IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.10463/2018 (LB-RES) Between:
Ravi Tirumalai S/o. Late T. Krishnamachar, Aged about 62 years, Residing at No.306, Acharya Sankeerna, BOCHS, Aicoboo Nagar, BTM Layout-II Stage, Bengaluru – 560 076. ... Petitioner (By Sri. P.S. Rajagopopal, Senior Advocate for Ms. Ashwini Rajagopal, Advocate) And:
1. Mysore Urban Development Authority, JLB Road, Mysuru – 570 001. Represented by its Commissioner.
2. State of Karnataka, By its Secretary, Urban Development Authority, Vikasa Soudha, Bengaluru – 560 001. ... Respondents (By Sri. T.P. Vivekananda, Advocate for R1; Sri. M.A. Subramani, HCGP for R2) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records leading to rejection of the application dated 08.08.2017 (Annexure-B) endorsement dated 24.01.2018 (Annexure-M) and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner who was an applicant for the site in the Lalithadri Nagar (North) Layout, Mysuru which is a layout formed by the Mysore Urban Development Authority, has preferred the present writ petition seeking to challenge the endorsement dated 24.01.2018 at Annexure-M, whereby an application of the petitioner came to be rejected on the ground “¤ÃªÀÅ/¤ªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§ªÀÅ FUÁUÀ¯Éà ¸ÀéAvÀ ªÀÄ£É ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ C¢üPÁj/¹§âA¢UÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀqɹzÀ ¸ÀܼÀ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ w½zÀÄ §A¢gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ®°vÁ¢æ£ÀUÀgÀ (GvÀÛgÀ) §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ ¤ªÉñÀ£À ºÀAaPÉUÉ ¤ªÀÄä CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¸À¯ÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DzÀÝjAzÀ, ¤ªÀÄä CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «¯É ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¹zÉ.” The petitioner points out that the impugned endorsement is cryptic, no specific reasons are forthcoming and is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that no specific violation of any rule has been made out.
2. Sri. P.S. Rajagopal, learned Senior counsel appearing for Ms. Ashwini Rajagopal for the petitioner also points out Rule 2(e) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1991 (for short “Rules”) which reads as follows:-
¤AiÀĪÀÄ 2(E): M§â ªÀåQÛUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖAvÉ “PÀÄlÄA§” JAzÀgÉ CAxÀ ªÀåQÛ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÁð£ÀĸÁgÀ CAxÀ ªÀåQÛAiÀÄ ºÉAqÀw CxÀªÁ UÀAqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĸÀÌ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀ®A©vÀ vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ.”
Translated in English:
Rule 2(e):- In relation to an individual ‘family’ means such person, such person’s wife or husband as the case may be, and minor children and dependent father and mother.”
3. It is submitted that the petitioner is not disqualified on any of the ground available in the Rules and Act for the purpose of allotment of site.
4. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s son does not reside with the petitioner, but owns a site that has been purchased from a private person and hence, even otherwise, there is no embargo for considering the application of the petitioner.
5. It is submitted that the definition of ‘Family’ as per Rule 2(e) of the Rules refers only to such person’s wife or husband as the case may be, and minor children and dependent father and mother. Hence, from a plain reading of Rule 2(e), it is clear that the major son cannot be included within the definition of ‘Family’ as per Rule 2(e) and hence, the question of placing any disqualification relating to the owning of a site by a major son is not legally tenable.
6. It is to be noted that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 16.03.2018, a site of dimension measuring 50 X 80 feet in Lalithadri Nagar (North) Layout, Mysuru was directed to be reserved. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 states that in terms of the interim order, a site has been reserved.
7. Taking note of the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner and on perusal of Annexure-M dated 24.01.2018, it is clear that Annexure-M is cryptic, does not assign sufficient reason and is liable to be set aside. Further, there is no disqualification as such that has been made out by the respondent No.1.
8. It is to be noted that the petitioner has stated across the Bar that he does not suffer from any disqualification under the Act and Rules.
9. Taking note of the fact that site has been reserved and in the light of the observations made above, the impugned endorsement at Annexure-M is set aside and respondent No.1-Authority to * consider the allotment of the site reserved in accordance with the procedure and rules. If otherwise the petitioner is not disqualified, the said consideration is to be completed within a period of six * Corrected vide Court Order dated 1.3.2019 weeks and consequential allotment is to be made at the earliest.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of subject to the above observations.
Sd/- JUDGE SJK