- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16568 WP No. 24313 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 24313 OF 2023 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. H.S. MOHAN, S/O LATE H.V. SUNDARAN, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 1120, SRIRAMAPURA, 2ND STAGE, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, MYSORE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R.S. RAJESH, ADVOCATE) AND: THE COMMISSIONER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AUTHORITY (MUDA) JLB ROA, MYSORE - 570 005. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA T.P, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO PHYSICALLY IDENTIFIED THE SITE 249 3RD STAGE C-ZONE NACHENAHALLI KUPPALURU MYSORE ALLOTTED AND SOLD IN FAVOR OF MY CLIENT H. V SUNDARAM VIDE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 06.02.2007 REGISTERED AS DOC NO. 7283/2006-07 IN THE OFFICE OF Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16568 WP No. 24313 of 2023 THE SUB REGISTRAR MYSORE AND HANDOVER/DELIVER THE POSSESSION PHYSICALLY TO THE PETITIONER BY CONSIDERING HIS REPRESENTATION AS FOR ANNEXURE-Q AND E AND ETC., 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 The petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to identify Site No.249, 3rd Stage, Nachanahalli, Kuppaluru, Mysuru allotted and conveyed in favour of the petitioner through a Sale Deed dated 06.02.2007; The petitioner has sought for a further direction that if the layout is not developed and site cannot be identified and the petitioner cannot be put in physical possession of the site conveyed to him, an alternative site can be allotted and an absolute sale deed may be executed thereon. The petitioner has also sought for damages. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16568 WP No. 24313 of 2023 2. It is the case of the petitioner that Site No.304 of Nachanahalli, Kuppaluru was allotted to H.V.Sundaran, father of the present petitioner on 19.07.2004. It was submitted that Site No.304 was found unfit for construction as it was situated in "Marshy Zone". It was then decided by the authority that an alternative Site No.249 of the same measurement would be allotted and a cancellation deed came to be executed as regards the original allotment of Site No.304. 3. On 06.02.2007, the Respondent/MUDA had executed registered absolute sale deed in respect of alternative site bearing No.249 in favour of the petitioner's father. However, there was no identification of the said site. In the meanwhile, original allottee H.V.Sundaran died on 26.03.2010. 4. The petitioner submits that despite sale deed executed, Site No.249 could not be identified. Finally, petitioner has addressed a legal notice on 12.07.2023 to allot after identification of the Site No.249. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16568 WP No. 24313 of 2023 5. Learned counsel, Shri.T.P.Vivekananda appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 and upon instructions submits that the grievance of the petitioner appears to be genuine and that the inability to identify the said Site No.249 requires to be accepted and the only remedy is, for the authority to take steps, in terms of Rule 16 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1991. 6. In the light of stand of the Respondent and of their inability to identify Site No.249, Respondent/MUDA in terms of Rule 16 of the Rules, 1991 is to take steps for allotment of an alternative site. The said action could be taken within a period of Eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. If no action is taken by the Respondent/MUDA within Eight weeks, necessarily they would have to seek for extension of time before this Court with bonafide and valid reasons. Needless to state, the payment of stamp duty of Rs.13,440/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand Four Hundred and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16568 WP No. 24313 of 2023 Forty only) by the petitioner as regards execution of sale deed with respect of Site No.249 is required to be refunded to the petitioner, taking note that the sale deed executed with respect to Site No.249 has remained sale deed 'only on paper' with no relief to the petitioner. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12 CT: BHK