IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NOs.14531-532 of 2015 (LB – RES) BETWEEN:
1. Smt. K.S. Savitha W/o Sri. K.R. Sundar Raj, Aged about 46 years, 2. Sri. K.R. Sundar Raj S/o Sri. K.N. Ramaswamy Iyengar, Aged about 53 years, No.612, Ward No.2, Prashanth Bala Mandir, Vapasandra, Chikballapur – 562 101.
... Petitioners (By Sri. M.P. Sreekanth, Advocate for Sri. M.S. Parthasarathi, Advocate) AND:
1. The Deputy Commissioner Chikballapur District, Chikballapur.
2. The Commissioner/ Member Secretary, Integrated Development of Small & Medium Towns (IDSMT), City Municipal Council, Chikballapur – 562 101.
3. Additional Deputy Commissioner Chikballapur District, Chikballapur.
… Respondents (By Sri. Anandeeshwara H.R. HCGP for R1 & R3; Sri. Vijaya Krishna Bhat .M, Advocate for R2) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 12.01.2015 of the person similarly placed to the petitioners vide Annexure-L made by the petitioner No.1 to respondent No.1.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R In these writ petitions, petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:
a) Direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 12.01.2015 of the person similarly placed to the petitioners vide Annexure-L made by the 1st petitioner to the 1st respondent.
b) Pass any order of consequential relief or any other appropriate order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the ends of justice and equity.
2. The case of the petitioners is that petitioners are husband and wife. The petitioners jointly preferred an application for allotment of sites under IDSMT plan. Pursuant to their application, respondent had issued notice on 09.10.2009 calling on them to deposit a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- for a site bearing No.455 measuring 30 x 40 feet. Pursuant to the demand of the respondents, petitioners have paid Rs.1,15,000/- by way of Demand Draft and Rs.5,000/- by way of cash. Respondents have allotted the site bearing No.455 in favour of the petitioners by drawing a lottery. Subsequently, respondents have executed registered Sale Deed and katha was also entered in favour of the petitioners. When petitioners intend to put up construction, at that time, they came to know that Sale deed executed in respect of the site bearing No.455 belongs to some private person. Hence, petitioners have given a representation on 19.07.2014 to respondent No.2 seeking allotment of alternative site. Accordingly, respondent No.2 has allotted the site No.469 by executing the Rectification Deed on 29.09.2014. Subsequently, petitioners came to know that in respect of site No.469 also there is a dispute. Hence, they submit representation vide Annexure-L. Since no action has been taken by the respondents, petitioners approached this Court.
3. After service of notice, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has appeared and on instructions submitted that there is a dispute in respect of allotment of site in respect of petitioners as well as similarly situated persons. He further submitted that now respondent No.2 has taken steps to identify the separate property, which is free from encumbrances to allot the sites to the person whose sites are under dispute and to complete the entire process of allotment, respondent No.2 needs six months time. He further submitted that insofar as petitioners’ case is concerned, they already have a site in their names. Suppressing this fact, they have obtained the allotment.
4. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the respondents in respect of alleged mis-representation made by the petitioners in obtaining the site is concerned, the question is left open to decide by respondent No.2 while considering their representation for alternative allotment of sites.
5. In view of the above, the writ petitions are disposed of directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioners in accordance with law, keeping in mind the above observations made by this Court, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE MBM