- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3131 WP No. 103523 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 103523 OF 2024 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. SADHANA PRATAPSINGH RAJAPUT, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O. #423, KACHERI ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER, CITY CORPORATION, BELAGAVI-590003, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR BEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (REVENUE), CITY CORPORATION, BELAGAVI-590003, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 16.02.2024 IN NO.MANABE/KAMSHA/MME/SR/2023-24 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H; ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO EXECUTE THE SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF THE PLOT ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.27 17:00:47 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3131 WP No. 103523 of 2024 MEASURING 40X60 FT (9282/36) IN MAL MARUTI EXTENSION ALLOTTED TO THE PETITIONER BY ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED 20.08.1994 VIDE ANNEXURE-A BY COLLECTING THE BALANCE SITE VALUE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO EXECUTE THE SALE DEED BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.02.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: I. Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari by quashing the endorsement dated 16.02.2024 in No.Manabe/Kamsha/MME/SR/2023-24 issued by the 3rd respondent produced at Annexure-H; II. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus by directing the Respondent No.1 to execute the sale deed in respect of the Plot measuring 40x60 ft (9282/36) in Mal Maruti Extension allotted to the petitioner by allotment letter dated 20.08.1994 vide Annexure-A by collecting the balance site value, in the interest of justice and equity; III. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus by directing the Respondent No.1 to execute the sale deed by considering the representation dated 12.02.2024 submitted by the petitioner produced at Annexure-G in the interest of justice and equity. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3131 WP No. 103523 of 2024 IV. Pass such other Order/orders or Direction as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioner had applied for allotment of a site in Mal Maruti extension, Belagavi. In pursuance of which, a decision was taken by the City Corporation, Belagavi in the Council’s Resolution No.352 dated 30.04.1994 and Plot No. 36 in CTS No.9282 in Sector No.5 measuring 40 X 60 with the total value of Rs.27,750/- was allotted to the petitioner vide allotment letter dated 20.08.1994. The petitioner deposited a sum of ₹3,000/- initially and further sum of ₹14,610/- on 21.10.1994, totally amounting to Rs.17,610/-. However thereafter the petitioner could not make payment of the balance amount, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities on 12.02.2024 seeking permission to deposit the balance amount. The petitioner undertaking to pay any fine that may be called upon to be paid by the petitioner, this request came to be rejected by the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3131 WP No. 103523 of 2024 respondents on 16.02.2024. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The submission of Sri Anil Kale, learned counsel for the petitioner is that in similar other matters the respondents have accepted the payments made, subsequently executed the Sale Deed on 03.06.2022. The petitioner has been unnecessarily targeted. The respondents could while excepting the balance amount along with any fine that they could levy and execute the Sale Deed. In this regard reference was made to the allotment of site bearing no.426 in the very same Mal Maruti extension. 4. It is in that background that Sri Chetan Munnoli, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 was called upon to obtain instructions and make a submission as regards the allegations made. 5. Today a memo dated 17.02.2025 has been filed enclosing the details of the allotment and the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3131 WP No. 103523 of 2024 receipts for payments made by the allotee in the said matter. On that basis, it is contended that the allotment had been made on 18.02.1969 for a total sum of ₹2,400/-. Initially petitioner had made payment of a sum of ₹240/- followed by a sum of ₹480/- and the balance sum of ₹1,620/- was paid on 07.05.1969 that is the entire amount was paid. The respondent had executed the lease cum sale agreement on 02.06.2022 and as such, there is no fault on part of the allottee in the said matter. The delay being on account of the Corporation had executed lease-cum-sale belatedly. 6. Having perused the documents, it is seen that in the matter where learned counsel Sri Anil Kale had contended that there was a discrimination inasmuch as a Sale Deed was executed in respect of another allottee belatedly. The submission now made would indicate otherwise inasmuch as the allottee had made payment of the monies way back in the year - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3131 WP No. 103523 of 2024 1969 and only a Lease cum Sale agreement came to be executed in the year 2022. 7. In the present matter, the petitioner has paid an amount of ₹17,610/- for total sale consideration of Rs.27,550/-. The last payment has been made on 21.10.1994. Thereafter, no payments have been made for more than 30 years. In that view of the matter, I do not find any equities in the claim made by the petitioner. The petitioner cannot now claim a well developed site after 30 years at the same allotment rate as that fixed way back in the year 1994. However, since the petitioner had earlier applied for a site with respondent No.1, the petitioner would be at liberty to apply for any other site in a layout formed by respondent No.1, where respondent No.1 will be given the seniority on the basis of the earlier allotment made. In the event of application being called for any sites to be formed or available with respondent No.1 shall provide seniority - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3131 WP No. 103523 of 2024 to the petitioner on the basis of the earlier application made. 8. Needless to say that the fresh allotment would be made as per the prevailing market value. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE CKK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4