- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23358 WP No. 11165 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.11165 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SATYANARAYANA D S/O DAMODARA AGED 70 YEARS NO.12/D, 6TH CROSS RAJENDRANAGAR MYSORE-07 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KARUMBAIAH T.A, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE-560 001. REP. BY THEIR PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD MYSORE REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT/COMMISSIONER PIN CODE - 560 001 Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23358 WP No. 11165 of 2025 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR THE CIRCLE OFFICER-5B MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD MYSORE-07 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H.K.KENCHE GOWDA, AGA FOR R.1; SRI.T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R.2 AND R.3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNX-G THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 15/02/2025 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEARING NO.MUDA/VT-5B/2024-25 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned writ petition is filed assailing the impugned endorsement dated 15.02.2025 issued by respondent No.3 and consequently, mandamus is sought against respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.07.2024 evidenced at Annexure-D and in the alternate, the direction is also sought against - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23358 WP No. 11165 of 2025 respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 17.09.2024 evidenced at Annexure-F1. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and learned AGA. 3. The dispute in the present case on hand is in regard to non-acceptance of balance sale consideration of a site allotted by respondent No.2 - Authority, which compelled the petitioner to approach this Court. This Court in W.P.No.1633/2014 referring to Section 63 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act, 1987 (for short 'Act, 1987') was of the view that the petitioner has to avail remedy of revision and seek redressal of his grievances. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Authority under Section 63 of the 'Act, 1987', the writ petition was disposed of. The petitioner was directed by this Court to avail a remedy of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23358 WP No. 11165 of 2025 revision within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 4. Though liberty was reserved in 2021, it appears that the petitioner approached respondent No.1 - State by submitting a representation under Section 63 of the 'Act, 1987', which is evidenced at Annexure-D. Strangely, respondent No.1 referred the matter to respondent No.3 - Special Tahasildar to hold an enquiry. Respondent No.3 - Special Tahasildar taking cognizance of the time line set by this Court in W.P.No.1633/2014 has issued an impugned endorsement indicating that the petitioner having failed to approach within four weeks, no indulgence can be granted to consider the petitioner's representation as per Annexure-D. Assailing this endorsement, several directions are sought at the hands of this Court. 5. On careful examination of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23358 WP No. 11165 of 2025 respondent No.1, who is the competent authority under Section 63 of the erstwhile Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1987”), corresponding to the newly enacted Section 70 of the Mysuru Development Authority Act, 2024, has clearly erred in delegating the revisional jurisdiction to respondent No.3. Under Section 63 of the Act of 1987, the power of revision is expressly vested with the State Government, and such power was to be exercised exclusively by the Government itself. The statute does not contemplate the exercise of such revisional powers by the Commissioner of the Mysuru Urban Development Authority. 6. Even under the newly enacted Mysuru Development Authority Act, 2024, Section 70 clearly reiterates that the revisional jurisdiction lies solely with the Government. The provision specifically enables the Government to call for records of any proceedings and examine the legality and propriety of such proceedings. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23358 WP No. 11165 of 2025 Therefore, both under the old and the new statutory regime, the revisional powers are conferred solely upon the State Government, and there is no scope whatsoever for delegation or sub-delegation of such powers to any other authority, including respondent No.3. 7. While it is true that there is some degree of laxity on the part of the petitioner in failing to approach the competent authority within the stipulated time of four weeks, this Court is of the opinion that such delay ought not to defeat the petitioner's right to seek redress, especially when the grievance pertains to immovable property. In such matters, where civil rights are involved, the approach of the Court must be guided by principles of substantial justice rather than technicalities. 8. In light of the above, this Court finds that the impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.3 is without jurisdiction and is therefore liable to be set aside. Though the endorsement itself is of no legal consequence, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23358 WP No. 11165 of 2025 it is nevertheless necessary to set it aside formally to avoid any confusion or prejudice. Consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondent No.1 – the competent authority under the statutory scheme to examine the petitioner's grievance afresh and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with the mandate of Section 70 of the Mysuru Development Authority Act, 2024. 9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned endorsement dated 15.02.2025 issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-G is hereby quashed and set-aside. (iii) Respondent No.1 is hereby directed to notify the petitioner and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23358 WP No. 11165 of 2025 thereafter, proceed to pass appropriate orders by taking note of Section 70 of the Mysuru Development Authority Act, 2024. (iv) This exercise shall be accomplished by respondent No.1 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of order copy. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6