Back
Karnataka HC Slaps ₹1L Costs on for Double Allotment of Site: Personal Recovery from Officer Ordered
In a stern message to public authorities, the has criticized the () for creating an "unwanted nuisance" by allotting and selling the same property to two different parties. Presided over by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Nataraj, the Court imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on the , directing that the amount be recovered from the salary of the officer responsible for the erroneous allotment.
The Anatomy of a Bureaucratic Blunder The petitioners, V. S. Kanakaraj and Vasantha Kokilam, found themselves embroiled in a legal battle after discovering that their property, site No.3504/C, which they had acquired via a in , had been re-numbered and re-sold by the .
Upon visiting their site in , the petitioners discovered that a third party, respondents No. 3 and 4, had enclosed the land with a compound. The subsequent discovery that the had issued a new and for the exact same property—renamed site No. 2293—to other parties, triggered the legal challenge.
The Arguments The petitioners sought to quash the 's actions, including the allotment letter and subsequent sale deeds, arguing that the authority lacked the power to land already legally sold to them.
The , acknowledging the blunder, informed the Court that it had initiated a civil suit () before the to cancel the second set of sale deeds. The further contended that it had offered an alternate site to the secondary purchaser to rectify the situation.
Key Observations Justice R. Nataraj expressed deep concern over the authority's lack of . In his order, he observed:
"Having regard to the fact that the respondent No.1 has created an unwanted nuisance to the petitioners and exposed them to an unwanted and also has misled gullible purchasers such as respondent Nos.3 and 4, it is appropriate that respondent No.1 be hauled up for a mistake committed."
The Court further clarified the path forward for the parties, stating:
"It is appropriate to direct the petitioners to work out the remedy in the suit filed by the respondent No.1 in O.S.No.8253/ and if need be, to get themselves in the said suit."
The Verdict and Its Impact While the was disposed of to allow the civil suit to take its course, the Court ensured the was held accountable for the emotional and financial strain caused by its oversight.
The Court’s order mandates the to pay ₹1 lakh to the original petitioners. Crucially, in order to cultivate administrative accountability, the Court explicitly ordered that:
"The respondent No.1 shall recover the said sum of ₹1,00,000/- from the salary of the officer concerned responsible for such unwanted but in accordance with law."
This judgment serves as a significant precedent, reinforcing the principle that government authorities are not exempt from the consequences of their administrative negligence, and that errant officials may be held personally liable for the costs of arising from their errors.
