1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

WRIT PETITION No.203784/2016 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

BANJARA EDUCATION SOCIETY

REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT

BASWARAJ PAWAR S/O LIMBAJI PAWAR

AGE: 51 YEARS OCC: PRESIDENT & ADVOCATE

R/O: GANDHI GUNJ, BIDAR-585 401.

... PETITIONER

(SRI. JAIRAJ K. BUKKA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

01.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY

KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

BANGALORE-52.

02.

THE BIDAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER

NAUBAD BIDAR-585 401.

2

03.

THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER

BIDAR - 585 401.

... RESPONDENTS

(SMT. ANURADHA M. DESAI, PGA FOR R1

SRI. P. S. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2

SRI. GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES

226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1950

PRAYING

TO

(A)

ISSUE

A

WRIT

IN

NATURE

OF

CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION

QUASHING

THE

IMPUGNED

ORDER

VIDE

BNPRA/N.SA/CR.NO.18/2012-13/67

DATED

06.05.2016

WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-K PASSED BY 2^ND RESPONDENT,

(B) ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND

DIRECTION TO THE 2^ND RESPONDENT GRANT THE 1 YEAR

FOR PAYMENT INSTALLMENTS AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

3

ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated

06.05.2016 passed by respondent No.2, canceling the

allotment of a civic amenity site to the petitioner for non-

payment

of

balance

lease

amount

of

a

sum

of

````.23,88,960/- within the time prescribed.

02.

It is stated that the petitioner had sought for

allotment of a civic amenity site for the purpose of

establishment of an educational society, by filling in a

prescribed form on 02.11.2012. The petitioner had

deposited 10% of the total sital value of ````.29,81,200/- on

02.11.2012. At a meeting held on 15.11.2012, the

respondent No.2 decided to allot a civic amenity site

measuring 1385 square feet to the petitioner for a term of

30 years. The petitioner was required to execute a lease

agreement within a period of 90 days. The respondent

No.2 issued a notice dated 22.09.2014 calling upon the

petitioner to pay a sum of ````.29,81,200/- in three

installments, failing which the allotment of civic amenity

site would be cancelled. The petitioner failed to deposit the

4

amount, which compelled the respondent No.2 to hold

proceedings on 12.01.2016, where it decided to give a

final chance to the petitioner to deposit the balance

amount within 30 days. However, since the petitioner did

not deposit the amount, the impugned order dated

06.05.2016 was passed canceling the allotment of civic

amenity site and forfeited 10% of lease amount. This order

is challenged in this writ petition.

03.

The

learned

counsel

for

the

petitioner

submitted that the petitioner was always willing to deposit

the amount, but respondent No.2 was not willing to accept

it on the ground that the payment was made after the time

prescribed. He submitted that after the present writ

petition was filed, the petitioner attempted to pay the

amount but the respondent refused to receive it in view of

the pendency of the present writ petition.

04.

This Court in terms of order dated 03.04.2019

had directed the petitioner to ascertain whether it was

willing to pay the balance amount along with interest at

the rate of 18% p.a. The learned counsel for the petitioner

5

however is not in a position to state whether the petitioner

is willing to pay the balance amount along with interest.

05.

In order to consider the case on merits, the

following facts are relevant:-

Date

Events

19/27.11.2012

The petitioner was allotted the civic amenity

site in Sy.No.27/E of Mailor village

23.09.2013

The lease cum sale was executed which

provided that the petitioner should deposit

the balance ````.27,83,080/- in