IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.34628 OF 2017 (LA-UDA)

BETWEEN:

THE MYSORE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., GANDHI SQUARE, MYSORE-570001.

R/BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. …PETITIONER (BY SRI P.A. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, J.LB. ROAD, MYSORE-570001 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

2. THE COMMISSIONER, MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, J.LB. ROAD, MYSORE-570002.

3. THE ZONAL OFFICER, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Location: HIGH J.LB. ROAD, MYSORE-570002. …RESPONDENTS COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ORDER DATED 13.06.2017 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN AS PER ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION AS ILLEGAL AND QUASH THE SAME; ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE 1^ST RESPONDENT TO CONFIRM THE ALLOTMENT AND EXECUTE REGULAR SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner-the Mysore Co-operative Bank Ltd.

was allotted Civic Amenity (C.A.) Site No.1, measuring 504 square meters at Bhogadhi City Planning Department Extension, Mysuru. Pursuant to the MUDA’s resolution dated 08.01.1999 and the allotment letter dated 01.04.1999, a registered lease deed was executed on 17.05.2006. Possession was delivered, and the site was intended for construction of the petitioner's central office building. Clause 7 of the lease deed provided that the lessee should obtain a building plan and licence within six months of execution and commence and complete construction within two years therefrom.

2. The petitioner, cited financial constraints and the requirement of Reserve Bank of India approval, could not commence construction immediately. However, the MUDA itself had issued a khata in the petitioner's name on 24.10.2013, collected tax upto 2016, issued endorsements dated 01.02.2016 and 15.02.2016, scheduling a spot inspection and stating that after payment of rent, steps would be taken for issuance of a commencement certificate and corresponded with the petitioner requiring construction to be taken up “within six months”.

3. Thereafter, on 25.11.2016, MUDA issued a show-cause notice under Rule 10(2) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites) Rules, 1991 (‘Rules, 1991’ for short) calling upon the petitioner to explain why the allotment should not be cancelled. The petitioner replied on 26.12.2016, explaining reasons for the delay and requested condonation and extension. Without granting any further hearing, the MUDA by the impugned order dated

13.06.2017 cancelled the allotment.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the time condition under Clause 7 stood waived by the MUDA’s own conduct, issuance of khata, collection of tax, scheduling inspections and processing of commencement certificate, all of which treated the allotment as subsisting. The impugned order was passed without considering the reply and hence, violates the principles of natural justice.

5. It is further contended that Rule 10(7) of the Rules, 1991 empowers MUDA to cancel the allotment except in exceptional circumstances, the petitioner’s situation and MUDA’s recognition of allotment falls within exceptional circumstances. The Commissioner lacked authority to cancel without a resolution of a board and further contends that the cancellation defeats the legitimate expectation, and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-

MUDA contends that Clause 7 and Rule 10(7) are mandatory, and the petitioner having failed to commence or complete construction within the prescribed period, the cancellation is justified. T