-1-
IN THE HIGH coum' or KARNATAKA, ~
DATED THIS THE 6??' DAY 01:' APRI.I._, i.'.{:){}§)j.'~. V' % A %'
BEFORE
THE HOWBLE MR.JUsT1cE R£{M_'I\:'EOHAI$I'--.£?:E§3D'ifA."" V
WRIT PE'I'I'I'ION No. 2{i8.ij4/2005~.(I§B§U1§k})
K HANUMAPPA S_!.() K YELLAIAPA _
AGED ABOUT _4-auras, : A j'
OCC:SDA oF_§'§§::E;i::*iI3? THE A s1sTAN':'
EXECUTi*v*E..E1mINa?;.*3:R';--.
No.4, E3HAD_RA5'€'.ANAL illwsioxsi,
HARIHAR, DAVANATGERE" D_:;31f.
* " ...PE'I'I'I'I()NER
(By H z§AN?r1~iA"RAJA "3; KALYAN KUMAR, ADV )
V... an ...«.._'...
1. THvE"-«3'I'A'i"E" 0:4' KARNATAKA
A ""REI3'fi')'j_BY ITS SECRETARY
DESPI1 or? URBAN DEVELOPMERT,
31.3.. BUILDING, BANGALORE.
V' V' A. 2 ' .jrH§; COMMISSIONER
" --. JDAVANAGERE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, DAVANAGERE,
DAVANAGERE DISTRECT.
RESPONDENTS
U (BY SMI’. M C NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R1)
(By Sri: BASAVAPRABHU S PATEL, ADV FOR R2 E 1
J/AK
-2-
THIS WRIT PEFITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN TO ALLOT THE
f&L’I’ERNATIVE SITE TO THE ?ETI’I’I()NERV.—__ IN
S.NIJALINGAf-‘PA LAYOUT, DAVANAGERE.
THIS WRIT PE’.TiTI()N COMING ON FoR_;vH’F;A:2..t_§€~{;{
THIS {)AY, THE COURT MADE ‘THE FOLLOWINGf:. ” M
The petitioner in response «.of
respondent-Urban DCVC1O})VII}(;::.1;i?4b A{1t;ho::*it;y,_; on ‘V
20.03.1997, an applica1;.ion,,.rfox’A £tE1o’:;;1enré or a’ plot in
when considered was
ailotted mtg 1 measuring 25+3o/ 2x 30
ft to éfllotxnent, the petitioner deposited
entered into a lease-cum–sale
1998 and when put in possession of
. the””eite~..’:or:918.9.1998, was fissued with a possession
H ” The petitioner having made an application
fo—r”‘sé’nction of building plan, the authorities noticed
T the site formed a part of an area earmarked for
laying a 60 ft road and as a consequence, the authority
cancelled the alloment, subject to allotting an aitemate
[WK
-3-
site No.696 measuring 30 x 35 ft in –«..
layout and calling upon the
of Rs.11,99f2/- being the V(ii1f’erenC.e_”‘iI1
execution of the lease-cum-stale’ xniigien the
petitioner appiied for enebsolutei stile deed,
the authority fotind allotted to
one E%;§:i;’o’t”‘i26.4.1997 and
possession 1997. In that View
of the of an aiternate site to the
petitionef ‘ in the meeting of the
respoiifient it was resolved to cancel the
an alternative site to the petitioner.
matter was intimated to the petitioner
_ by Ietterklated 24.5.2002. Hence this petition for a
to direct the respondents to allot an
site in Sfiijalingappa layout
2. Petition is opposed by filing statement of
objections dt. 22.11.2005, admitting the facts narrated
irix
…4..
supra, but pointing out that the petitioner had
suppressed reievant ixifoxmation with regard to
compiaint No. I14/2003-O4 filed invoking the prox?isio3:.s
of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal .
Protection of Rights and Full Par£i.ci_patior1)”” A
for short ‘Disabilities Act’ deoliz1_ir:~g ‘to
alternative site and so11ghtiifoI?._rei’1ind_ * L’
duty and registration ehargesfiéith’ ” i1_1tere”st,…_iea§iing to
an ordtir of the Commissioner
diI’€CtiI1g”If§:i’1111d interest at 6% pa. and
the s’§a,m_p ziixgy mid registration fee. The authority in
.A’orde’1’«w.to”i:*co”mply the said direction addressed a
ieiziger to the petitioner ceiling upon him to
i _ sufimit reqtaisite documents and obtain refund of
which when not msmnded to, it is alleged
{he petitioner is estopped from claimm g an
id ” alieniafive site. g
Wk
‘(J
-5-
3. This court on 26.8.2009 havigigf
enqzxiries as to whether site N0.941/ 1 in S. 9
layout claimed by the petitiorter
aliomuent, Sri.Niranjan,
re$poz1der1t~authority submite’Vt’1;t§§1’t eitefl is not
a site demarcated in but is
an extra area avajlabl§.._n.f1:-.ttte the layout
and that in viiV.1;ie'”K’.ar’11ataka Urban
I>eve1o;,§xne§it jg Aliotment) Ruies, 1991, is a
stray siteg ” 3,3 ) and that any aflotment
uI1d<=:1§*t–.he be preceded by inviting from
"t;he ptxbiicvwegoplications for allotment, followed
thy} peri:1iSfsio11.A'.te:f*fl1e State Government.
. 4. it is no doubt true that the petitioner has
relevant information relating to the
Vt " proceedings instituted under the "Disabilities Act" and
t. that the Commissioner tiirected the respondent-
authority to xeflmd the amount with interest at 6% 13.3.
-6-
Right to preperty is no more a constitutionai or-‘”—.a
statutory right but is a human right. ” V.
schemes for Formation of layout of sites fo;j__reside_1’1tia§ ”
use, and due execution, are the fuiietieixs of _
Development Authority. The _4petit;ioi1F1er’s ‘V
when favoured with an of site I in
Nijalingappa kayout, the alitllotity
committed a mistake ..’i:E1e time of
ailotrnent, the area meant for a
60 fl road: _The sobseouetit«aDot:nent of an alternative
site toewas cailceflefi, is-iriice, at a very late stage it was
was already allotted to another
appiie..11it.,V’:’*V.. twice over the petitioner was not
_suece’e.sfe§’ securing a valid allotment of a site at
H H ‘T Layout, only because of the tardy action
&o1′:1″._Vt11e’: part of the respon.dent«authority. Had the
T –:’_4::t*es’poI1cIe1:1t been vigilant, circumspect, answerable and
sresponsibie, perhaps the petitioner would have had the
benefit of ailotment of a site aiong with other applicants
M
-8-
which does not meet the standards of an alternate;
in the fact situation.
6. Site No.941/1 mis;;u:ab;,,, is .;
S.Nijalingappa layout arid ..
other WOI’dS, is available for”é5!iOt1neI1t;’
the said site fans e1¢%’Lk,de£;;:iiion otastflxeay site’
because it is surplus ‘xfefizat.ion of the
layout layout plan, duly
sancfiofiegi. = _Aifiay, the respondent-authority
having ., resefivevd’ -t.;’o an alternate site, to the
. V. ” carmot from its responsibilities, hence,
ifithe ends ofjustioe would be met if the
pgtiféenee ellotted site No.94 1/1 at S.Nija1ingappa
byOuL’*
.93. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. A
% Mzindamus shat} ensue to the respondents to allot site
“M941/1 measuring 2? x 35 ft in Sflijalinga pa
J5