KESARSINGH GANGARAMSINGH RAJAPUT Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and the learned Government Pleader.

(2.) THE petitioner is said to be an Ex -Service man. Respondent No. 2 - The Commissioner, City Corporation, Belgaum, is said to have invited applications from the public for allotment of sites in a residential layout known as Malamaruti Extension, Belgaum. It transpires that the said respondent for one reason or the other was not able to allot the sites. Yet another notification was said to have been issued in the year 1988, inviting applications for allotment. It transpires that respondent No. 2 had reserved some sites for various categories of persons applying for such sites, one of them was the category of Ex -Serviceman and 9% of the sites according to the petitioner were reserved for this category. Pursuant to which, the petitioner is said to have applied and had remitted an amount of Rs. 3,000/ - as an initial deposit. It is stated that the respondent No. 2, however, did not take any action on the application, though the petitioner had made several representations. Ultimately a resolution is said to have been passed at a meeting held by the respondents on 19.01.2005, vide Resolution No. 383. And a site measuring 30 x 40 feet was allotted in favour of the petitioner though he had applied for a site measuring 40 x 60 feet. After the allotment in favour of the petitioner, it is stated that the respondent did not execute a sale deed and put him in possession. Therefore, he had continued to make representations.

(3.) THIS Court by its order dated 10.01.2003 dismissed the petition on the ground that the request of the petitioner having been rejected on the basis of the Government order dated 02.06.2003 there was no scope for issuing any such directions. However, it transpires that the order had been passed without hearing the counsel for the petitioner, and therefore, the matter was moved before the Court and at that point of time, the matter stood transferred from the Principal Bench at Bangalore to this Bench at Dharwad and after such transfer, the counsel having entered appearance on 08.01.2013, his name was however not shown in the cause list, and therefore, none had appeared. The petitioner and his counsel are said to have taken further steps to have the matter listed before the Court to contend that he had not been heard when the petition was dismissed. Therefore, this Court by its further order dated 10.01.2013 had permitted the petitioner to make a further representation to respondent No. 2, insofar as the execution of the sale deed was concerned. Such a representation having been made on 01.03.2013, the respondent No. 2 has failed to consider the same, and therefore, the present petition.