SHARAD MAHADEV BORKAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a senior citizen having lost his land being plot Nos. 151 and 126 in Sy. No 4/1 A. on account of acquisition for formation of residential sites by the belgaum Urban Development Authority was allotted site No. 1467 under Scheme No. 35. It is the claim of the petitioner that the said plots measuring 0-7-7 were purchased from his vendor Sri Ganapath G. Valvekar under a registered sale deed dated 19-2-1970. The petitioner further claims to have made a representation to the 2nd respondent - Urban development Authority bringing to its notice that his family consists of three children and wife, with a request to allot another site adjacent to site No. 1467 measuring 40' x 60', in response to which the 2nd respondent authority by a letter dated 28-9-2005 Annexure-C promised to consider the request after the disposal of the appeal pending before this Court. According to the petitioner, there being no litigation pending as on date, the 2nd respondent without considering the request, by letter dated 9-2-2007 Annexure 'e' called upon him to execute a lease-cum-sale deed with seven days or receive the compensation amount of Rs. 43. 543/ -. Hence, this petition for a mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representations dated 15-9-2005 and 29-1-2007 Annexure-A and B.

(2.) SRI Ravi G. Sabhahit, learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to point out with reference to any law. much less, the Act or rules governing the allotment of sites by an urban Development Authority whereunder acquisition of lands would entitle a landlord, as a matter of right to seek allotment of sites either in lieu of compensation or otherwise. According to the learned counsel, there being no right in law, the petitioner has invoked the sympathetic jurisdiction of the authority and the legitimate expectancy on account of the promise extended in the letter Annexure-C.

(3.) IN the first place, the claim of legitimate expectancy arises only if it is shown that the promise extended was based on a clear legal right founded in law. The mere promise to consider the petitioner's claim for allotment of an additional site, adjacent to the site allotted, by letter Annexure-C by itself and nothing more cannot attract the Doctrine of Promissory estoppel.