:40938 WP No. 51528 of 2017

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

23.03.2017, PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-N AND FURTHER PLEASED TO DIRECT THE 2^ND RESPONDENT TO REGISTER THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER BY TAKING BALANCE AMOUNT AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.£ÀCE

¶28

202 ¨ÉAgÀÆ¥Áæ 2012 dated 23.03.2017 passed by respondent No.1

¶29

and has sought for a direction to the respondent No.2 to convey the property described in the schedule by accepting the balance lease amount. It has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 not to allot and register the schedule property in favour of third parties.

¶30

(i) The petitioner is an educational institution which approached the respondent No.2 for allotment of a civic amenity site. On coming to know that a civic amenity site is up for allotment, it filed an application seeking allotment. The respondent No.2 after considering the application, allotted a civic amenity site formed in Re-Sy.No.7/9 and 7/11,

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:40938 WP No. 51528 of 2017

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Kenchanakatte village, Kasaba Hobli, Chitradurga District, at a meeting held on 17.02.2007. The petitioner claims that the respondent No.2 had imposed a condition that after the site is allotted, the petitioner should run a Kannada Medium educational institution and requisite permission had to be produced before the respondent No.2.

¶34

(ii) The respondent No.2 issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon it to deposit Rs.74,488/- being 10% of the allotment price to issue a confirmed allotment. The petitioner deposited the said amount. Later, the petitioner submitted an application before the education department and sought permission to run a Kannada Medium educational institution. However, the request of the petitioner was not granted immediately, which delayed the registration of the site in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a representation on 14.08.2009 informing the respondent No.2 about the request made by it before the education department. The petitioner submitted another representation dated 29.12.2009 explaining the delay in getting the permission from the education department. After nearly three years, the education department issued a certificate of registration on

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:40938 WP No. 51528 of 2017

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

08.01.2010, which was placed before the respondent No.2 by the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 14.08.2012 and requested the respondent No.2 to register a lease in respect of the civic amenity site. The petitioner claims that though the civic amenity site was not allotted to any third party but the respondent No.2 did not consider the request of the petitioner. The petitioner therefore, approached this Court in W.P.No.37709/2012 for suitable directions. However, the writ petition was withdrawn in view of an alternative remedy available under Section 63 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987. The petitioner thereafter, approached the respondent No.1 in a revision petition, which was heard and dismissed on 23.03.2017.

¶38

(iii) The petitioner is therefore, before this Court challenging the order passed by respondent No.1 and has sought for a direction to respondent No.2 not to allot civic amenity site to any third party.

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner could not have got a lease registered until it complied the condition imposed by the respondent No.2

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40938 WP No. 51528 of 2017

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

namely, to establish a Kannada Medium educational institution. He contends that soon after the petitioner got the permission, it placed it before the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2 did not favourably consider the request. He further contends that the respondent No.1 did not provide adequate opportunity but rejected the revision petition without assigning proper reasons and did not consider the written submissions placed before him. He therefore, prays that the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 be set aside and suitable directions be issued.

¶43

(i) The petition is opposed by the respondent

¶44

No.2 by filing a detailed statement of objections. It is contended that vide resolution dated 10.03.2008, it had allotted a civic amenity site formed in Re-Sy.No.7/9 and 7/11 to the petitioner on lease for a period of 30 years. The lease amount was fixed at a sum of Rs.7,48,785/-. The petitioner had deposited 10% of the lease amount on 14.02.2007. The petitioner failed to deposit the remaining lease amount and therefore, the respondent No.2 took a decision at its meeting held on 13.07.2009 to cancel the allotment. The respondent No.2 has referred to Rule 10(3) of the Karnataka Urban

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:40938 WP No. 51528 of 2017

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Development Authorities (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites) Rules, 1991 (henceforth referred to as 'Rules of 1991') and contends that if the lease amount is not paid within a period of 90 days, further extension of time not exceeding 60 days would be provided subject to payment of interest at 12% of amount on the extended period. If the lease amount is not paid within the extended period then the registration fee and initial deposit would be forfeited and the allotment would be cancelled.

¶48

(ii) The respondent No.2 contends that since the petitioner failed to pay the balance amount within the time prescribed, the allotment was cancelled and thereafter, it was allotted to Waqf Board, Chitradurga on 02.11.2017. The Waqf Board also did not pay the lease amount but it requested for concession and the respondent No.2 has forwarded the request to the respondent No.1 as per the decision dated 19.02.2018. It is contended that after lapse of nearly 1 ½ years from the cancellation of the allotment, the petitioner offered to deposit the remaining amount on the ground that it had obtained permission from the education department to run a Kannada Medium school. It contends that it is not concerned with the permission to be issued by the competent authority for running

¶49

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:40938 WP No. 51528 of 2017

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

a Kannada Medium educational institution but was only concerned with the purpose for which the petitioner was allotted the site. It therefore, claimed that if the petitioner was interested to take the civic amenity site on lease, it must have paid the lease amount in time.

¶52

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the petitioner has not paid the lease amount in time and therefore, the cancellation of the allotment is just and proper.

¶53

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶54

counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.2

¶55

The petitioner was allotted a civic amenity site as per the Rules of 1991. The respondent No.2 at its meeting held on 17.02.2007, held that as per Rule 8(4) of the Rules of 1991, a civic amenity site could be allotted at 50% of the lease amount determined by the authority when applications are filed by institutions for (i) the welfare of physically and mentally disabled persons, (ii) Kannada Medium educational institutions (iii) Central Government Departments or State Government

¶56

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:40938 WP No. 51528 of 2017

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

Departments, Corporation or Central Government or State Government Institutions.

¶60

The petitioner had applied for the allotment of civic amenity site and the respondent no.2 had allotted the civic amenity site to the petitioner at 50% concession rate. The petitioner was bound to deposit the lease amount as prescribed under Rule 10 of the Rules of 1991, which reads as follows:

¶61

" 10 Conditions of allotment of Civic Amenity Sites:-

¶62

(1) Allotment of Civic Amenity sites under these rules shall be a lease basis for a period not exceeding thirty years.

¶63

(2) The Institutions to which the Civic amenity sites are allotted shall within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of notice of allotment pay to the authority either the balance lease amount after deducting the initial deposit in one lumpsum or pay the first annual installment of the lease amount in which case initial deposit paid along with the application shall be adjusted only towards last installment.

¶64

(3) If the lease amount or the annual installment is not paid within the period of ninety

¶65

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:40938 WP No. 51528 of 2017

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

days, further extension of time not exceeding sixty days may be given and the institution shall pay in addition, interest at the rate 12 percent on the said amount for the extended period. If the lease amount or the installment is not paid within such extended period also, then registration fee and the initial deposit shall be liable to forfeiture and the allotment cancelled without any prior intimation.

¶68

(4) After the payment under sub-rule (2) or , as the case may be, under sub-rule (3) is made, the authority shall call upon the institution to execute a lease agreement in Form III and after the execution of such agreement by it and the authority, the same shall be resisted by the institution. If the agreement is not executed within forty five days after the authority has called upon the institution, to execute such agreement the registration fee and allotment of the site cancelled. The amount paid by the institution towards the lease amount shall be refunded to the institution after deducting such expenditure as might have been incurred by the authority.

¶69

(5) As soon as may be possible but not later than ninety days after the registered agreement is submitted to the Authority, the possession of the site shall be handed over the lessee. The lease period commences from the date of registration of the lease agreement.

¶70

10 -

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC:40938 WP No. 51528 of 2017

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

(6) The annual installment shall be paid by the lessee in terms of the lease agreement executed under sub-rule (4).

¶74

(7) The lessee shall complete the construction of the building within a period of three years from the date of registration of the lease agreement or such extended period provided the total period does not exceed 10 years, as the authority may in any specified case by written order permit. If the building is not constructed within the said period, the allotment may, after giving reasonable notice to the institutions, be cancelled, the agreement revoked and the lessee evicted from the site by the authority and after forfeiting twelfth and half percent (12%) of the lease amount paid by the institution the authority shall refund the balance to the institution.

¶75

(8) With effect from the date of taking possession of the site, the lessee shall be liable to pay taxes, fees and cesses payable in respect of the civic amenity site and any building erected thereon.

¶76

(9) The lessee shall not become the owner, of, or derive any title to, the site allotted during the period of lease.

¶77

(10) The lessee shall not sub-divide or sublease or, alienate or create any charge on, the civic amenity site.

