H. K. KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. GOVT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was allotted with a residential site bearing No.240-B, measuring about 360 sq.mtrs. under the IDSMT scheme. As per the conditions stipulated in the allotment letter dated 30.04.1998, at Annexure-A, the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.4,400/- as an initial deposit. The conditions required that the rest of the sale consideration i.e., Rs.83,600/- shall be paid within 90 days from the date of receipt of the allotment letter. Further, if the allottee failed to deposit the balance sale consideration within 90 days, he/she was required to take written permission to pay the balance sale consideration within an extended period of 60 days along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner received the allotment letter on 16.06.1998. Therefore, as per the conditions stipulated therein, the petitioner was required to deposit the balance sale consideration on or before 14.09.1998. The petitioner did not seek extension of time, but deposited the entire balance sale consideration on 16.10.1998. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had sought for extension of time orally and therefore, there is no documentary proof to say that the petitioner had sought for extension of time. It is submitted that after depositing the entire amount, the petitioner sought for the execution of the Leasecum- Sale Agreement and for issuance of Possession Certificate. However, it is submitted that the respondent-City Municipal Council did not oblige.

(3.) It is submitted that a representation was given by the petitioner on 04.03.2009 bringing to the notice of the Commissioner, City Municipal Council that the petitioner had paid the entire sale consideration and sought for execution of Lease-cum- Sale Agreement and Possession Certificate. It is submitted that the petitioner had also paid the rent amount for the years 2007-08 to 2011-12. Copies of the receipts for having paid the rent amount acknowledged by the respondent-City Municipal Council have been furnished at Annexure-F1 series. Once again a representation was made on 06.07.2010. It is submitted that the respondent-City Municipal Council authorities sought for certain documents and the petitioner furnished all the required documents. Inspite of the same, nothing fruitful came through. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondentauthorities to execute the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement and issue Possession Certificate.