SHAKUNTALA v. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18103 OF 2012(LB-RES) BETWEEN SHAKUNTALA W/O MALLIKARJUNA HADAGALI AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS NO.489/D, MANJUNATHA NILAYA IST CROSS, SHIVANANDA NAGAR DHARWAD-580001. (By Sri. RAMESH BABU, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER AND

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA MS BUILDING, BANGALORE-01 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MS BUILDING, BANGALORE-01 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JHANSHI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD MYSORE, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri. N B VISWANATH, AGA FOR R1 & 2 2 SRI. T P VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R3 TO CONSIDER THE ANNX-J DATED 23.4.12 OF THE PETITIONER AND TO EXECUTE SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF SITE NO.1855 SITUATED AT SRIRAMPURA LAYOUT, MYSORE IMMEDIATELY THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R Petitioner when allotted a site by the respondents- Mysore Urban Development Authority, for short ‘MUDA’, in the year 1994 was issued with a possession certificate, put in possession of the site and there afterwards entered into a lease-cum-sale agreement on 23.9.1999 Annexure-C recording the terms and conditions of the allotment. Petitioner having made an application in the year 2011 for execution of an absolute sale deed conveying the said property resulted in an endorsement dt.24.2.11 Annexure-F informing that the signature of the petitioner was not consistent and there was variation of the signature in the application form and lease-cum-agreement, as also the 3 representation. To yet another representation Annexure-G, MUDA responded by endorsement dt.2.9.2011 Annexure-H intimating that period of 10 years when completed and that having not obtained absolute sale deed, question of issuing a building plan sanction did not arise. Hence this petition.

Parties since governed by contract being a lease- cum-sale agreement, Annexure-C, are bound by the said terms and therefore, cannot seek any constitutional protection calling for interference in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Breach of terms of contract need to be remedied only in an adjudication before a competent civil Court and therefore, the petitioner must stand relegated to the civil Court. The petition is accordingly rejected. ln. Sd/- JUDGE