IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1568 OF 2018 (LA-UDA) BETWEEN:
K P SARASWATHI W/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 14A, M.I.G. 2ND STAGE, KUVEMPUNAGARA, HASSAN 573201. (BY SRI. SHARADAMBA A R, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER ... PETITIONER HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY B.M. ROAD, HASSAN 573201.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVERNAMENT OF KARNATAKA, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R2;
SRI. A RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 26.12.2017, AT ANNEXURE-'C' ISSUED BY R-1 AND DIRECT R-1 TO ALLOT ALTERNATIVE SITE TO THE PETITIONER BY ACCEPTING THE AMOUNT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINMARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner, a land loser in the acquisition process for the layout in question is before this Court with a grievance that though she is entitled to allotment of a site on compassionate ground pursuant to the resolution of respondent-HUDA dated 29.02.2012, she has been denied the said benefit on grounds that are not germane to consideration.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of her case banks upon the judgment dated 02.01.2013 rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in THIRUMALAMMA vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT in W.P.No.394/2008 and other connected matters, contending that she too has been similarly placed in all fours qua the litigants in the said writ petitions and that there is no reason to deny her the benefit granted to them.
3. The learned panel counsel for the respondent-HUDA having appeared, opposes the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner is a late awaker and that she has come before the Court only after seeing the judgment of this Court mentioned above and other judgments rendered following the same. He submits that law comes not to the aid of non-vigilant and therefore the petitioner should be non-suited on the ground of delay and laches. He at once adds that there is no explanation for the delay and laches inasmuch as the petitioner was sent a notice and there was a newspaper publication as well calling upon all similarly placed persons to come before HUDA for seeking their claims. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner points from the impugned endorsement which states that notice sent to the petitioner is returned unserved.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent-HUDA. I have also heard the learned HCGP. I have perused the papers and copies of the judgment mentioned in the aforesaid cognate writ petitions.
5. There is no much dispute as to the petitioner being a land loser although her true credentials are to be ascertained by respondent-HUDA on petitioner presenting necessary material to prima facie establish the same. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is supported by the judgment mentioned above wherein this Court has asked similarly circumstanced land losers to return the compensation amount taken earlier with interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum and thereafter the respondent-HUDA would consider their case for allotment of sites in accordance with the Scheme which is in obtaining.
6. The contention of the respondent-HUDA that the petitioner should be non-suited on the ground of delay alone in the absence of any explanation therefor does not gain acceptance since petitioner is a poor widow and that admittedly as mentioned in the impugned endorsement itself, the notice sent to her by the HUDA had returned unserved.
7. The above apart, the Apex Court in the case of NIRANJAN LALL AGARWALLA vs. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1969 SC 23 has about half a century ago has observed as under:
“It does not behove the State to contest a good claim on the off-chance of success on some unsubstantial technical plea”.
For invoking writ jurisdiction law does not prescribe any period of limitation although the ordinary concept of delay & laches is admissible. No plea of third party interest during the alleged period, is put forth either. Therefore a citizen’s otherwise genuine claim may not be defeated on the ground of delay & laches per se, when the petitioner is ready and willing to make the refund of amount of compensation along with interest as prescribed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid Thirumalamma Case.
8. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned endorsement dated 26.12.2017 at Annexure-C; a Writ of Mandamus issued to the respondent-HUDA to consider petitioner’s claim for the grant of site on compassionate ground in terms of the judgment dated 02.01.2013 in the aforesaid cognate W.P.No.394/2008 and other connected matters, if the petitioner refunds the compensation amount with interest at 9.5% per annum from the date she has received it till the date she credits with the respondent-HUDA i.e., on or before 15.02.2019.
9. It is needless to mention that, petitioner’s claim would be considered for the grant of site preferably in the very same layout for the formation of which petitioner’s land along with others’ was acquired, unless there is any impediment, in which case some other layouts may be kept in view. The period of compliance is three months, excluding what is taken for soliciting any further information or records.
Costs made easy.
Sd/- JUDGE Snb/