Writ Petition No. 62618 of 2016 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6329 WP No. 62618 of 2016 C/W WP No. 38167 of 2016 WP No. 38183 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 62618 OF 2016 (LB-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 38167 OF 2016 (LB-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 38183 OF 2016 (LB-RES) IN WP No. 62618/2016 BETWEEN: 1. SMT SUNITA TANTIA W/O PRADEEP KUMAR TANTIA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, #977, 26TH MAIN, 13TH CROSS, J.P.NAGAR 2ND STAGE, MYSURU-570008 (BY SRI. K R LINGARAJU., ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER 1. MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER J.L.B ROAD. MYSURU-570 007
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. T.P.VIVEKANANDA., ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CANCELLATION ORDER DATED.13.2.2003 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A, ETC. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6329 WP No. 62618 of 2016 C/W WP No. 38167 of 2016 WP No. 38183 of 2016 IN WP NO. 38167/2016 BETWEEN: 1. SRI CHANDRASHEKARA K S/O P R KONARI CHETTIAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS #42, SONAR BEEDI CHAMARAJA MOHALL MYSORE 2. SRI P SWAMY S/O LATE PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS NO.176, 2 E BLCOK 12TH MAIN, J P NAGAR MYSORE-560068 3. SRI PRASANNA KUMAR A S S/O A H SHANKARA MURTHI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS NO.L.I.G 15, 13TH CROSS GANGOTHRI LAYOUT MYSORE-570009 4. JAYAMMA W/O LATE S RAMU AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS NO.4817-5, RAJENDRA NAGAR MAIN ROAD MYSORE-570022 5. D MOHAN S/O LATE D DHONDU RAO AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS NO.443, 18TH CROSS, 23RD MAIN 2ND STAGE, J P NAGAR MYSORE-570008 6. SRI SRINIVASA RAO KADAM S/O LATE SHANKAR RAO KANDAM AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS NO.1031, 2ND STAGE, 2ND PHASE - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6329 WP No. 62618 of 2016 C/W WP No. 38167 of 2016 WP No. 38183 of 2016 J P NAGAR, MYSORE-570008 7. P M UTHAPPA S/O P M MADHAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS No.9., BLOCK-15, SBM COLONY, 2ND STAGE, SRIRAMPURA., MYSURU-570023. 8. UMESH KUMAR K C S/O K CHANABASAVAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS NO.945, BANGARPET TOWN KOPPA, BANGARPETE KOLAR-563114 9. ALLABAKASH S/O ANZAD PASHA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS MOULANA PEER KA MAKAN III INFENTARY POLICA LINE OPPOSITE, MYSORE-570007 10. DAKSHAYANI D R W/O RADHA KRISHNA HEBBAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS #586, 9TH MAIN, 4TH STAGE T K LAYOUT, MYSORE 11. AMJAD PASHA, S/O LATE ABDUL KHUDDUS AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS #1674, 4TH CROSS, S A R ROAD RAJIV NAGAR, IIND STAGE IIND PHASE, MYSORE-570017 12. N GALI REDDI, S/O LATE N BODI REDDY AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS #55A, HOUSING BOARD COLONY CHANNARAYA PATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT (BY SRI. K R LINGARAJU., ADVOCATE) ...PETITIONERS - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6329 WP No. 62618 of 2016 C/W WP No. 38167 of 2016 WP No. 38183 of 2016 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA DR B R AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE-01 2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER J L B ROAD, MYSORE-570001 (BY SRI. BOPANA BELLIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1; SRI.T.P.VIVEKNANDA., ADVOCATE FOR R-2) ...RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR DATED 04.02.2011, DATED 23.04.2007 BOTH ARE ISSUED BY THE R-1 AND CANCELLATION ORDERS DATED:23.04.2001, 25.09.2004, 25.11.2004, 12.04.2005, 26.12.2002 AND 24.03.2005 FOR PETITIONER 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 AD 12 ANNEXURES-A, B, C, C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 & C6, ETC. IN WP NO. 38183/2016 BETWEEN: 1. KUMAR R P S/O LATE P R PERUMAL, AGED 44 YEARS # 609/2,VEENE SHESHANNA ROAD, 8TH CROSS,K.R MOHALLA MYSURU-570 024 2. ASMA KAUSAR W/O NAYAZ AHAMED SHARIFF, AGED 41 YEARS # 2944,DAWOOD KHAN ROAD, LASHKAR MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 001 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6329 WP No. 62618 of 2016 C/W WP No. 38167 of 2016 WP No. 38183 of 2016 3. SALIM KHATOON W/O GULAM MOHAMED BIJALI, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS # 160,4TH CROSS, UDAYAGIRI, MYSURU-570 019 (BY SRI. K R LINGARAJU., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001 ...PETITIONERS 2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RERPESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, J.L.B.ROAD, MYSORE-570 007 (BY SRI. BOPANA BELLIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1; SRI.T.P.VIVEKANANDA., ADVOCATE FOR R-2) ...RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AD 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR DATED 04.02.2011, GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 23.04.2007 BOTH ARE ISSUED BY R-1, CANCELATION ORDER DATED 27.3.2006 AND 05.06.2004 OF PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3 AND C RESPECTIVELY, ETC. ISSUED BY R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, B THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6329 WP No. 62618 of 2016 C/W WP No. 38167 of 2016 WP No. 38183 of 2016 1. 2. ORAL ORDER These writ petitions are filed by the allottees who had defaulted in payment of balance sital value. An earlier batch of similar defaulters had approached this Court unsuccessfully and ultimately the matter reached the Apex Court, whereby the Apex Court set aside the orders of dismissal passed by the learned Single Judge which had been affirmed by the Division Bench and granted liberty to them to urge all factual and legal contentions available to them in law before the Revisional Authority i.e., the Government and directed the Revisional Authority to consider the request of the defaulters on their merits in accordance with law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that another batch of defaulters had approached this Court in W.P.No.50892-895/2012 and the learned Single Judge had also dismissed said petitions on 18.01.2014, as against which, an appeal was - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6329 WP No. 62618 of 2016 C/W WP No. 38167 of 2016 WP No. 38183 of 2016 preferred by the unsuccessful allottees in W.A.No.6075-6078/2015. A Division Bench, by an
Decision
order dated 18.09.2017 disposed of the appeal in the following terms: “3. In these writ appeals, an order is impugned, which was passed on the basis of the Division Bench judgment of this Court. 4. Our attention has been drawn by the learned advocates appearing for the parties, that the Supreme Court of India, on July 26, 2016, in a batch of special leave petitions, set aside the said order of the Division Bench, which has been the basis of the order impugned. The parties were granted liberty to urge all factual and legal contentions available in law before the Revisional authority and the Revisional Authority was directed to consider the same in accordance with law. 5. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. Liberty is granted to the writ petitioners to file a revisional application before the Revisional Authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, by four weeks. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6329 WP No. 62618 of 2016 C/W WP No. 38167 of 2016 WP No. 38183 of 2016 6. If such an application is filed, the Revisional Authority shall consider the matter in accordance with law. We express no opinion on the merits. 7. The writ appeals stand disposed of.” 4. The present batch of writ petitions are also by allottees who had defaulted in payment of balance sital value. In my view, since the Division Bench has relegated similarly placed allottees who had defaulted in payment of balance sital consideration to avail the revisional remedy available under the Karnataka Urban Development Act, it would be appropriate to dispose of the petitions by granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the Revisional Authority and submit their representations/revision petitions requesting for acceptance of balance sital value. The Revisional Authority shall consider the claims in accordance with law. 5. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the MUDA that the Government is seized of similar revision - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6329 WP No. 62618 of 2016 C/W WP No. 38167 of 2016 WP No. 38183 of 2016 petitions, which are more than 100 in number. In my view, it would, therefore, be appropriate to direct the Government to consider all these matters and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 6. It is needless to state that all contentions of both the parties are left open to be agitated before the Government. 7. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30