Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 37600
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 25140 OF 2016 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
MR. A RAJESH S/O MR A R ASHWATH NARYANA SETTY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.1614, SRIRAMPURA I PHASE CHAMARAJA MOHALLA, MYSORE REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR C V DATTRAJ SETTY, DELETED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED:04.12.2018 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NISHANTH A V.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JLB ROAD, CHAMARAJPURAM MYSURU-570 005 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
Digitally signed by 2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR HEMALATHA A ZONAL OFFICE-I Location: HIGH COURT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KARNATAKA JLB ROAD, CHAMARAJPURAM MYSURU-570 005.
3. ZONAL COMMISSIONER ZONAL OFFICE-II MUDA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX NEAR DOCTORS CORNER
7TH MAIN ROAD, GOKULAM 3RD STAGE MYSURU,KARNATAKA-570 002.
4. MRS SHIVAMMA W/O MR BEERE GOWDA AGE MAJOR R/AT NO.L-191, CITB HUDCO 2ND PHASE KUVEMPU NAGAR, MYSURU-570 023.
5. MR G NINGAIAH S/O LATE JAVARAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT DODDAGERE VILLAGE VARUNA HOBLI,MYSORE TALUK MYSURU-570 010.
6. MYSORE MUNICIPAL CITY CORPORATION MUDA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX NEAR DOCTORS CORNER
7TH MAIN ROAD, GOKULAM 3RD STAGE MYSURU,KARNATAKA 570 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G B SHARATH GOWDA.,ADVOCATE FOR R1&2:
SRI. RAMACHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5:
SMT. N GEETHA DEVI M.P., ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD1.6.2011 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-MSET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD23.6.2015 PASSED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-JDIRECT THE R-6 TO RESTORE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION RECORDS IN SO FAR AS THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY IS CONCERNEDGRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE ORDER DATED:23.6.2015 PASSED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS SUBSEQUENT THERETOSTAY THE ORDER DTD1.6.2011 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS SUBSEQUENT THERE TO PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question: (a) the order dated 01.06.2011 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-M, whereby the allotment of site made in favour of Smt.Shivamma has been cancelled and (b) the consequential order dated 23.06.2015 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-J, whereby the katha standing in the name of the petitioner has been cancelled.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the property bearing No.1614, situated at Srirampura Block, I Phase, Chamaraja Mohalla, Mysuru more fully described in the petition schedule, was originally allotted to Smt.Shivamma (respondent No.4) by respondent No.1 and executed a sale deed dated 16.04.2002 vide Annexure-E. Pursuant to the sale deed, the name of Smt.Shivamma has been entered in katha register vide Annexure-F. Later, Smt.Shivamma sold the property in favour of one Mr.G.Ningaiah (respondent No.5) vide registered sale deed dated 19.04.2011 as per Annexure-G and katha has been transferred to the name of Mr.G.Ningaiah vide Annexure-H. Thereafter, Mr.G.Ningaiah sold the property in favour of the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 07.09.2012 as per Annexure-A. Pursuant to the said sale deed, the name of the petitioner has been entered in the katha register vide Annexure-B. When things stood thus, the respondent No.1 by order dated 01.06.2011 cancelled the allotment of the petition schedule property, which was allotted in favour of Shivamma and consequently, by order dated 23.06.2015 has cancelled the katha standing in the name of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that originally the petition schedule property was allotted in favour of Smt.Shivamma by respondent No.1 and accordingly executed a sale deed in her favour on 16.04.2002 and consequently, her name has been entered in the katha register. Thereafter, Smt.Shivamma sold the property in favour of Mr.G.Ningaiah vide registered sale deed dated 19.04.2011 and his name has been entered in the katha register. Later, the petitioner has purchased the said property from Mr.G.Ningaiah vide registered sale deed dated 07.09.2012 and his name has been entered in the katha register. The respondent No.1 while passing the impugned order canceling the allotment made in favour of Smt.Shivamma, has not given any notice either to respondent No.5 or to the petitioner. Without giving any notice to respondent No.5 and petitioner, the impugned order at Annexure-M is passed. He further contended that even though cancellation order has been passed on 01.06.2011, the petitioner has purchased the property on 07.09.2012 i.e., subsequent to passing of the cancellation order. Since no notice has been given to the vendor of the petitioner i.e., Mr.G.Ningaiah, who has purchased the property from Smt.Shivamma vide registered sale deed dated 19.04.2011 and his name has been entered in the katha register, the impugned order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice and the same requires to be quashed. Hence, he sought for allowing the petition.
4. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that as per the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1991, each family is entitled for only one site. Smt.Shivamma by misrepresenting the respondent No.1 has got the site allotted in her favour. Later, after noticing the said fact, the authority after giving notice to Smt.Shivamma has passed the impugned order vide Annexure-M. He further contended that as on the date of cancellation of allotment made in favour of Smt.Shivamma, the petitioner was not a party to any of the sale proceedings and he has purchased the said property from Mr.G.Ningaiah only on 07.09.2012. Hence, the petitioner has no locus to challenge the order passed by respondent No.1. There is no error in the order passed by the respondent No.1. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. Heard the le
