- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4347 WP No. 49846 of 2019 C/W WP No. 49848 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 49846 OF 2019 (LB-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 49848 OF 2019 (LB-RES) IN WP No. 49846/2019 BETWEEN: N. RAMESH GOWDA S/O. NANJE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.37, CHIKKAHOSAHALLI, K.R. PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 426. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADV.) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER MYSORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MUDA), MYSORE. 2. SPL. TAHSILDAR MYSORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MUDA), MYSORE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADV.) Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4347 WP No. 49846 of 2019 C/W WP No. 49848 of 2019 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF TERMINATION OF THE AUCTION SITE NO.58, SITUATED AT KYATAMARANAHALLI RESIDENTIAL LAYOUT, MYSORE DISTRICT, MEASURING 25.50 X 15.00 PLUS 19.70/2 EQUALS TO 442.42 SQUARE METER PASSED BY THE R-1 ON DATED 20.10.2014 PRODUCED AS ANNX-A & ETC. IN WP NO. 49848/2019 BETWEEN: C P TAMMANEGOWDA S/O K.NANJE GOWDA, R/AT NO.37, CHIKKAHOSAHALLI, K.R.PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 426 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADV.) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER MYSORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MUDA) MYSORE. 2. SPL. TAHSILDAR MYSORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MUDA) MYSORE. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF TERMINATION OF THE AUCTION SITE NO.60 SITUATED AT KYATAMARANAHALLI RESIDENTIAL LAYOUT MYSORE DISTRICT MEASURING 24.00 X 15.00 I.E. 360.00 SQUARE METER PASSED BY THE R.1 ON DATED - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4347 WP No. 49846 of 2019 C/W WP No. 49848 of 2019 20.10.2014 PAGE 346 BOOK 5 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A & ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. On 20.12.2012, the petitioners herein who are brothers participated in an e-auction conducted by MUDA. They made a bid to purchase Site No.60 measuring 360 sq. mtrs. and Site No.58 which was measuring about 442 sq. mtrs. 2. The petitioners were the successful bidders having bid a sum of Rs.54,50,000/- and Rs.71,70,000/-, respectively. As required under the Rules, they also deposited 25% of the said amount i.e., a sum of Rs.13,62,500/- and Rs.17,92,500/-, respectively. They were also issued with a No Objection Certificate by MUDA to raise loan. 3. However, the petitioners were unable to pay the balance consideration and ultimately ended up - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4347 WP No. 49846 of 2019 C/W WP No. 49848 of 2019 making a representation to the authority to refund the amount. In the representation, they cited financial losses which they suffered due to a severe drought in their native place. 4. The MUDA refused to accept this request of the petitioners and rejected their claim and proceeded to forfeit 25% of the amount that was deposited by them at the time of auction by order dated 20.10.2014. 5. The petitioners have thereafter made a second representation on 26.07.2019 once again seeking for a refund and since the same remained unconsidered, they are before this Court not only seeking for a direction to consider the representation, but also for quashing of the order of forfeiture that was made on 20.10.2014. 6. As already noticed above, the order of forfeiture was made on 20.10.2014. It must be stated here that these petitions have been filed nearly five years - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4347 WP No. 49846 of 2019 C/W WP No. 49848 of 2019 thereafter on 11.10.2019. In other words, from 2014 to 2019, the petitioners accepted the order of forfeiture and did not choose to challenge the same. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were unable to pay the balance consideration due to several circumstances including the fact that one of the petitioners was affected with liver cancer and had to undergo a transplant. It is contended that the petitioners situation was dire and to expect them to suffer a further loss would be inequitable. It is also sought to be contended that the MUDA has in fact made a huge profit in as much as, the sites which were re-auctioned have fetched higher value. 8. Learned Counsel for the Authority, however, submits that the statutory rule requires the payment of balance 75% within 45 days and if the said amount is not paid, the rule mandates that the amount deposited by a bidder will have to be forfeited. He - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4347 WP No. 49846 of 2019 C/W WP No. 49848 of 2019 submits that the petitioners cannot seek for refund of the amount since they have participated in the auction knowing fully well the consequences of default. 9. In my view, there is no justification for the petitioners' claim for a refund for more than one reason. Firstly, the order of forfeiture was made in the year 2014 and the petitions have been filed in the year 2019 i.e., nearly half a decade. Secondly, the argument that one of the petitioners was affected with cancer, and therefore, he could not make the payment cannot also be accepted since the principal reason given in the year 2014 for non-payment of the money was financial loss and not a ground of illness. In my view, since the statutory rule mandates that 25% of the amount that is deposited pursuant to the auction will have to be forfeited in default of payment of balance 75%, the Authority was justified in refusing the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, I - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4347 WP No. 49846 of 2019 C/W WP No. 49848 of 2019 find no reason to entertain the petitions. Petitions are, therefore, dismissed. 10. However, learned Counsel for the petitioners seeks liberty to make a representation and request the Authority to take a sympathetic view of the matter having regard to the fact that one of the petitioners was affected by liver cancer and had to undergo a transplant. Petitioners are permitted to do so. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE KK