Sri Chandrashekar B.L. Gowda vs Mysore Urban Development Authority

B.S. Patil

In this writ petition, petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondent to execute a registered sale deed in his favour conveying the site bearing No. 10797 situated at Vijayanagar, 4th Stage, 2nd Phase, Mysore. Petitioner has also sought for quashing the order of cancellation of the allotment dated 19.09.2001 passed by the respondent-Mysore Urban Development Authority. The value of the site was fixed at Rs.35,000/-. Petitioner''s father had paid a sum of Rs.2,000/- as initial deposit. Another sum of Rs.5,250/- was paid towards 15% of the allotment amount. The remaining amount of Rs.27,750/- was required to be paid within 90 days. According to the petitioner, on 23.12.1998, the petitioner''s father deposited Rs. 19,000/- before the respondent-Authority. However, due to financial problems faced by the father of the petitioner, the balance amount could not be paid. It Is asserted by the petitioner that as per the demand made by the respondent-Authority, the balance amount was paid with interest on 13.01.2003 in a sum of Rs.8,000/- and on 20.01.2003, another sum of Rs.7,175/-along with Rs.205/- was paid, To evidence this fact, the petitioner has produced the challans for having deposited the amount vide Annexures-B, B1 to B4. Thus, it is contended that the father of the petitioner had deposited the entire allotment amount with interest.

It is the case of the petitioner that his father died due to ill health and when this fact was brought to the notice of the respondent-Authority, the respondent transferred the site in the name of the petitioner''s mother by issuing a letter dated 14.07.2005. Thereafter when the mother of the petitioner died, on the application filed by the petitioner, the respondent-Authority transferred the site in the name of the petitioner on 01.09.2008. These facts are evidenced by Annexures-C and D. It is only after the transfer of the site in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner approached the respondent requesting for execution of a registered sale deed. At that stage, petitioner came to know that the respondent-Authority had cancelled the allotment way back in the year 2001 without bringing the same to the notice of the petitioner and his family members.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent has received the entire sale consideration without making any mention about the cancellation of the site. The order of cancellation was not served on the petitioner or on his family members. It is further contended that if the authorities had indeed cancelled the allotment and acted on the basis of the same, there was no need for transferring the site in the name of the mother of the petitioner, after the death of the father of the petitioner and subsequently in the name of the petitioner, when his mother died. It is therefore contended that as the Authorities have acted by receiving the amount and by transferring the site in the name of the heirs of the original allottee, even assuming that there was some delay in paying the entire sital value, the master requires favourable consideration, keeping in mind the conduct of the respondent and that of the petitioner.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Mysore Urban Development Authority submits that the amount is not paid pursuant to any direction or permission issued by the respondent. He further contends that the father of the petitioner had passed away as back as in the year 2002 and the balance amount was paid only during 2003 and therefore the conduct of the petitioner does not entitle him for the relief sought in the writ petition.

Learned Government Advocate who has appeared in the connected matter has made available a copy of the affidavit filed in W.A.No.499/2011 during the course of the hearing of the writ petition. The affidavit has been filed by the State Government before this Court in the writ appeal stating that the Government has issued necessary instructions on 23.04.2007 and 04.03.2008 to the Commissioner, Mysore Urban Development Authority to consider the allotment of sites to the applicants who had paid full sital value along with interest on humanitarian ground as one time measure. It is also further stated in the said affidavit at Paragraph 4 that the Government has later on issued order dated 10.12.2009 directing the Commissioner. MUDA not to consider and submit such proposal which were not in conformity with Rule 19 of the Karnataka Urban Development (Allotment of of Sites) Rules, 1991. It is the further stand taken by the State government in the said affidavit that a circular is issued on 04.02.2011 by the Government directing all the Urban Development Authorities of Karnataka to strictly abide by the provisions envisaged in the Rules pertaining to the Karnataka Urban Development (Allotment of Sites) Rules. It is thus clear from the stand taken by the State Government in the writ appeal by filing an affidavit on 05.02.2011 that in such of the cases where full allotment amount is paid along with interest, instructions are issued to the Mysore Urban Development Authority to consider the allotment of sites to the applicants who had paid full sital value along with interest.

In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the full amount of sital value has been paid along with interest as back as in the year 2003 The fact that the respondent has not only accepted the said amount but has later on acted on the strength of the allotment letter by transferring the site in the name of the widow of the allottee and later on in the name of the son of the allottee is on record. The respondent has indeed not taken any steps pursuant to the cancellation order and the site has not been allotted in favour of any 3rd party and no third party interests are created. Therefore, it will be unjust and harsh to deny the relief to the petitioner, having regard to the circumstances narrated by the petitioner in the writ petition and keeping in mind the payment of the entire amount. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of cancellation dated 19.09.2001 vide Annexure-G is set aside. The respondent is directed to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner expeditiously in respect of the site in question.