IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No(s). 85/2026 @SLP (C) No. 28429/2023 M/S DIVYAJYOTHI VIDYA KENDRA Appellant(s)

VERSUS KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD & ORS. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Karnataka Housing Board, Digitally signed by (first respondent) allotted a site at Sector-B, Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore to the appellant vide allotment letter dated 16.12.2003 for setting up an education complex. One of the terms of the allotment was that the allotted site shall be utilized for the purpose for which it was allotted within a period of two years, failing which, site shall vest with the Board and allotment Signature Not Verified CHETAN ARORA Date: 2026.01.10

12:09:57 IST would stand automatically cancelled.

Reason:

Admittedly, constructions were not completed

1 1 The Board within the stipulated period. Yet, on 20.10.2005, the Board executed a conditional sale deed in favour of the appellant regarding the site in question. One of the stipulated conditions in the deed, on which reliance is placed by the Board, is as follows:

“The second party (which should be understood as the appellant herein shall construct building for public service as the case may be, duly providing for all infrastructures as are relevant to provide facilities to accomplish the said objective, within a period of two years or within such period of further time allowed by the first party (wrongly transcribed in Annexure A-3 as second party), in conformity with the provisions of law in force from time to time.”

4. Despite there being no constructions raised within the stipulated period, an order canceling the allotment for non- fulfilment of the aforesaid condition came to be issued not before 17.10.2018.

5. Impugning the cancellation, the appellant filed a writ petition, 2 W.P. No. 50859/2018 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, 3 W.P. No. 50859/2018. The learned

Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 04.07.2023 and directed the respondents therein to pass further orders determining the quantum of forfeiture and refund, if any, of the remaining amount to the writ petitioner.

6. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred a writ appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.

7. The submission before the Division Bench on behalf of the appellant was that constructions could not be completed due to financial difficulties as funds could not be arranged. However, a statement was made that construction work had commenced and would require a month or two for completion.

8. The Division Bench, however, did not accept the submission made on behalf of the appellant and by placing reliance on the terms and conditions of the conditional sale and the admitted position that constructions were not completed within the time stipulated, dismissed the writ appeal and further directed the appellant to deliver possession of the property on as is where is basis to the Board.

9. Aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench of the High Court, this appeal, by special leave, has been preferred.

10. When the matter was taken up on 03.01.2024, after considering the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, following order was passed:

“1. Heard Mr. Arijit Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.

2. The counsel would submit that the allotment of the plot by the Karnataka Housing Board was made in favour of the Divyajyothi Vidya Kendra managed by the people of SC/ST category and it was expected that the allottee would construct a community center and an educational institution, for the deserving category, in the Bangalore Rural District. However, due to one reason or the other, the allottee failed to construct within the two year time line as mentioned in the deed dated 20.10.2005 (Annexure P-3). But the Board until 17.10.2018 (Annexure P-15) did not take any steps for cancellation of the plot allotment