IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.26064/2018(GM-KSSIDC) BETWEEN:
M. YEDUKUMAR, S/O LATE M. MUDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.76, 2ND MAIN, BEML 5TH STAGE, 2ND CROSS, UNIVERSITY LAYOUT, R. R. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 098.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING, REGISTERED OFFICE AT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE BUILDING, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010. REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR THE KARNATAKA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING, REGISTERED OFFICE AT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE BUILDING, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PUTHIGE R. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) **** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO EFFECT REGISTERED SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF PLOT NO.D.224 SITUATED IN NELAMANGALA ALLOTTED VIDE ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED 12.04.2017 AS PER ANNEXURE-C AS PER THE ORIGINAL NOTIFICATION AT THE ORIGINAL RATE OF RS.15,01,580/- BY RECEIVING BALANCE SUM OF RS.11,26,185/-.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner, who is an allottee of Plot No.D-224 situated in Industrial Estate, Nelamangala, Bangalore under allotment letter dated 12.4.2017 is before this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to effect registered sale deed in his favour in respect of the said Plot No.D-224.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that in response to the application filed by him, Plot No.D-224 measuring 300 square meters, which was fixed at the cost of Rs.15,01,580/- under general category, was allotted to him and only remaining formality was to pay the balance sum of Rs.11,26,185/- and get the sale deed registered in respect of the plot on the call of the respondents. When things stood thus, the respondents unilaterally revised the cost of the plot from Rs.15,01,580/- to Rs.24,00,000/- without following the procedure. The respondents have no authority to unilaterally escalate the cost of the plot and the same is without any basis. Therefore the petitioner is before this Court for a writ of mandamus as prayed for.
3. The respondents have filed objections, wherein it is stated that after the Scheme was ready for implementation, letter of allotment dated 12.4.2017 as per Annexure-C was issued to the petitioner and the tentative cost of the shed was fixed at Rs.24,00,000/- and accordingly, the petitioner was called upon to pay the said sum after giving set off to the amount of Rs.3,75,395/- already paid by him. The procedure adopted by the respondents is legally permissible. Therefore sought to dismiss the writ petition.
4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the following decisions:
1. Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of BDA v. Syndicate Bank reported in (2007)6 SCC 711 2. Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Suguna D. Shenoy and others v. BDA reported in (1999)4 Kar.LJ 69.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
6. Sri Sharath S. Gowda, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition has contended that in terms of the notification dated 30.11.2011 as per Annexure-B, the petitioner applied for the Plot, which was fixed at the cost of Rs.15,01,580/- under the general category and the only formality was to pay the balance sum of Rs.11,26,185/- and to get the sale deed registered in his favour. The respondents without issuing notice unilaterally enhanced the cost of the Plot from Rs.15,01,580/- to Rs.24,00,000/-. The respondents have no authority to unilaterally escalate the cost and the same is without any basis and cannot be sustained. He further contended that the very respondent – Corporation has passed the resolution/decision dated 22.1.2018 in respect of Subject No.349/2014 as under:
«µÀAiÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå. 349/14 £É®ªÀÄAUÀ® PÉÊUÁjPÁ ªÀ¸ÁºÀvÀÄ«£À ¨sÀÆzÀgÀ ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ wêÀiÁð£À:
ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ F ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÄ¢üÃWÀðªÁV ZÀað¹, £É®ªÀÄAUÀ® PÉÊUÁjPÁ ªÀ¸ÁºÀvÀÄ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À zÀgÀ ¤UÀ¢AiÀÄÄ ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ PÁgÀtUÀ½AzÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÁQ G½¢gÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ UÀªÀĤ¹vÀÄ. F PÉÊUÁjPÁ AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄÄ MAzÀÄ ªÉʲµÀÖ ¥ÀÆtð ºÁUÀÆ «±ÉõÀ AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ, F ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß EvÀåxÀðUÉƽ¸À®Ä F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ ¤tð¬Ä¹vÀÄ.
1. CfðAiÉÆA¢UÉ ±ÉÃPÀqÀ 25 gÀµÀÄÖ ªÀÄÄAUÀqÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ J¯Áè CfðzÁgÀjUÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ F »AzÉ ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹zÀÝ ¨sÀÆ zÀgÀ ZÀzÀgÀ «ÄÃlgïUÉ gÀÆ.5,005/- gÀAvÉAiÉÄÃ, G½zÀ ±ÉÃPÀqÀ 75 gÀµÀÄÖ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀzÀ ¨ÁQ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß MAzÉà ¨ÁjUÉ ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä CAwªÀÄ CªÀPÁ±ÀªÁV zÀgÀ ¥ÀjµÀÌgÀuÉ E®èzÉ §rØ «¢ü¹ UÀjµÀ× 45 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À PÁ¯ÁªÀPÁ±À ªÀiÁvÀæ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ C£ÀĪÉÆâ¹vÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÀºÀªÀÄvÀ PÉÆÃgÀ®Ä ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ ¤tð¬Ä¹vÀÄ.
Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition has to be allowed as prayed for.
7. Per contra, Sri Puttige R. Ramesh, learned counsel for the respondent – Corporation sought to justify the action initiated by the respondent authorities revising the cost of the Plot from Rs.15,01,580/- to Rs.24,00,000/- and sought to dismiss the writ petition.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is an undisputed fact that in response to the notification inviting applications for allotment of industrial sheds/flats/godowns and plots at industrial estate, Nelamangala and other places, the petitioner applied for a plot under D category at Nelamangala. Plot NO.D-224 measuring 300 square meters which was fixed at the cost of Rs.15,01,580/- under general category, was allotted in favour of the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that during the subsistence of the allotment process, the respondents unilaterally enhanced the cost of the Plot from Rs.15,01,580/- to Rs.24,00,000/-. Though Annexures-‘A’ and ‘C’ disclose the escalation of the cost from Rs.15,01,580/- to Rs.24,00,000/-, they do not indicate the basis for unilaterally revising the cost of the Plot. Sri Puttige R. Ramesh, learned counsel for the respondents not able to dispute the resolution/decision dated 22.1.2018 passed by the very respondents in Subject No.349/2014 and the said resolution clearly indicates that the Board has taken decision to proceed subject to obtaining necessary permission from the State Government.
9. In view of the resolution/decision passed by the respondents in Subject No.349/2014 dated 22.1.2018 stated supra and in view of the fact that the petitioner was allotted Plot No.D-224, which was fixed at the cost of Rs.15,01,580/-, the respondents ought to have given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before enhancing the cost of the Plot. The same has not been done. In view of the above, the matter has to be reconsidered by the respondents.
10. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is disposed of. The respondent authorities are hereby directed to reconsider the matter afresh in the light of the decision/resolution passed by the respondents in Subject No.349/2014 dated 22.1.2018 after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law. Till such consideration, the respondents shall not precipitate to cancel the allotment made in favour of the petitioner.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Gss/-