IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.37455/2016 (LB-RES) Between:
C.V. Charitable Trust, No.19, 1st Cross, Milk Center Road, Near NIE College, Mysore – 570 008, Rep. by its Managing Trustee, Sri S. Keshvanath Rao, S/o Late C.K. Srinivasa Rao, Aged about 61 years. … Petitioner (By Sri K.C. Shantakumar, Advocate) And:
1. Mysore Urban Development Authority, J.L.B. Road, Mysore City, Mysore – 570 001, Represented by its Commissioner.
2. The Secretary, Mysore Urban Development Authority, J.L.B. Road, Mysore City, Mysore – 570 001.
3. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Urban Development, 4th Floor, Vikas Soudha, Bangalore – 560 001. … Respondents (By Sri T.P. Vivekananda, Advocate for R-1 & R-2; Smt. B.P. Radha, AGA for R-3) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order/endorsement dated 20.02.2014 passed by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-K and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner Charitable Trust was an allottee of a Civic Amenity Site from Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA), which was allotted as per Annexure-B dated 04.08.1984 and the respondent- MUDA had executed the lease agreement dated 26.09.1994 as per Annexure-C in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner states that it had sought for approval of sanction plan in order to put up construction on the said site and it is not in dispute that the respondent – MUDA had suggested certain amendments in the sanction plan to be carried out reserving space for parking as per the communication dated 15.02.2006.
2. The petitioner states that the Authority without taking any decision as regards the sanction plan submitted, has issued a show cause notice on 31.05.2011 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the allotment of site should not be cancelled by withdrawing the lease agreement and forfeiting the lease amount in light of the violation of Rule 10(7) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites), Rules 1991.
3. The petitioner states that it has submitted a detailed reply as per Annexure-H on 17.11.2011 and also explained the delay for not having commenced the construction. The petitioner states that subsequent representations were made seeking for grant of sanction plan to enable the petitioner to put up the construction.
4. The petitioner states that instead of granting sanction of the plan and building licence, the respondent-MUDA has issued an endorsement at Annexure-K dated 20.02.2014 stating that there is violation of Rule 10(7) of the Rules and despite lapse of ten years, no construction was put up, and hence request of the petitioner cannot be considered.
5. It is to be noticed that lease amount has been paid in full and in fact, the petitioner had taken steps for getting the plan sanctioned. It is also not in dispute that on 15.02.2006, MUDA had responded to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to amend the plan and also to reserve space for parking.
6. It is to be noted that as per communication at Annexure-E dated 03.03.1999, the respondent-MUDA had called upon the petitioner to submit documents and has referred to the submission of application for construction which was way-back on 20.08.1997. The petitioner had not kept quiet and had initiated steps for complying with all procedural requirements relating to putting up of construction. It is to be noted that the Deputy Commissioner has issued an endorsement stating that, as the petitioner is a Charitable Institution, Section 19(iv) of The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is not applicable.
7. Accordingly, taking note of the above acts of the petitioner, it cannot be said that there was any default as such with regard to compliance of Rule 10(7) of the Rules. Further, taking note of the above said facts and also the detailed reply submitted to the show cause notice, the endorsement issued to the petitioner dated 20.02.2014 is set aside.
8. In view of the lapse of time since filing of the petition, it would be appropriate that the petitioner would submit a fresh application for sanction of plan before the appropriate Authority in terms of the existing Regulations that are applicable. The said application is to be made within four weeks from the date of release of this order.
9. Pursuant to the plan being sanctioned and licence being issued by the appropriate Authority, the petitioner is to take up the construction of the building and complete the construction as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of * three years from the date on which the plan is approved and licence is granted.
10. If for any reason, the lease that has been granted is to be extended, the petitioner will not be entitled to seek for extension by claiming equities on the ground that the construction has been put up after lapse of time and that the remainder period is insufficient. However, the request for extension in usual course could be taken up by the respondent Authority in accordance with law and on its merits * Corrected vide Court order dated 29.05.2019 keeping in view the utilization of property and public interest being served.
Accordingly, petition is allowed, subject to the above observations.
Sd/- JUDGE VGR