IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.4108 OF 2017 (LB-RES) Between:
1. Mysore Urban Development Authority J.L.B. Road, Mysore – 570 001 Represented by its Commissioner 2. The Special Tahsildar Mysore Urban Development Authority J.L.B.Road, Mysore – 570 001 ... Appellants (By Sri.G.B.Sharath Gowda, Advocate) And:
K.Gendabai D/o Late H.Krishna Singh Aged about 65 years R/at No.1629, V Cross Maruthi Tent Road, Janathanagara Mysore – 570 014 ... Respondent (By Sri.K.R.Lingaraju, Advocate) **** This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the High Court Act, praying to set aside the order passed in Writ Petition No.37752/2015 dated 3.1.2017.
This appeal coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Chief Justice delivered the following:
JUDGMENT The appeal is barred by limitation. The delay is of 109 days.
2. The Hon’ble Single Judge, by the order impugned, held that once the allotment of sites were made in favour of the petitioner and the amount towards such allotment was, also, made by the petitioner, such allotment could not be cancelled by the respondent-Mysuru Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred as the ‘MUDA,’ for brevity) after a lapse of ten years, merely because the State Government failed to approve such allotment.
3. In passing the impugned order, the Hon’ble Single Judge relied on a decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this court in Writ Petition Nos.38719-38181 of 2012 (MAHADEVA AND OTHERS .v. STATE AND MUDA) decided on November 26, 2012.
4. We feel that when MUDA has accepted the earlier order stated in the said writ petition, there was no justification in making a departure in this case.
5. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the deposited amount is still lying with MUDA.
6. We do not find any merit in the appeal. Therefore, the application seeking for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the writ appeal is, also, dismissed.
7. In view of dismissal of the appeal, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is, also, dismissed.
8. We make no order as to costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB