IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV W.P. Nos.53131-53150/2015 C/W W.P. Nos.11040/2016, 56788/2015, 2911/2016 & 23334/2015 (LB-RES) W.P.Nos.53131-53150/2015:
Between:
1. L. Shivalingaiah, Aged about 69 years, S/o. Lingegowda, R/at No.4/1, C Street, 2nd Main Road, New Guddahalli, Mysuru Road, Bengaluru - 560 026.
2. Smt. Triveni, Aged about 60 years, W/o. M.S.Rudramuniswamy, R/o. Madenahalli Village and Post, Maddur Taluk, Mandya district.
3. L. Shivalingappa, Aged about 46 years, S/o. Late Linganaiah.K, R/at No.635, 15th Cross Road, 2nd Block, Jnanabharathi Layout, Mariappanapalya, Bengaluru-560 056.
4. S.N. Krishnamurthy, Aged about 53 years, S/o. Lingaiah, R/at No.55, 7th Cross, 7th Main, Gandhinagara, Kengeri Upanagara, Bengaluru-560 060.
5. Devaraju, Aged about 63 years, S/o. Late Vishakante Gowda, R/o. Besagarahalli Town, Kumbara Bedi, Koppa Hobli, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District – 571 428.
6. Smt. Sameena, Aged about 35 years, W/o. Md. Tazim Rawat, R/at No.6, First Floor, C-Street, Langford Road Cross, Shanthinagar, Bengaluru – 560 027.
7. Mohammed Ismail Rawat, Aged about 40 years, S/o. Major Atiq Mohammed, R/at No.111, 1st Floor, Mukund Apartment, Victoria Layout, Bengaluru – 560 047.
8. U.C. Kalavathi, Aged about 35 years, W/o. M.B. Umesh Gowda.
9. S. Kalpana, Aged about 38 years, W/o. M.B. Mallikarjuna Gowda.
10. B.P. Varalakshmi, Aged about 38 years, W/o. M.B. Veeregowda.
Petitioner Nos.8 to 10 are R/o. Madapura, Virupakshipura Hobli, Channaptna Taluk, Ramanagar District – 562 160.
11. H.N. Manjunatha, Aged about 35 years, S/o. Narasimhachari, C/o. Jayamma, Mahalakshmi Layout, Door No.186, 1st Cross, Channapatna, Ramanagara District – 571 501.
12. Chandrashekar Aged about 46 years, S/o. Srinivasachar, R/at No.12, Dar Police Quarters, Opp. KSRTC Bus Stand, Channapatna – 571 501.
13. Adinarayana, Aged about 52 years, S/o. K.M. Venkatappa, R/at No.878, 14th Cross, 2nd Main, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bengaluru – 560 086.
14. Shivanna H.S., Aged about 57 years, S/o. Late Maragisiddha, No.2032, Yelekere, Channapatna Town, Ramanagar District – 571 501.
15. Kempaiah, Aged about 71 years, S/o. Chennegowda, R/at No.3261, 4th Cross, Gayathri Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 021.
16. C.G. Thippeswamy, S/o. Giriyappa, Aged about 37 years.
17. Smt. C.T. Renuka, W/o. C.G. Thippeswamy, Aged about 30 years.
Both petitioner Nos.16 and 17 are resident of Chikkanahalli, Ganesh Rice Mill, Kadavina Kote Post, Halekote Hobli, Holenarasipura Taluk – 573 211, Hassan District.
18. Suresh Babu D.S., S/o. Late Srikantaiah, Aged about 40 years, Residing at No.3-L, Behind Ganesh Temple, 3rd Cross, 19th Main, Girinagar ‘T’ Block, Bengaluru – 560 085.
19. G. Vinayak, S/o. Govindaswamy, Aged about 33 years, Residing at No.1198/51, Ashoknagar, 10th Cross, B.S.K. 1st Stage, Bengaluru – 560 050.
20. Roshna S. Shetty, D/o. Shekar S.Shetty, Aged about 32 years, Residing at Flat No.311, Sriranga Apartments, No.30, Temple Road, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru – 560 003. ... Petitioners (By Sri. Amruthesh.C., Advocate for P-1 to P-18 & P-20;
Sri. M.R. Rajagopal, Advocate for P-19) And:
1. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Vidhana Soudha, Dr. Ambedkar Veedi, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Commissioner, Ramanagar-Channapatna Urban Development Authority, No.39, Bengaluru-Mysuru Road (Next to Mini Vidhana Soudha), Ramanagara Town, Ramanagara – 562 159.
3. The Chairman, Ramanagar-Channapatna Urban Development Authority, No.39, Bengaluru-Mysuru Road (Next to Mini Vidhana Soudha), Ramangara Town, Ramangara – 562 159. ... Respondents (By Sri. Sandesh J. Chouta, AAG for Smt. B.P. Radha, AGA for R-1;
Sri. Murthy Dayanand Naik, Advocate for R-2 & R-3) These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the notice dated 19.10.2015 produced as Annexures-C-1 to C-20 insofar as it relates to the P-1 to P-20 and etc.
W.P. No.11040/2016:
Between:
Shivaiah M.C., S/o. Late Chikkahydaiah, Aged 80 years, R/at No.17, 5th Cross, Subbanna Garden, Vijayanagara, Bengaluru – 560 040. ... Petitioner (By Sri. H. Mohan Kumar, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Commissioner, Ramanagara-Channapattana Urban Development Authority, Ramanagara – 562 159. ... Respondents (By Sri. Sandesh J. Chouta, AAG for Smt. B.P. Radha, AGA for R-1;
Sri. Murthy Dayanand Naik, Advocate for R-2) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the letter dated 15.04.2014 issued by the R-2 vide Annexure-E and etc.
W.P.No.56788/2015:
Between:
B. Sanjaya S/o. Bommaiah, Aged 43 years, Advocate, No.3445, Trooplane, R.C. Church Road, Ramangara – 562 159. ... Petitioner (By Sri. H. Mohan Kumar, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Commissioner, Ramanagara-Channapattana Urban Development Authority, Ramanagara – 562 159. ... Respondents (By Sri. Sandesh J. Chouta, AAG for Smt. B.P. Radha, AGA for R-1;
Sri. Murthy Dayanand Naik, Advocate for R-2) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the letter dated 15.04.2014 issued by the R-2 vide Annexure-G and etc.
W.P.No.2911/2016:
Between:
Smt. Premalath B.M. W/o. Virupaksha B.S., Aged about 49 years, Residing at No.65, 1st Main Road, K.G.S. Layout, Vijayanagara, Bengaluru – 560 040. ... Petitioner (By Sri. Amruthesh.C., Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Vidhana Soudha, Dr. Ambedkar Veedi, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Commissioner, Ramanagar-Channapatna Urban Development Authority, No.39, Bengaluru-Mysuru Road (Next to Mini Vidhana Soudha), Ramanagara Town, Ramanagara – 562 159.
3. The Chairman, Ramanagar-Channapatna Urban Development Authority, No.39, Bengaluru-Mysuru Road (Next to Mini Vidhana Soudha), Ramangara Town, Ramangara – 562 159. ... Respondents (By Sri. Sandesh J. Chouta, AAG for Smt. B.P. Radha, AGA for R-1;
Sri. Murthy Dayanand Naik, Advocate for R-2 & R-3) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the notice dated 10.12.2015 produced as Annexure-E and etc.
W.P.No.23334/2015:
Between:
Smt. Kasturi. N., W/o. Sylverter Rocky Dais, Age:37 years, Residing at No.258, 8th Cross, Ashwathnagar, Marathahalli, Bengaluru – 560 037. ... Petitioner (By Sri. K. Hanumantharayappa, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka, Department of Housing and Urban Development, M.S. Building, Vidhana Veedhi, Bengaluru – 560 001.
Represented by its Secretary.
2. The Commissioner, Ramanagara-Channapatna Urban Development Authority, 1st Floor, City Municipal Commercial Complex, Ramanagara – 571 511. ... Respondents (By Sri. Sandesh J. Chouta, AAG for Smt. B.P. Radha, AGA for R-1;
Sri. Murthy Dayanand Naik, Advocate for R-2) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the show-cause notice dated 10.04.2014 issued by the R-2, as contained vide Annexure-A and etc.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioners in all these matters claim to be the allotees of sites by second respondent –Ramanagara- Channpattana Urban Development Authority.
2. It is stated that payments as regards allotments was not made within the time stipulated under Rule 19 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1991 (for short “the Rules”).
3. The petitioners have raised various contentions and have sought to make out ground for issuance of appropriate writ to quash the impugned notice/endorsement.
4. The petitioners at the time of arguments have also sought for extension of the benefit afforded to allotee, Sri N.Prakash in W.P.No.49370/2015 on the principle of parity, wherein, this Court, by its order dated 21.07.2017 had quashed identical endorsement/notice on identical facts and direction was issued to the respondent-Urban Development Authority to execute sale deed in favour of the allottee.
5. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent – State had also advanced arguments stating that the principle of parity cannot be extended to the petitioners and has raised various contentions including that the law laid down in W.P.No.49370/2015 is not good law.
6. Sri Murthy Dayanand Naik, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - Ramanagara- Channapattana Urban Development Authority has also advanced arguments on the same lines as that of learned Additional Advocate General and further submits that petitioners are to be relegated to avail of appropriate remedy before the Revisional Authority under Section 63 of the Karnataka Urban Development and Authorities Act, 1987 (‘the Act’ for short) and relies on the order passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7048/2016.
7. Under similar circumstances in respect of allotment of sites by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority, the matter was taken up before the Apex Court and the Apex Court taking note of the availability of a remedy by way of Revision Petition under Section 63 of the Act had set-aside the orders passed by this Court and relegated the parties to avail of the revisional remedy.
8. Accordingly, taking note of the said order of the Apex Court and also noticing the remedy under Section 63 of the Act that is available as against the impugned notice/endorsement it could be said that as against the impugned action complained of, a revision would lie before the Revisional Authority i.e., the State Government. The petitions are disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail of the revisional remedy, if they so deem fit to be appropriate.
9. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. It is observed in specific that the contention of petitioners for extension of benefit of parity in light of the order passed in W.P.No.49370/2015 is kept open.
10. If Revision Petition is filed within three weeks from the date of release of this order, the same to be disposed of within a period not later than six months from the date of the presentation of revision petition by the petitioners.
11. Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of.
However, it is made clear that no precipitative action pursuant to the impugned notice/endorsement would be taken, pending disposal of the Revision Petition.
12. Taking note of the fact that the petitions have been pending since 2015, and in light of the present order, the Revisional Authority is not to object to entertainment of the Revision Petitions, if the same are submitted within the time period stated above.
13. Insofar as W.P.No.11040/2016 and W.P.No.56788/2015 in light of the cancellation of sites, pending disposal of the Revision Petition, no allotment of the same site will be made by the respondent- Authority so as to create third party rights.
Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of subject to the above observations.
Sd/- JUDGE SJK