IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NO.32820/2018 (LB RES) BETWEEN SRI B K PARAMESH S/O LATE KONDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, HOUSE NO.3179, 1ST FLOOR, 21ST ‘C’ CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE, MYSURU.
(BY SRI K R LINGARAJU, ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA DR B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER J L B ROAD, MYSORE-570 005.
(BY SRI M.A.SUBRAMANI, HCGP FOR R1, SRI T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADV. FOR R2.) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED 14.09.2010 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents-authority and the learned High Court Govt. Pleader.
2. The petitioner is before this court being aggrieved by the proceedings bearing No.NaAaE 543 MyAaPra 2005 dated 14.09.2010 produced as Annexure-A to the writ petition whereby, the authority has been pleased to cancel the allotment of site No.1269, Vijayanagar 4th Stage, Mysore made in favour of the petitioner and further forfeiting the amount deposited on the premise that the petitioner has paid part of the sale consideration belatedly. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not put on notice regarding the alleged cancellation and that even after the alleged date of cancellation, he has paid the amounts and the same has been received. In this background the learned counsel for the respondents was directed to secure instructions with regard to the sum received.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents today submits that the officers of the second respondent- authority had made enquiries in the address found in the allotment ledger and were informed by the neighbours that the petitioner indeed resided there decade ago and thus clarified the authenticity of the claim. Learned counsel for the respondents authority submits that the records pertaining to the petitioner are not available in the office, neither any notice nor postal acknowledgment are available to demonstrate the fact that the petitioner was indeed put on notice with regard to breach of the allotment conditions. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly admits the receipt of the sale consideration even after the alleged date of cancellation order and that be so, there can be no dispute with the fact that any proceedings which result in civil consequences is required to be passed after affording an opportunity of hearing or to show cause to the person concerned. In the instant case, there is no material on record to demonstrate that the petitioner was even put on notice regarding the alleged violation or breach or much less was he heard.
4. In that view of the matter, this court is of the opinion that the respondents having received the sale consideration albeit belatedly are required to afford an opportunity to the petitioner and thereafter pass necessary orders. In that view of the matter, Annexure-A stands quashed. Quashing of Annexure-A shall not preclude the respondents from conducting an enquiry in terms of the Acts and Rules.
Petition stands ordered accordingly.
In view of disposal of the above writ petition, I.A. No.2/2018 does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE Chs* CT-HR