SADANAND Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent No.2 had allotted a residential site at MSK Mill, 2nd Stage (Madarasanahalli) Layout to the petitioner in terms of a letter of allotment dated 02/19.09.2011 at an allotment price of Rs.2,40,000/-. The petitioner had paid an initial deposit of Rs.9,600/- and Rs.50/- towards lease-cum-sale. Therefore, the balance allotment price of Rs.2,30,350/- (excluding the lease amount of Rs.50/-) was to be paid within 90 days under Rule 19 (1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1991 (for short, 'the Rules, 1991'). The petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 16.11.2011 followed by another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 15.12.2011. The petitioner sought time of two months to pay the balance of Rs.30,350/- in terms of the letter dated 23.12.2011. The respondent No.2 who noticed that the petitioner had not paid Rs.30,350/- within 90 days, imposed interest on a sum of Rs.30,350/- and thereafter, collected Rs.31,250/- on 23.02.2012. Thus, the respondent No.2 had collected the entire allotment price from the petitioner as on 23.02.2012. The petitioner thereafter, requested the respondent No.2 in terms of his representations dated 11.10.2013, 05.10.2015, 29.11.2017 to execute the sale deed in respect of the site allotted to him. Since the respondent No.2 did not consider the just request of the petitioner, he has filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to respondent No.2 to execute a conveyance in favour of the petitioner as per the letter of allotment dated 02/19.09.2011.

(2.) The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 stiffly opposed the petition and contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as the petitioner had failed to pay the allotment price within 90 days that was stipulated under Rule 19 (1) of the Rules, 1991. He also contended that the maximum time that could be extended for payment along with interest was 30 days and nothing beyond. He therefore, contended that the petitioner had miserably failed to pay the entire allotment price within the time stipulated. He thus, contended that the allotment stood cancelled automatically. He further reiterated that the writ petition was highly belated as the petitioner has approached this Court after nearly eight years of he being allegedly entitled to claim the site in question. He also contended that a Division Bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions has held in similar circumstances that a writ Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of persons who approached the Court belatedly. He also contended that the Division Bench had held that if the balance sital value with interest was not paid within the time, the allotment was deemed to be cancelled and that there was no requirement of issuing the separate order of cancellation.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that if the allotment price was not paid within the time stipulated, then it was incumbent upon the respondent No.2 to have refunded the amount received. She also contended that the respondent No.2 having once exercised its option to receive the balance allotment price with interest, it is estopped from contending that the petitioner is not entitled for the site in question. She also contended that there was a legitimate expectation that the respondent No.2 would transfer the site after receiving the entire allotment price. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No.200162/2019. The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court that in respect of the very same layout this Court had in W.P.No.204871/2016 and 204872/2016 had in similar circumstances directed the respondent No.2 to collect the balance allotment price and execute the sale deed. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court an order passed in WP No.15603/2012 where too, this Court had directed the respondent No.2 to assess the value of the site in the year 2011 and if the amount deposited satisfies the requirement of the respondent No.2, to take steps to complete the transaction.