(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to, issue a writ or direction or order writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent No.2 to execute the sale deed in respect of site No.121 measuring 9 x 12 meters, in favour of the petitioner, as per the allotment letter dated 2/19.09.2011, vide Annexure - C.)
1. The respondent No.2 had allotted a residential site at MSK Mill, 2nd Stage (Madarasanahalli) Layout to the petitioner in terms of a letter of allotment dated 02/19.09.2011 at an allotment price of Rs.2,40,000/-. The petitioner had paid an initial deposit of Rs.9,600/- and Rs.50/- towards lease-cum-sale. Therefore, the balance allotment price of Rs.2,30,350/- (excluding the lease amount of Rs.50/-) was to be paid within 90 days under Rule 19 (1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1991 (for short, 'the Rules, 1991'). The petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 16.11.2011 followed by another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 15.12.2011. The petitioner sought time of two months to pay the balance of Rs.30,350/- in terms of the letter dated 23.12.2011. The respondent No.2 who noticed that the petitioner had not paid Rs.30,350/- within 90 days, imposed interest on a sum of Rs.30,350/- and thereafter, collected Rs.31,250/- on 23.02.2012. Thus, the respondent No.2 had collected the entire allotment price from the petitioner as on 23.02.2012. The petitioner thereafter, requested the respondent No.2 in terms of his representations dated 11.10.2013, 05.10.2015, 29.11.2017 to execute the sale deed in respect of the site allotted to him. Since the respondent No.2 did not consider the just request of the petitioner, he has filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to respondent No.2 to execute a conveyance in favour of the petitioner as per the letter of allotment dated 02/19.09.2011.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 stiffly opposed the petition and contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as the petitioner had failed to pay the allotment price within 90 days that was stipulated under Rule 19 (1) of the Rules, 1991. He also contended that the maximum time that could be extended for payment along with interest was 30 days and nothing beyond. He therefore, contended that the petitioner had miserably failed to pay the entire allotment price within the time stipulated. He thus, contended that the allotment stood cancelled automatically. He further reiterated that the writ petition was highly belated as the petitioner has approached this Court after nearly eight years of he being allegedly entitled to claim the site in question. He also contended that a Division Bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions has held in similar circumstances that a writ Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of persons who approached the Court belatedly. He also contended that the Division Bench had held that if the balance sital value with interest was not paid within the time, the allotment was deemed to be cancelled and that there was no requirement of issuing the separate order of cancellation.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that if the allotment price was not paid within the time stipulated, then it was incumbent upon the respondent No.2 to have refunded the amount received. She also contended that the respondent No.2 having once exercised its option to receive the balance allotment price with interest, it is estopped from contending that the petitioner is not entitled for the site in question. She also contended that there was a legitimate expectation that the respondent No.2 would transfer the site after receiving the entire allotment price. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No.200162/2019. The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court that in respect of the very same layout this Court had in W.P.No.204871/2016 and 204872/2016 had in similar circumstances directed the respondent No.2 to collect the balance allotment price and execute the sale deed. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court an order passed in WP No.15603/2012 where too, this Court had directed the respondent No.2 to assess the value of the site in the year 2011 and if the amount deposited satisfies the requirement of the respondent No.2, to take steps to complete the transaction.
4. The purpose of constitution of respondent No.2 is entrenched in the objects and reasons of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, which is for the planned development of Kalaburagi city and to provide housing sites to the citizens. In the present case, the respondent No.2 has allotted the site to the petitioner on 02/19.09.2011, by which time, part payment of Rs.9,650/- was already paid. Out of the balance of Rs.2,30,350/-, the petitioner paid Rs.1,00,000/- on 16.11.2011 and another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 15.12.2011. Thus, a sum of Rs.2,09,650/- was paid within the time stipulated. The petitioner sought for time of two months in terms of his letter dated 23.12.2011 and thereafter paid the balance sum of Rs.30,350/- along with interest of Rs.900/- on 23.02.2012. The respondent No.2 acknowledged the receipt of the last portion of an allotment price in the year 2012.
5. The relevant portion of Rule 19 (1) of the Rules, 1991 reads as follows:-
"19 (1). After the receipt of the allotment letter the allottee shall pay to the Authority sital after deducting the initial deposit made by him within 90 days.
Thereafter, the authority shall call upon the allottee to execute a lease-cum-sale agreement in Form III. If the allottee fails to execute the lease-cum-sale agreement within 60 days after the authority has called upon him to execute such agreement, the registration fee paid by the allottee may be forfeited, and the allotment of the site cancelled, and the amount paid by the allottee, may be refunded by the Authority after deducting such expenditure as might have been incurred by the Authority.
Provided that the authority may extend the time-limit specified in sub-rule (1), by 30 days and levy an interest at 18% for the extended period.
Provided that the authority may on application of the allottee permit him/her to execute a lease-cum-sale agreement in Form III in the joint name of the allottee and him/her spouse."
6. It is seen that the respondent No.2 has not refunded the amount as what could be forfeited under Rule 19 (1) of the Rules, 1991 is only the registration fee and not the allotment price. The respondent No.2 is invested with the discretion to receive the balance of the allotment price within 30 days after the time of 90 days fixed under Rule 19 (1) of the Rules, 1991. Since the respondent No.2 has not refunded the amount even after eight years, it is legitimate for the petitioner to expect that the respondent No.2 would convey the site allotted to him. The respondent No.2 by accepting the last portion of the allotment price along with interest for the delayed period has represented to the petitioner that it is empowered to collect the allotment price with interest. Therefore, even by conduct, the respondent No.2 is estopped from contending that the petitioner was not entitled for the site in
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
question and that there was an automatic cancellation of the allotment. Bearing in mind the object of the constitution of a development authority and the conduct of the respondent No.2, it is appropriate that the respondent No.2 is directed to execute a deed of sale and convey the property allotted to the petitioner. Hence, the following: ORDER This writ petition is allowed. The respondent No.2 is directed to execute a deed of sale and convey the residential site bearing No.121 at MSK Mill, 2nd Stage (Madarasanahalli), Kalaburagi City measuring 30 ft., x 40 ft., in favour of the petitioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the respondent No.2 fails to comply with this direction, the petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court for appropriate reliefs.