M.RATHNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court praying that the resolution dated 06.12.2010 under Minute-3 impugned at Annexure-H be quashed. The petitioner has also sought for issue of direction to the fourth respondent to issue possession certificate in the name of the petitioner in respect of the petition schedule property.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that she is the daughter of one M.C.Marisetty. On 14.06.1978 a residential site bearing No.62 situate at Thavaregere East, Mandya city was allotted to the name of the father of the petitioner. The allotment is said to have been confirmed by the first respondent under a notification dated 17.01.1986. However since possession had not been granted in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner was seeking possession in that regard. In the meanwhile, the impugned notification is stated to have been published calling for applications in respect of the very same site No.62 since the same was considered as a corner site and was to be disposed of by public auction. It is in that context, the petitioner is aggrieved by the resolution dated 06.12.2010 whereby the fourth respondent had sought to auction the site which according to the petitioner was allotted to her father.

(3.) THEREFORE keeping these aspects in view and also considering the fact that the allotment was made in favour of the father of the petitioner as far back as on 14.06.1978 and the benefit of the same has also been extended by the order dated 21.12.1979, the same benefit given to all other persons under the order dated 21.12.1979 will also have to be extended to the petitioner. Though the fourth respondent is justified in auctioning site No.62 since the same was an corner site, a site of the similar dimension in the same layout or in the adjacent layout would have to be allotted to the petitioner on determining the fact as to whether the petitioner is similarly placed to the persons who have been given the benefit under the order dated 21.12.1979. Even otherwise, keeping in view that the initial allotment was made on 14.06.1978, respondent No.4 shall consider the grant of alternate site in the manner as stated above. In any event, the fourth respondent would have to allot a similar dimension site to the petitioner on consideration of the request of the petitioner.