MANIKRAO Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners 1(a) to 1(c) are the legal representatives of Manikrao S/o Channabasappa Boral. He made an application to the 4th respondent Karnataka Housing Board for allotment of house on 23.06.1995. Petitioners were allotted house bearing No.38/A MIG at Kotnoor, Gulbarga, on 16.08.1999 with certain terms and conditions. The lease cum sale agreement was entered into between the petitioners and the 4th respondent Housing Board as per Annexure-C dated 08.10.1999. By that time, petitioners had already deposited a sum of Rs.73,625.25 paise. The total cost of the property provisionally fixed was Rs.2,94,500.00 paise. However, it is made clear that the cost is liable for variation on certain circumstances. The important clauses of lease cum sale agreement are as under:

(2.) From the aforementioned, it is clear that the petitioners were to pay Rs.3,765.00 paise per month for 144 months. The said amount was fixed based on the principal amount i.e., balance of cost of the property i.e., Rs.2,20,874.75 paise with interest at 17.5% thereon. Thus, the petitioners were required to pay 144 equated monthly installments of Rs.3,765.00 paise per month. Petitioners paid Rs.45,000/- on 07.08.2001, Rs.50,000/- on 07.08.2001 and Rs.50,000/- on 09.08.2001. As aforementioned, the allotment was made and lease cum sale agreement was executed between the parties on 08.10.1999. Thus, amount paid by the petitioners to an extent of Rs.45,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- was almost equal to the money to be paid by the petitioners for monthly installments up to the year 2001 i.e., from the year 1999 i.e., for 3 years. Subsequently, petitioners did not pay the equated monthly installments as agreed and thereafter notices were issued by the Housing Board to the petitioners. Despite the same, petitioners did not pay the balance of consideration as agreed and consequently, the order came to be passed by the Housing Board as per Annexure-R4 (produced by the respondent housing Board along with statement objections) dated 08.02.2006. Pursuant thereto, deed of cancellation of lease cum sale agreement was executed by the Housing Board as per Annexure-R5 on 13.03.2006. Subsequently, the very house was allotted in favour of respondent No.5 herein, who has paid the sale consideration and taken possession of the house. Petitioners by filing this writ petition seeks quashing of the order dated 08.02.2006 cancelling the allotment of house made in favour of the petitioners. They have also sought for cancellation of the allotment letter dated 13.03.2006 issued in favour of respondent No.5 as per Annexure-G.

(3.) Sri I.R.Biradar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent Housing Board is not justified in cancelling the house allotted in favour of the petitioners since the petitioners had made almost 80% of the sale consideration in the year 2001 itself; since the petitioners were required to pay only balance of Rs.2,20,874.75 paise as on 08.10.1999 and as the petitioners were required to pay the said amount within the period of 144 months i.e., about 12 years, there is no reason as to why the Housing Board cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioners.