- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7441 WP No. 4207 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 4207 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI DEVI PRASAD AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFITS NOT CLAIMED S/O LATE ANANTHESHWARA BHAT R/AT ANILAKODI, BANUR VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574203 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SACHIN B S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PUTTUR SUB-DIVISION, PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574201. 2. TAHSILDAR PUTTUR TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT -574201. 3. ESHWARA BHAT AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O KESHAV BHAT, PANJIGUDDE, PADNOOR VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT -574201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 & R2) Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7441 WP No. 4207 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.01.2025 IN NO. ADS R. E V S R 70/2023-24 PASSED BY THE R-1 AS PER ANNEXURE -A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the order passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-A herein while entertaining an appeal relating to the fraudulent securing of 2 sites for the petitioner has condoned the delay of 7 years to hold an enquiry and examine as to whether the petitioner is entitled for allotment of a site. The said order is under challenge. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of PATHAPATI SUBBA REDDY (DIED) BY L.RS. & ORS VS. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) reported in (2024) 4 SC 540 IN SLP (CIVIL) NO.31248/2018 and VIJAY LAXMAN BHAWE VS. P AND S NIRMAN PVT. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7441 WP No. 4207 of 2025 LTD., reported in CIVIL APPEAL NO.2024 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C)NO.4034/2023). He would contend that the Assistant Commissioner erred in condoning an inordinate delay of 7 years. He would also point out that respondent No.3 had no locus to challenge the Hakkupatra issued to the petitioner herein. 3. Learned Additional Government Advocate, however, seriously contended that no indulgence is warranted as the authority has rightly exercised the judicial discretion while condoning the delay, bearing in mind that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having secured two house sites in his favour along with his wife. 4. On closer examination of the records, this Court appreciates the concern expressed by the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, allotting the site in a beneficial scheme, and it is only those persons who do not own residential houses who are entitled to seek allotment of a - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7441 WP No. 4207 of 2025 site. In the case in hand, prima facie, the enquiry officer, namely the Assistant Commissioner, has found from the records that the petitioner and his wife both have secured allotment of sites. This clearly contravenes the scheme. The petitioner and his wife both could not have entertained the application. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner prima facie is of the view that there is suppression and that the site is secured fraudulently. 5. In light of these significant details, the judgments cited by the petitioner are not at all applicable to the present case on hand. The petitioner has no pre-existing right in these properties. He is entitled subject to eligibility. Therefore, the matter deserves to be enquired, and if the petitioner is found to have flouted the rules and by suppression secured two sites, one in his name and one in his wife's, there has to be an appropriate enquiry. This enquiry cannot be scuttled at this juncture. Any indulgence would deprive a genuine house-less person of getting the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7441 WP No. 4207 of 2025 benefit under the scheme. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. The government's housing schemes are specifically designed to provide residential sites to genuinely homeless individuals and families who do not own any property. These schemes aim to alleviate housing insecurity and ensure equitable distribution of resources. Allowing both husband and wife to individually apply for site allotments would defeat the fundamental purpose of these welfare measures, as it would enable a single household to acquire multiple properties under a program intended for single-site beneficiaries. This would unfairly deprive other deserving applicants of the opportunity to obtain housing, thereby violating the core principles of fairness and equity embedded in such schemes. Order impugned does not warrant interference. Accordingly dismissed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7441 WP No. 4207 of 2025 However, all the contentions of the parties are kept open.The petitioner shall substantiate and justify the issuance of Hakkupatra in his favour. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE sks