SURYA PRABHA GARCHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was allotted a site by the respondent- Mysuru Urban Development Authority (for short, 'MUDA') under the Ex-servicemen category, since the husband of the petitioner was a soldier. The petitioner was allotted a site bearing No.1644, measuring 50x80 feet at Hanchya- Satagalli B-Zone Layout, Mysuru on 25/2/2001. The sital value was fixed at Rs.3,03,000.00 and the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.4,374.00 as initial deposit. The petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.,45,450.00 within 15 days from the date of communication of the allotment letter and the remaining sum of Rs.2,53,176.00 within 90 days from the date of communication of allotment letter. It is the contention of the petitioner that as could be seen from the material available on record, the allotment letter was prepared on 25/2/2001 and was dispatched on 16/5/2001. The petitioner had secured a Demand Draft bearing No.239810 from the State Bank of India, Mysuru on 29/6/2001, for a sum of Rs.45,450.00 and the same was submitted before the MUDA on the same day along with a representation. Again on 13/10/2001, the petitioner secured another Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.1,10,000.00 from HDFC Bank, Mysuru and submitted to the MUDA along the representation dtd. 13/10/2001. The petitioner was in arrears of payment of Rs.1,43,176.00. At the request of many such allottees like the petitioner, the Board of MUDA passed a resolution on 29/6/2002 to accept the balance of sale consideration from the allottees and to execute the sale deed in favour of such allottees. No sooner such information was received by the petitioner, the petitioner secured one more Demand Draft for a balance sale consideration of Rs.1,43,500.00 on 5/2/2003 from Corporation Bank, Mysuru and along with a representation submitted the same to the respondent-MUDA.

(2.) Nevertheless, instead of executing a sale deed in favour of the petitioner, the respondent-MUDA issued a notice dtd. 31/1/2005 calling upon the petitioner to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,43,176.00. The said notice was issued to the old address where the petitioner was earlier residing and the petitioner did not receive such a notice. It is the contention of the petitioner that without noticing the fact that the petitioner had already paid the entire sale consideration, the notice was issued by the MUDA.

(3.) On the other hand, it appears that pursuant to directions issued by the State Government, the respondent-MUDA took action to cancel the allotments made in favour of the persons like the petitioner who had delayed the payment or did not pay the balance consideration within the prescribed period. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits the various writ petitions were filed before this Court venting out similar grievances and the issue is now settled by a series of judgments of this Court, including the case of Pankaja N Vs. State of Karnataka and others, in W.P.No.10077/2021 dtd. 16/7/2021.