IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
IDATED THIS THE 17% my 05' SEPTEMBER zwaj
BEFORE
THE I-iON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Am' 'if _ V %
WRIT PETITION No.451 14;2omiLB;%Re;g;
BETWEEN :
S:I1t.K.G.S'unanda,
Aged aboutfiflyears, v_ ; _ _
Wife ofH.L.1\duddcgoWda,"* k
Residingat Holaluvillage, "
Mandya'I'aluk&I}i:=A;I'icti.-'"""'».; 3 «,..}PE'I'I'I'IONER
(By Smt. for
l3I'irL-Ch'id@Hafld£iY3ag fiadv-)
AND :
_ 1. The; Board,
V by .....
" l"\
'Lw
,C'3a_mu1issieni~:r,
,_
13a11galort3;_~. __ "
.
Housing Board,
K " 1% Mysgre. .. RESPONDENTS
A (33; Sri.Borcgowda 9., Adv. for
Sri.Basavara_i V.Sabarad, Adv.)
This writ petition is filed under Alficles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to direct
'He;1ce_,fL_j to settle down in Bangalore,
glass aofifieafion for allotment of a house site in
allotted House No.HIG«8 situated at
. :1 however, the said site was not gven to
4' of several requests and reminders sent to
:18' respondmlt-Board. Since the petitioner had
to move to Mysore for domestic reasons, she
requested the 1" respowndent; that in place of the site
.. 2 -
the respondent to eomplete the process of allotment of
site bearing No.86, Jayanagar Tonnachi Koppal (JFK)
5"! Phase, Mysore, by giving rmission of Rs.63,00{)/ «his.
the sale price. '
This writ petition coming on for hearing' , A '
the Court made the following: ,\ __ ,
ORDER
The petitioner is quesfioififig. ayletjon
dated 09.11.2004, copy»._pr at
Annexuxve ‘A’.
problems and she
was taking the Doctors at Bangalore.
/
§:…9r before 16.05.2003. Since the
‘ie sum of Rs.63,000/~ way back in
z and the same was reqmmd to be
the total amount payable, the petitioner
‘eorrespondexlee with the respondents. But
‘ she did not receive any reply. On the contrary,
.. 3 –
HIG-8 at Yelahanka, Bangalore, she may be allotted a
site in Mysore. Her request was ganted and a
situated at Jayanagar Tennachi Koppal (JTK), 5″‘
MYS-ore was anotted. It appeals the IJCtitio3’1er.–_%’3% ” e-
eorrespondenee with respondents 1 aged 2
deduction of the of
she had paid in the year 1992 :(‘3fi_”1,=
Yelahanka. It is not in dispgxtee-13*
has issued an exchange ,i._£i.O3.2003,
copy of the same,~is”.et;”‘ amozmt
payable four the size,,is% eI2s.6.*2»1,55o/~ which is inclusive
of a sum of’ e1.{)’,£}()V(3′,=f,+ Annexure ‘B’
also indieated teat amount of Rs.6,21,550/– to
}
-4.
the site, which was allotted, was put up for auction
pursuant to Annexure ‘A’. Hence, ttais petition.
3. On notice, the nespondents have A ‘
appearance and have filed objectiona’ e-In
statement, they would contend
amount was not deposited, e.
issued and the site in quest1on_ ‘ pp fo:r”auction.
Hence, it is not open for quash1n’ g
of the e.uctioning« 3:
4. not Ilotwithstanding the
notice issued’ the the site is not as yet sold.
listed before this Court on
auction, scheduled to take phaee
notice dated 09.31.2004 was
– subject to the petitioner depositing
Rs.5,50,000/- with’ respondent No.2 withB’1′
xireeks.
5. The learned eounsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the said amount has been deposited. The
‘§’af3__i§s.v63,'(}06,!.«.,. *WhiCh was paid towards the
the rcma;imn’ g amount would be
% 10,0001} which would be the exchange fees.
‘T V . _ filament 91′ the site in question in favour of the
ggeétritionex’ and she having 119%: E1 served with the fl
– 5 –
said fact is not disputed by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent
6. Appaxently, it is to be noticed that in ”
for the site at Bangalore i.e.,
petitioner was allotted the site 7}’
amount which was mid
site at Bangalore i.e., (bf
ought; to have been flven
But howevm’, amount
as contend of which the
petitioner : Rs.5,50,0{)0/-. The
bajianoe 1,550/~. Indeed if the
ai}in us3Vé1it.Aaf sif;E%» is deducted from the total
Having P6@I’di11g to the fact that theme was an
%
-5-
cancellation notice and the said site is still being vacant,
notwithstanding, bringing it in public auction, I
the View that the said auction notice at _
so far as it relates to the pe1:ia’on;e;f»’is hfai3ie..j’x ‘4
quashed. Indeed the petitioner
exchange fee of Rs. 10,000] -, 3
at the rate of 8% the _ a’liot:;131e;1tAvVV7i.e.,
17.03.2003. On deposefor the
respondent shall ex’e(;une:”t}1e in
favour of the ” order
is passed:
(3.)
notice in so far as the
3 -. site No.86, Jayanagar Tonnachi
_ Sm Phase, Myswe ml measuring
0 rs-xaetfjso feet stands quashed.
u{c)__’I’he” : petitioner shall deposit a sum of
§:s.10,000/-with interest attherateof8%fi’oII1
17.03.2003. The said amomt shall be
deposited within a period of two months from
today. , fl
SP8
((1)013 such deposit, the respondents 1 and 2
execute the necessary docmzaents in favot2_:?..’4:§f ”
the petitioner.
Rule made absolute.