IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO.52805/2017 (LB-RES) BETWEEN:
Smt.Shivamma.D.B.
W/o Sri.Prasanna Kumar, Aged about 30 years, R/at No: 4362, 12th Cross, St Mary’s Road, N R Mohalla, Mysore – 570007.
…Petitioner (By Sri.Vijay Kumar, Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka Represented by its Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Vikas Soudha, Bengaluru – 560001.
2. The Commissioner, Ramanagar-Channapatna Urban Development Authority, Ramnagar – 571511, Ramnagar District – 571511.
...Respondents (By Sri.M.A.Subramani, HCGP for R1 Sri.Murthy.D.Naik, Advocate for R2) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records to issue of the impugned endorsement dated 22.05.2015 of the 1st respondent vide Annx-H and the order dated 19.10.2015 of the 2nd respondent vide Annex-J and after perusal set aside the same and to direct the respondents to register site No.671, allotted to the petitioner, in C.G.Layout in terms of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority (Allotment of site) Rules, 1991 within a time frame specified by this Hon’ble Court.
This Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner who is a allottee of a site by the respondent No.2 has challenged the endorsement at Annexure-H dated 22.05.2015 declaring to consider the proposal of the Ramanagara - Channapatna Urban Development Authority. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was allotted the site but had failed to pay the full consideration as required within the time prescribed. Though the present Writ Petition has been filed raising various contentions, noticing that this Court in various other Writ Petitions involving an identical factual matrix where the respondent No.2 was also a party, has disposed of the Writ Petition relegating the parties to avail of the revisional remedy as available under Section 63 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, the present matter requires to be disposed off.
2. Accordingly, on similar terms as found in Writ Petition Nos.53131-53150/2015, the petition is disposed off, taking note of the order of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7048/2016. Hence, parties are relegated to avail of the revisional remedy as available under Section 63 of the Act as against the endorsement at Annexure-J.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he adopts the contentions that have been raised by the petitioners in the above mentioned Writ Petitions.
4. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of in terms of the following observations as found in Writ Petition Nos.53131-53150/2015:
“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.”
5. It is made clear that as regards to the time within which the petitioner is permitted to file the revision petition the petitioner is required to file the revision petition within 4 weeks from the date of release of this order, failing which the Revisional Authority is reserved liberty to take an appropriate decision.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of subject to the above observations.
Sd/-
JUDGE NS