IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.1320/2019 (LB-RES) Between:
P. Somanna, S/o Late Puttaswamy, Aged about 54 years, R/at 2nd Cross, 3rd Main Road, Kuvempu Nagar, Mysore – 570 009. … Petitioner (By Sri Gowthamdev C. Ullal, Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development, IV Floor, Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore – 560 001.
2. Mysore Urban Development Authority, Represented by its Commissioner, J.L.B. Road, Mysore – 570 001.
3. Special Tahsildar, Mysore Urban Development Authority, J.L.B. Road, Mysore – 570 001. …Respondents (By Sri M.A. Subramani, HCGP for R-1;
Sri T.P. Vivekananda, Advocate for R-2 & R-3) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the endorsement dated 21.05.2018 vide Annexure-A and re- allot the site morefully described in the schedule in favour of the petitioner and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner is said to be an allottee of Site No.422 measuring 30 x 40 feet, Sathagalli Layout under Asha Mandir Yojana by allotment letter at Annexure-B dated 30.04.1991.
2. The petitioner states that the demand by second respondent Mysore Urban Development Authority for payment of sital deposit was sent to the address furnished to the second respondent, but however, the petitioner states that he was not residing at the said address when the notice was said to have been issued and sent. The subsequent demand made by the second respondent for payment of allotment- price is also said to have been sent to the earlier address of the petitioner. Subsequently the petitioner has made representations dated 04.12.2017 and 30.11.2017 requesting for acceptance of balance allotment amount. However, the respondent No.2, by an endorsement at Annexure-A dated 21.05.2018 has refused to accept the payment stating that that there is no provision to accept payment beyond the stipulated time.
3. The said endorsement has been challenged on various grounds, however, noticing that under Section 63 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (‘the Act’ for short), the petitioner can approach the Government seeking invocation of revisionary powers for legal redressal, it would be appropriate in the present case taking note of similar order passed by the Apex Court in Civil appeal No.7048/2016 to relegate the petitioner to invoke the remedy under Section 63 of the Act as regards the impugned endorsement.
4. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach the appropriate Authority under Section 63 of the Act, within a period of three weeks from today.
5. Further, status-quo is to be maintained as regards the allotment made in favour of the petitioner, if the site is not cancelled or allotted to any other party, till the disposal of the revision petition.
6. All contentions of both parties are kept open and any observations made herein is not to be construed to be a finding on any of the contentions of the parties and the Revisional Authority is free to take an independent decision on the merits of the case.
Sd/- JUDGE VGR ct:mhp