¶78

11 -

¶79

NC: 2025:KHC:40938 WP No. 51528 of 2017

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

(11) The lessee shall exclusively use the site for providing the civic amenity for purpose which it is allotted.

¶82

(12) If the lease is not renewed, or has been determined or terminated before the expiry of lease the site allotted along with the buildings thereon shall after the expiry of the lease or as the case may be after the termination or determination of the lease vest in the authority free of cost and free from any encumbrance and the authority shall have right to enter premises and take possession thereon.

¶83

(13) The lessee shall comply with the conditions of the agreement executed and other rules, bye-laws of the authority of the Corporation or the Municipality as the case may be, for the time being in force.

¶84

(14) The lease may be renewed in favour of the lessee for a further period of thirty years with the prior approval of the Government by refixing the lease amount in accordance with sub-rule (1) of Rule 8."

¶85

The petitioner admittedly deposited 10% on 14.02.2007 and did not deposit the balance within the time prescribed. The petitioner tried to justify the delay in depositing the balance on the ground that the permission for establishing

¶86

12 -

¶87

NC: 2025:KHC:40938 WP No. 51528 of 2017

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

a Kannada Medium educational institution was granted belatedly. This cannot be a ground as payment of the balance lease amount was not linked to the petitioner obtaining permission from the Education department to establish a Kannada Medium school. The petitioner must have forthwith paid the amount. Under the circumstances, the cancellation of the allotment of civic amenity site to the petitioner and rejection of the revision petition filed by the petitioner in terms of the impugned order by the respondent No.1, are just and proper and do not warrant interference.

¶90

10. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .

¶91

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶92

PMR

¶93

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order in File No.NAE.202.BRP.2012 dated 23.03.2017 passed by respondent No.1 (State of Karnataka) as per Annexure-N, dismissing the petitioner's revision petition against cancellation of the allotment of the civic amenity site.¶prayer
Respondent No.1 - State of Karnataka, Urban Development Department (revisional authority under Section 63 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987) · 23.03.2017
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.2 allotted a civic amenity site formed in Re-Sy.No.7/9 and 7/11, Kenchanakatte village, Kasaba Hobli, Chitradurga District, to the petitioner at a meeting held on 17.02.2007, with a condition to run a Kannada Medium educational institution.¶2(i)
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.2 issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to deposit Rs.74,488/- being 10% of the allotment price; the petitioner deposited the said amount.¶2(ii)
Prior proceeding
Permission to run a Kannada Medium educational institution was delayed; the petitioner made representations on 14.08.2009 and 29.12.2009 explaining the delay.¶2(ii)
Prior proceeding
The education department issued a certificate of registration on 08.01.2010, which was placed before respondent No.2.¶2(iii)
Prior proceeding
By representation dated 14.08.2012 the petitioner requested respondent No.2 to register a lease in respect of the civic amenity site; the request was not considered.¶2(iii)
Prior proceeding
The petitioner earlier approached this Court in W.P.No.37709/2012, which was withdrawn in view of the alternative remedy under Section 63 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987.¶2(iii)
Prior proceeding
The petitioner then approached respondent No.1 in a revision petition, which was heard and dismissed on 23.03.2017 (the impugned order).¶2(iii)
Prior proceeding
Per respondent No.2's statement of objections, vide resolution dated 10.03.2008 the civic amenity site in Re-Sy.No.7/9 and 7/11 was allotted to the petitioner on lease for 30 years; lease amount fixed at Rs.7,48,785/-; 10% deposited on 14.02.2007.¶4(i)
Prior proceeding
The petitioner failed to deposit the remaining lease amount; respondent No.2 took a decision at its meeting held on 13.07.2009 to cancel the allotment.¶4(i)
Prior proceeding
After cancellation, the site was allotted to Waqf Board, Chitradurga on 02.11.2017.¶4(ii)
Prior proceeding
The Waqf Board requested concession; respondent No.2 forwarded the request to respondent No.1 as per its decision dated 19.02.2018.¶4(ii)

M/S Chaitanya Education Institution v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Chaitanya Education Institution v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri R Narasimhaiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Chikkahulikunte Milk Producers Co. Operative Society Ltd., Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Srikanth R Bapat Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Mrs. Diana George Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Parvathamma Vs Ravindra @ Ravi

Sri Santhosh.S Vs the State of Karnataka