Sri.N.Jagannatha Vs the State of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, NO.39, BENGALURU-MYSURU ROAD (NEXT TO MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA), RAMANAGARA TOWN, RAMANGARA-562 159.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT.SPOORTHI.V.,HCGP FOR R1;

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:22851 WP No. 33869 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SRI. T.L. KIRAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE ANY WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO EXTEND THE BENEFIT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN W.P.NO.49370 OF 2015 DATED 21.7.2017 CONFIRMED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN S.L.P.NO.15905 OF 2018 DATED 10.7.2018 AND OF THE ORDER PASSED IN W.P.NO.45700 OF 2019 DATED 19.2.2025 AND TO EXECUTE LEASE CUM SALE AGREEMENT AND ALSO REGISTERED SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF THE SITE NO.311 ALLOTTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER MOREFULLY DESCRIBED BELOW IN THE SCHEDULE UNDER ALLOTMENT LETTER BEARING NO.NIL DATED. 1.2.2010 VIDE ANNEXURES-J, K, L AND A ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARINIG, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner has been allotted a site by respondent

¶26

No.2 and the said site is the subject matter of the instant petition. However, pursuant to the said allotment though

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:22851 WP No. 33869 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

an allotment letter is issued, a lease-cum-sale agreement is not executed. Hence, the present writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

¶31

"(a) issue any writ, order or direction, directing the respondent No.2 to extend the benefit of the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.49370 of 2015 dt: 21.7.2017 confirmed by Hon'ble Spreme Court in S.L.P.No.15905 of 2018 dt: 10.7.2018 and of the order passed in W.P.No.45700 of 2019 dt: 19.2.2025 and to execute lease cum sale agreement and also registered sale deed in respect of the site No.765 allotted in favour of the petitioner morefully described below in the schedule under allotment letter bearing No.nil. dated: 1.2.2010 vide Annexures-J, K, L and A; (b) Pass any other order or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶32

2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits

¶33

that as there is a delay in payment of the consideration amount by the petitioner, the lease-cum-sale agreement could not be executed.

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:22851 WP No. 33869 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Under normal circumstances, an allotee is

¶37

required to pay the amounts due within the stipulated time, failing which, he loses the right over the property. However, in the instant case, though respondent No.2 has failed to execute the lease-cum-sale agreement, it did not repay or come forward to refund the consideration amount paid by the petitioner, as required under law. Under similar circumstances, and in respect of the same layout, this Court in W.P.No.45700/2019, has directed respondent No.2 to execute the lease-cum-sale agreement and the registered sale deed upon the petitioner therein paying certain interest on the belated payment. The said order has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.362/2025.

¶38

In the light of the aforementioned decision, both the petitioner as well as the respondents submit that a similar order may be passed in the instant case also. There is no reason why the order passed in

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:22851 WP No. 33869 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

W.P.No.45700/2019 should not enure to the benefit of the

¶43

petitioners herein. Hence the following:-

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i. The writ petition is disposed of .

¶46

ii. Respondent No.2 is directed to execute the necessary deeds in favour of the petitioner upon the petitioner in the instant case making the necessary payments on similar terms as directed in W.P.No.45700/2019.

¶47

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶48

CH

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Sri.N.Jagannatha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.N.Jagannatha v. the 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M Krishnappa Vs the Chief Commissioner

Sri. K. P. Satish Vs the Greater Bengaluru Authority

Sri. Hemanth Kumar. S. K. Vs the Greater Bengaluru Authority

Sri U L Kempe Gowda Vs D S Ramakumar

Prashanth Baliga, Vs the Commissioner

Smt.Kalavathi B N Vs the Registrar of Birth and Death