V. Narayanamma vs The Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Chickballapur Town, Kolar District and Others

V. Gopala Gowda, J.-I.A. II for impleading respondent 5 is allowed.

A memo is filed by the 2nd respondent stating that if this Court directs, an intermediate site will be allotted in favour of the petitioner in any of the layouts that may be formed by the Municipal Council. The memo is placed on record.

The petitioner was allotted Site No. 196 near the regulated market yard in M.G. Road, Chickballapur Town in the year 1978. When the petitioner has applied for katha certificate, the impugned endorsement at Annexure-E, dated 29-2-1992 had been issued stating that the site allotted to the petitioner was a corner site and the same had been cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the same and to direct the Municipal Council to issue katha and licence for the aforesaid site.

In the objections statement filed on behalf of respondents it is stated that the site in question was sold in public auction on 10-12-1986 in favour of 5th respondent and requisite sale deed was also executed. That public auction was conducted pursuant to the permission granted by the Deputy Commissioner under Annexure-R1, dated 10-8-1981.

The petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought for more than one reason. In the first place, though the sale of the site in question was in the year 1986, this writ petition was filed in the year 1992 after a lapse of nearly 6 years. No explanation is offered by the petitioner for the delay in approaching this Court. On this ground alone the writ petition should have been dismissed. But, since rule has been issued and the matter has been pending for over 8 years, the writ petition is not dismissed on that ground.

The petitioner has not challenged the cancellation of site by the Deputy Commissioner. As long as the cancellation order is not quashed or set aside, petitioner is not entitled to seek any relief in respect of the site in question.

Since the site being a corner site and was allotted in favour of the petitioner without following the procedure prescribed for selling corner sites and the allotment was contrary to sub-clause (iv) of Clause VI pertaining to the mode of distribution of sites prescribed in the Government Order at Annexure-R4, dated 24-2-1977, the cancellation of the site was perfectly justified.

The site was sold in favour of 5th respondent in public auction way back in the year 1986. The sale was confirmed and even sale deed was also executed in favour of 5th respondent. She has been in possession and enjoyment of the site by paying the taxes after getting the katha of the site entered in her name. Thus, the 5th respondent acquired absolute right over the site. The petitioner has not participated in the public auction to get the site in her name. She has also not challenged the sale of site in favour of 5th respondent. In the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition and the writ petition is devoid of merits. The impugned endorsement at Annexure-E has been rightly issued and the same does not call for interference by this Court.

Writ petition is dismissed.