IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.2577 OF 2023 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

DR G K VENKATESH S/O G R K GOWDA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS NO 674, 6TH CROSS C MAIN 12TH A CROSS

3^RD PHASE, J PNAGAR BENGALURU - 560 078 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI H K.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE COMMISSIONER MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JLB ROAD MYSURU - 570005 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA T P.,ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 Digitally signed OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE by SHWETHA RAGHAVEND RA ENDORSEMENT NO.MYNAPRA/HA.SHA./2022.23 DATED 22.07.2022 Location: HIGH COURT OF ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-F BY ISSUING A KARNATAKA WRIT OF CERTIORARI.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

i. Quash the endorsement No.MyNaPra/Ha.Sha./2022-23 dated 22.07.2022issued by the respondent vide Annexure-F by issuing a Writ of Certiorari.

ii. Direct the respondent to allot site measuring 50 feet X 80 feet in HanchyaSatagally B Zone layout or in an equally developed layout in Mysore in exchange of the site no.1659 in favour of petitioner by Issuing Writ of Mandamus in view of petitioners vide Amane A.

bearing No.58595 dated 06.03.1991.

iii. Grant such other reliefs in the interest of justice and equity

2. The petitioner claims that he had made an application for allotment of a site measuring 50x80 feet pursuant to notification dated 06.02.1991 under the State Government Service Quota by making requisite payment of Rs.11,250/- on 06.03.1991. The petitioner alleging that he was under bona fide impression that no site had been allotted in his favour and requested for refund of the initial deposit vide letter dated 30.01.2001 which was so processed and the amounts made over to the petitioner.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner claims that the petitioner came to know of the alleged cancellation of his allotment vide order dated 06.09.2019, on the ground that the petitioner had not made payment of the due amounts and it is in that background that the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

4. The submission of Sri.Ravi.H.K., learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the petitioner had known that allotment had already been made, he would not have withdrawn the amounts but would have gone ahead with the allotment by making payment of the due amounts. Whereas, on that basis the submit that the relief sought for had to be granted.

5. Sri.T.P.Vivekananda., learned counsel for the respondent submits that;

5.1. By relying on the note sheet available of the year

2001 in respect to the said allotment of the petitioner that it is a petitioner who had voluntarily come forward to surrender the said allotment of Site No.1659 and after handing over the allotment letter had received the amounts in respect thereof and as such it cannot be contented that the petitioner's allotment was not known to the petitioner and/or that the petitioner would be entitled now for the allotment.

5.2. Insofar the Order dated 06.09.2019, he submits that the same was a formal order passed to bring a closure to the file of the petitioner and that order cannot be a ground for giving a cause of action for the petitioner inasmuch as said order also refers to the return of the money of Rs.11,250/- on 31.09.2001 and as such cannot be considered to be a demand or a violation of the terms of the allotment.

6. Heard Sri.Ravi.H.K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.T.P.Vivekananda., learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused papers.

7. The entire submission of Sri.Ravi.H.K., learned counsel for the petitioner is on the basis that no allotment had been made of any site to the petitioner and it is in that background that the cancellatio