IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 51528 OF 2017 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

M/S CHAITANYA EDUCATION INSTITUTION B.K.S LAYOUT, HOLALAKERE ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577501 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SMT. D.S.BHAGYA …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GANAPATHY BHAT VAJRALLI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001 Digitally REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY signed by SUMA

2. THE COMMISSIONER Location:

HIGH CHITRADURGA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, COURT OF NEAR AKASHVANI, KELAKOTE, KARNATAKA CHITRADURGA-577501 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. BOPANNA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN FILE NO.NAE.202.BRP.2012 DATED

23.03.2017, PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-N AND FURTHER PLEASED TO DIRECT THE 2^ND RESPONDENT TO REGISTER THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER BY TAKING BALANCE AMOUNT AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.£ÀCE

202 ¨ÉAgÀÆ¥Áæ 2012 dated 23.03.2017 passed by respondent No.1 and has sought for a direction to the respondent No.2 to convey the property described in the schedule by accepting the balance lease amount. It has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 not to allot and register the schedule property in favour of third parties.

2. (i) The petitioner is an educational institution which approached the respondent No.2 for allotment of a civic amenity site. On coming to know that a civic amenity site is up for allotment, it filed an application seeking allotment. The respondent No.2 after considering the application, allotted a civic amenity site formed in Re-Sy.No.7/9 and 7/11, Kenchanakatte village, Kasaba Hobli, Chitradurga District, at a meeting held on 17.02.2007. The petitioner claims that the respondent No.2 had imposed a condition that after the site is allotted, the petitioner should run a Kannada Medium educational institution and requisite permission had to be produced before the respondent No.2.

(ii) The respondent No.2 issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon it to deposit Rs.74,488/- being 10% of the allotment price to issue a confirmed allotment. The petitioner deposited the said amount. Later, the petitioner submitted an application before the education department and sought permission to run a Kannada Medium educational institution. However, the request of the petitioner was not granted immediately, which delayed the registration of the site in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a representation on 14.08.2009 informing the respondent No.2 about the request made by it before the education department. The petitioner submitted another representation dated 29.12.2009 explaining the delay in getting the permission from the education department. After nearly three years, the education department issued a certificate of registration on

08.01.2010, which was placed before the respondent No.2 by the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 14.08.2012 and requested the respondent No.2 to register a lease in respect of the civic amenity site. The petitioner claims that though the civic amenity site was not allotted to any third party but the respondent No.2 did not consider the request of the petitioner. The petitioner therefore, approached this Court in W.P.No.37709/2012 for suitable directions. However, the writ petition was withdrawn in view of an alternative remedy available under Section 63 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987. The petitioner thereafter, approached the respondent No.1 in a revision petit