- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11017 WP No. 6145 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 6145 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. UMADEVI, W/O SRI. KUNNEGWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 223, 1ST G CROSS, 3RD STAGE, 4TH BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AJIT KALYAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11017 WP No. 6145 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS REPRESENTATION DATED 30.01.2025, PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE F AND EXTEND THE TIME BY FIVE MONTHS FOR DEPOSITING THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.30,00,000/- (RUPEES THIRTY LAKHS ONLY). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has sought for issue of writ of mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's representation at Annexure - F dated 30.01.2025 and extend the time for payment of remaining amount by five months. 2. The facts made out are that the petitioner is stated to have obtained the second allotment from the respondent authority and the matter was subject to adjudication of W.P.No.23182/2015. This Court while - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11017 WP No. 6145 of 2025 disposing of the said writ petition, has observed at Paragraph 9 as follows: "When enquiry was ordered by this Court during the proceedings of this case, this Court was prima facie of the opinion that there may be a scam in the matter of allotment of house/sites in the Karnataka Housing Board. It has turned out to be true. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Hon'ble Lokayukta, is required to look into the matter. Similar may be the case in the allotment of sites by the Bangalore Development Authority. Another aspect of the matter is regarding cancellation of allotments, wherever it is found that more than one house/sites are allotted in respect the same person or family members. This Court would suggest that appropriate provisions are required to be incorporated to enable the cancellation of allotment and recovery./In the present case, too, two house sites have been allotted in favour of the petitioners. Although the allotment is made in favour of the second petitioner, admittedly she was a maid servant in the house of the first petitioner and in her name, a High-Income Group (HIG) house site has been allotted. Therefore, further enquiry would be necessary in this regard. If it is found that the benefit of the second allotment is passed on to the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11017 WP No. 6145 of 2025 first petitioner, appropriate action will have to be initiated to recover the property or sale proceeds." 3. Petitioner submits that in light of admitted facts of second allotment and as the petitioner had already sold the said site insofar as the sale proceeds of Rs.1 Crore in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.23182/2015, the petitioner has deposited Rs.70,00,000/-. It is submitted that in order to make payment of Rs.30,00,000/-, time was sought. 4. Learned counsel Sri Pradeep Kumar appearing for the respondent - Housing Board submits that the petitioner ought to have made payment in terms of the order of this Court and submits that sufficient time has been granted. 5. However, taking note of the peculiar facts in this case wherein direction by the Co-ordinate Bench is to redeposit the sale proceeds as the petitioner is stated to have sold to a third party, it would meet ends of justice to direct respondent No.2 to provide further time of two months for payment of balance amount. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11017 WP No. 6145 of 2025 6. Balance amount to be paid by further extended time of two months with interest at 6%. 7. It is made clear that there would be no further extension of time. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. 8. It is made clear that the order passed is in the peculiar facts of the case and it cannot be relied on as a precedent in other matters. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17 CT: BHK