- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6370 WP No. 26724 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 26724 OF 2017 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. CITY CLUB SAGAR @ NEHRU PLAY GROUND, SAGAR 577401 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT REPTD BY ITS SECRETARY D.S. SATYANAGARAYANA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BIMBADHAR.M.GOWDAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 01 REP BY ITS SECRETARY 2. DIRECTOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWERS BENGALURU 01. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA 577201. SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. 4. PLANNING DIRECTOR DISTRICT TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIOER SHIVAMOGGA 577201. SHIVAMOGGA Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6370 WP No. 26724 of 2017 5. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAGAR SUB DIVISION SAGAR 577401. SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. 6. COMMISSIONER TOWN MUNCIPALCOUNCIL SAGAR 577401 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPANA BELLIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-5; SRI.VISHWAATH.R. HEGDE., ADVOCATE FOR R-6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AD 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-6 TO ALLOT THE PROPERTY BEARING SY.NO.27 MEASURING 1 ACRE SITUATED AT KAMBLIKOPPA, SAGAR TOWN IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMIARY HEARING I ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a mandamus to respondent No.6 to allot property bearing Sy.No.27 measuring 1 acres situate at Kamblikoppa, Sagar Town, in favour of the petitioner which is a Club registered under the Societies Registration Act. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6370 WP No. 26724 of 2017 2. Learned counsel for the 6th respondent points out that the 6th respondent had indeed made an allotment and had also collected Rs.2,25,701/- and had also sought for approval of the Government, but the Government by order dated 05.01.2009 had refused their request on the basis of the fact that the Deputy Commissioner had contended that the land was not suitable and would not come within the guidelines of IUDP scheme. 3. In my view, since the 6th respondent had assured the petitioner of an allotment and had also collected a sum of Rs.2,25,701/- way back in the year 2001, it would be appropriate to direct the Government to reconsider the said decision, since it is contended by the petitioner that they had paid the market value of the land way back in the year 2001 and the amount paid by it is still with the 6th respondent. 4. It would be open for the petitioner to submit a fresh representation highlighting as to why the reasoning - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6370 WP No. 26724 of 2017 of the Deputy Commissioner would be inappropriate. On such a representation being submitted by the petitioner, the Government shall hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with within a period of three months from the date of the representation. 5. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43