IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL No.6084 OF 2015 (LB-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. MAHESH S SON OF LATE SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1522 CHAMALAPURA MAIN ROAD NANJANAGOODU MYSURU-571 301.
(BY SRI. NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND:
…..APPELLANT MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSURU-570 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
…..RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T P VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE ) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 31334 OF 2014 DATED:08.12.2014 THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ASHOK S. KINAGI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 8.12.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.31334 of 2014, the petitioner has filed the appeal.
2. Parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petition.
3. Brief facts of the case are :
That the petitioner filed an application for allotment of site measuring 25 x 30 ft. on 23.3.1989 under the general category. At the time of filing the application, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.1,157/-. The application of the petitioner was considered at the 4th attempt and site No.6832 measuring 6 x 9 mts. situated at Vijayanagar 4th Stage, II phase, Mysore, came to be allotted at the total cost of Rs.7000/- on 8.9.94. The petitioner was required to pay a sum of Rs.1050/- within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter of allotment and balance sum of Rs.4,673/- within 90 days. Petitioner in all has paid substantial portion of the amount to the respondent-Mysore Urban Development Authority. Petitioner did not comply with the terms and conditions of allotment as well as the provisions of Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1991). Thereafter, petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.8744 of 2012. This court disposed of the aforesaid writ petition on 24.08 2012 by recording the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Authority that they would consider the representation of the petitioner dated 1.4.2009 and pass orders in accordance with law. Thereafter, the respondent issued an endorsement 19.2.2013 calling upon the petitioner to appear before the officer along with photo I.D appraising that the lease-cum-sale agreement is ready in respect of the site in question. The petitioner did not execute lease-cum-sale agreement. Petitioner submitted representation through Spandana requesting the respondent to execute the sale deed. Respondent issued an endorsement on 13.6.2014 stating that the petitioner has not obtained lease-cum-sale agreement within the prescribed time and cancelled the site allotted to the petitioner and forfeited the amount paid by him. The petitioner questioned the order or endorsement dated 13.6.14 in W.P.No.31334 of 2014 before this Court.
3. The respondent appeared through counsel and filed statement of objections contending that the site in question was allotted to the petitioner and admitted regarding the payment made by the petitioner. The respondent contended that the petitioner did not execute lease-cum-sale agreement within time. Further contended that one Smt.Yashodamma w/o.Ramachandra, claiming to be the sister-in-law of the petitioner, submitted objection with regard to the allotment of site in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the site was allotted in the name of petitioner but the entire sital value has been paid by her and claimed that she is in possession of the site and requested for registering the site in her name. The petitioner had only executed an unregistered sale deed in favour of Smt.Yashodamma before the execution of sale-cum-agreement of sale. Hence the respondent Authority had sought for rejecting the writ petition.
4. The learned single judge after considering the material on record and Rule 19 of Rules 1991, rejected the writ petition vide order dated 8.12.2014. The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 8.12.2014 passed in W.P.31334 of 2014 by the learned single judge has filed this appeal.
5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Counsel for the respondent has filed a memo dated 6.11.2019 along with a copy of the registered agreement of the sale dated 24.12.2011 and the same has been taken on record.
7. The petitioner was allotted the aforesaid site on 8.9.1994. As per the terms and conditions of allotment, the petitioner was required to pay Rs.1,050/- within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter of allotment and balance sum of Rs.4,673/- within 90 days. Petitioner paid the sital value as under :
Dates Amount 23.03.1989 Rs. 1,157/-
01.10.1996 Rs. 1,900/-
09.01.1997 Rs. 1,913/- interest Rs.656/-
30.01.1997 Rs. 2,000/- interest Rs.21/-
8. Rule 19 of the Rules, 1991 reads as under :
“After the receipt of the allotment letter the allottee shall pay to the Authority sital after deducting the initial deposit made by him within 90 days. Thereafter, the authority shall call upon the allottee to execute a lease-cum-sale agreement in Form III. If the allottee fails to execute the lease-cum-sale agreement within 60 days after the authority has called upon him to execute such agreement, the registration fee paid by the allottee may be forfeited, and the allotment of the site cancelled, and the amount paid by the allottee, may be refunded by the Authority after deducting such expenditure as might have been incurred by the Authority:
Provided that the authority may extend the time-limit specified in sub-rule (1), by 30 days and levy an interest at 18% for the extended period:
Provided that the authority may on application of the allottee permit him/her to execute a lease-cum-sale agreement in Form III in the joint name of the allottee and him/her spouse.”
