RAJENDRA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BELGAUM Urban Development Authority (for short 'the Authority'), allotted the site in question, on 17.04.1998, to the petitioner. Allotment cost of Rs. 2,20,000/ - having been deposited, lease -cum sale agreement was executed on 14.09.1999 and was registered in the office of Sub -Registrar, Belgaum. Possession of the site was delivered on 28.09.1999. On the ground that construction was not made within the stipulated period of three years, allotment was cancelled, on 08.01.2007, vide Annexure -D. Unilaterally, the Authority, registered lease cum sale cancellation agreement dated 23.01.2007, vide Annexure -F, on 29.01.2007, in the office of Sub - Registrar, Belgaum. The said fact having been notified to the petitioner, on 12.04.2007, vide Annexure -E, this writ petition was filed on 16.07.2007, to quash Annexures -D and F. On 01.08.2007, interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure -D was ordered.

(2.) SRI .S.S.Badawadagi, learned Advocate, contended that the Authority has committed error and illegality in sending a cyclostyled and stereotyped order, by filling the gaps in a printed Form vide Annexure -D. He submitted that lack of application of mind on the part of the Authority being apparent and there being violation of principles of natural justice, interference is called for. By placing reliance on an order dated 24.02.2001, passed in W.P. No.2075/2008, he submitted that the petitioner, if granted with an year time, will put up construction on the site. He further submitted that the petitioner is entitled to similar benefit as was extended to the petitioner in W.P. No.2075/2008 and several other allottees of the respondent -Authority.

(3.) SRI .M.A.Huliyal, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent -Authority, on the other hand, made submissions in support of the decision to cancel the allotment. He submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.