CHANDRASHEKAR B.L., S/O LATE LAKSHME GOWDA Vs. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REP.BY ITS COMMISSIONER, JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE-570001

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondent to execute a registered sale deed in his favour conveying the site bearing No. 10797 situated at Vijayanagar, 4th Stage, 2nd Phase, Mysore. Petitioner has also sought for quashing the order of cancellation of the allotment dated 19.09.2001 passed by the respondent -Mysore Urban Development Authority. The value of the site was fixed at Rs.35,000/ -. Petitioner's father had paid a sum of Rs.2,000/ - as initial deposit. Another sum of Rs.5,250/ - was paid towards 15% of the allotment amount. The remaining amount of Rs.27,750/ - was required to be paid within 90 days. According to the petitioner, on 23.12.1998, the petitioner's father deposited Rs. 19,000/ - before the respondent -Authority. However, due to financial problems faced by the father of the petitioner, the balance amount could not be paid. It Is asserted by the petitioner that as per the demand made by the respondent -Authority, the balance amount was paid with interest on 13.01.2003 in a sum of Rs.8,000/ - and on 20.01.2003, another sum of Rs.7,175/ -along with Rs.205/ - was paid, To evidence this fact, the petitioner has produced the challans for having deposited the amount vide Annexures -B, B1 to B4. Thus, it is contended that the father of the petitioner had deposited the entire allotment amount with interest.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that his father died due to ill health and when this fact was brought to the notice of the respondent -Authority, the respondent transferred the site in the name of the petitioner's mother by issuing a letter dated 14.07.2005. Thereafter when the mother of the petitioner died, on the application filed by the petitioner, the respondent -Authority transferred the site in the name of the petitioner on 01.09.2008. These facts are evidenced by Annexures -C and D. It is only after the transfer of the site in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner approached the respondent requesting for execution of a registered sale deed. At that stage, petitioner came to know that the respondent -Authority had cancelled the allotment way back in the year 2001 without bringing the same to the notice of the petitioner and his family members.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondent -Mysore Urban Development Authority submits that the amount is not paid pursuant to any direction or permission issued by the respondent. He further contends that the father of the petitioner had passed away as back as in the year 2002 and the balance amount was paid only during 2003 and therefore the conduct of the petitioner does not entitle him for the relief sought in the writ petition.