9. From a perusal of the aforesaid Rule, it is apparent that after receipt of the allotment letter, the allottee shall pay to the Authority sital value after deducting initial deposit made by him within 90 days.
10. In the present case, site was allotted on 8.9.1994. The petitioner is supposed to deposit the sital value within 90 days. But the petitioner has not deposited the sital value within 90 days. The petitioner has committed a breach of terms and conditions of allotment. The respondent issued an endorsement informing the petitioner that the draft of lease-cum-agreement of sale is ready and also called upon the petitioner to submit the identity card, photos and appear before the respondent- Authority. The petitioner instead of submitting the records sought by the respondent, gave a representation dated 31.7.2013 requesting the respondent to execute title deeds. In response to the said representation, the respondent issued an endorsement dated 1.2.2014 informing the petitioner that as the original letter of allotment and original challan are in possession of one Smt.Yashodamma and as she has obtained an unregistered sale deed and as there is a civil dispute, informed the petitioner to get resolved the said dispute. The said endorsement was forwarded to the address furnished by the petitioner and the same was returned by the postal endorsement “no such person in this door”. However, one Sri.N.R.Narasimhaiah, claiming to be the General power of Attorney holder of the petitioner, has received the said endorsement. Since the petitioner has not executed lease-cum-agreement of sale in terms of endorsement 9.2.2013, the respondent cancelled the allotment of site vide order dated 30.5.2014.
11. The petitioner has executed registered agreement of sale dated 24.12.2011 in favour of M.R.Narasimhaiah. The petitioner has illegally entered into an agreement of sale in favour of M.R.Narasimhaiah before the execution of lease cum-sale agreement.
12. Rule 20 of the Rules, 1991 reads as under :
“20. Restrictions, conditions on sale of sites:-
(1) The allottee shall not alienate the site within the lease period of ten years except mortgaging the site in favour of Government of India or the State Government or any financial institutions for the purpose securing loan for the construction of building.
(2) If the site is alienated within the lease period except for the purpose specified in sub-rule (1), the Authority after a due notice to the lessee, shall cancel the allotment, resume the site and forfeit the amount paid by the lessee.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules if the lessee applies for reasons beyond his control or by reasons of his insolvency or impecuniosities to sell the site or the site with the building constructed thereupon, the authority may, with the previous approval of the Government, either:-
(a) require him to surrender the site, whereupon no building is constructed. The Authority after such surrender shall pay to the lessee the sital value with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum;
(b) where the building is constructed on the site so allotted the authority shall permit him to sell the building provided the lessee pays to the authority an amount calculated at 12% of the sital value per annum.”
13. Petitioner has agreed to sell the site which was allotted to him without the permission of the respondent-Authority. If the allotteee violates any of the conditions of the allotment letter, the respondent-Authority has right to cancel the site. The petitioner has contravened Rule 20 of the Rules 1991 by entering into an agreement for sale in favour of M.R.Narasimhaiah.
14. The Respondent considering the violations of terms and conditions by the petitioner has cancelled the site and forfeited the amount. Petitioner has violated Rule 19 and Rule 20 of the Rules 1991. The learned Single Judge after considering the material on record and Rule 19 of the Rules 1991 rejected the writ petition. The petitioner has not made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned order.
In view of the above facts, we decline to interfere with the impugned order and proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Writ appeal is dismissed without cost.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE rs