Sri.M.N.Ananda vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 November, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANG  C

DATED THIS THE 02% DAY OF NOvEIIEE'R,§Qo§ "      

BEFORE:-,

THE HON'BLE MR. IUsTICEH,N. DAS

W.E.No,23163/2ei)'9{LE;RES)"' A  

BETWEEN:

M.N.ANANDA  ._  '   
S/O LATE M.S._A§DI§;NAPPA  '   V " 
AGED ABOUF       '

HUDCOHOTJSE;    * '

NEW KANTI{ARA]A«1jRS'B_CA§
MYSORE--5i?Q 023.   
 ' A  ..PETITIONER

 V'  A{Ey"E£1i'.LE-IGARATIJ; Abvf)

1. A   OE KARNATAKA

 4 Q REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
  VTORVEAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
  "Iv EEOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA
V  E-ENGALURU 560 om.

 '"2'_E MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
' REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER



I\)

}.L.B.ROAD,
MYSORE~570 001.

3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
SUB~DIVISION W 111 _ ..  _
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY-'..
MYSQRE-570 023.   '-

(By SR1 P.S.MAN]UNATH FOR 
SR1 RDEVADASS, AGA FOR R_1___)_  

This writ petition  226 8: 227 of the
Constitution of India prayingto quash the e1idot'sement issued by
the R3 dated  vifde  ietter dated 18.2.2008.

This   preiinninary hearing B group
this da3r;"the--t¢§;;n  tagffaliawirtggz

 Respondents ' 'all-otted a site in favour of the petitioner.

 Consetquent allotment, petitioner made an initial deposit of

Rs.5,,2SQ;"'--' andfailed to deposit the balance amount within the

h   stipulated: time. Consequently, the respondents cancelled the

 allotrnent made in favour of the petitioner as per Annexure--R4

'dated 19.9.2001. Subsequently the petitioner in his representation



 _ _3   " .



-1
J

requested for grant of sometime to pay the balance amount.

Accordingly the respondents issued an endorsement.""'t--o the

petitioner on 21.11.2001 as per Annexure--R7  the

petitioner to pay balance sital value with interest:.~.. V Aga<in t,_he"=

respondents issued another notice on ~"30i;»10;2{_104u }1's, 'pe:

Annexure--R8 directing the petitioner to .pay_tih.e  cital" 1

value of Rs.33,?_50/-- and"interest"at':1§s.33,.225/--i1 Accorjdingiy the
petitioner paid the entire as per Annexure-

D1 to D5;~ Ihereaiitcr, the 'responéerits wrote to the Government
seekingyapproval  pexeciutegthe sale deed in favour of the

petitioner. Since thereiwas' delay in payment, the Government by

 "  coimmiunicationuidated 18.2.2008 as per Annexure--B refused

 .to'.grant«fhe appiovai. Consequentiy, the respondents issued an

endot.se'ment on 19.2.2009 as per Annexure--A stating that they

f_" Wifianot execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner and he

  can take back the money paid by him. fience this petition.

0



2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties andpl_perused

the entire writ papers.

3. The correspondence betweenthe petitioner and, the V

second respondent clearly establishe_sl".tl1at ev_en~. 

cancellation of allotment, the   theipetitioner
to pay balance sital valuey_afe.d 1' Accordingly, the
petitioner has paid. the  with interest on
delayed   Government vide

their -directed the second respondent to

execute tile sale deed.' iniespect of other allottees. Therefore,

- V. p_ there, is iio reason"to.._d_e:iy the same benefit to the petitioner. In

 pi the 'faiCts.arr:l"CirczimstanCes of this case, the following;

ORDER

§
” 1)”: 3 Writ petition is hereby allowed.

ii) The impugned endorsements at Annexures–A and B

are hereby quashed.

I)E{I3

iii)

Respondents are hereby directed to egceefite a

registered sale deed in favour of the :_petitdi'();sex§-‘.:1_._1_Vi’
respect of the site in question. ‘within tifi:e.Vf1r.:t_me’e-Qfd dd

three months from the date Adrecedidpthf eopy

order.