- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37807 WP No. 48485 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.48485 OF 2018 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI ANANTH KUMAR N S/O. H S NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.62, 9TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, BDA COMPLEX, NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU-560 072. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANANDA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, M.S. BUIDLING, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE MUSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, K.G. KOPPAL, CHAMARAJAPURAM MOHALLA, CHAMARAJAPURA, MYSURU-570 005 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA, AGA FOR R.1; SRI T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R.2.) Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37807 WP No. 48485 of 2018 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO.PAGE-81-BOOK-4 DATED 25.06.2016 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AT ANNEXURE-L AND ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.MUDA/ALLOTMENT SECTION/2017-18 DATED 12.02.2018 AT ANNEXURE-M ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN SO FAR AS REJECTION OF THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER FOR ALLOTMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITE IN LIEU OF CANCELLATION OF AUCTION CONFIRMATION LETTER DATED 06.03.2013 IS CONCERNED IN RESPECT OF SITE NO.1004, 1 STAGE, CHIKKAHARADANAHALLI LAYOUT, MYSURU, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner was allotted a site by way of a public auction. A sale deed was also executed in this regard by respondent No.2. Subsequently, the land on which the site is located was denotified and the petitioner was left without any site. Hence, he has filed the instant writ petition with the following prayers: "(i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order to quash the Order bearing No.Page-81-Book-4 dated 25.6.2016 passed by the 2nd respondent at Annexure-L and Endorsement - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37807 WP No. 48485 of 2018 bearing No.MUDA/Allotment Section/2017-18 dated 12.02.2018 at Annexure-M issued by the 2nd respondent in so far as rejection of the claim of the petitioner for allotment of alternative site in lieu of cancellation of Auction Confirmation Letter dated 16.03.2013 is concerned in respect of site No. 1004, I Stage, Chikkaharadanahalli Layout, Mysuru. (ii) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ or order or directions as the case may be directing the 2nd respondent to allot Alternative Site to the petitioner in lieu of cancellation of Auction Confirmation Letter dated 16.03.2013 in respect of site No.1004, I Stage, Chikkaharadanahalli Layout, Mysuru. (iii) And to pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to pass in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Respondent No.2 has filed objections stating that there is no provision under the law for grant of an alternative site in lieu of a site allotted by way of a public auction. 3. However, on 16.11.2023, this Court has passed the following interim order: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37807 WP No. 48485 of 2018 "1. It is rather a sad case of the petitioner who was successful in a public action conducted by respondent No.2, paid the full amount and after the sale deed came to be executed in favour of the petitioner, the former owner of the property where the petitioner's site had been formed, had claimed that his land had been denotified in the year 1999 itself prior to the public action held in the year 2013 and on that basis claimed that the petitioner does not having a right over the property and the auction conducted does not confer a right on the petitioner. 2. The petitioner therefore unable to make use of the said site even though a sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner had requested the allotment of an alternate site in the very same layout, which came to be rejected vide order dated 12.02.2018 at Annexure-M. The mistake having been committed by respondent No.2/authority in conducting an auction of a property which had earlier been denotified the petitioner cannot be called upon to pay the price for such a mistake. It was but required for respondent No.2 to fairly identify a site of equivalent dimension in the very same layout and allotted the same instead of forcing the petitioner to approach this Court. 3. Sri. T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel who appears for respondent No.2 is directed to convey - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37807 WP No. 48485 of 2018 the above order to respondent No.2 to enable him to identify a suitable site and make his submission in regard thereto. 4. Re-list on 07.12.2023." 4. Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit dated 08.09.2025 wherein it is stated that two vacant sites in the same locality are available (site No.441 and site No.500 both measuring 6 x 9 meters), which can be allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner has expressed his willingness for allotment of site No.441. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the earlier site allotted in favour of the petitioner was 49.63 square meters, but the alternative site measures 54 square meters, and thus, he is required to pay the average auction price for the excess amount of land being allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner is agreeable for the same. 6. Hence, under the circumstances, taking into consideration the ends of justice, without going into merits of the case, it is hereby ordered that respondent No.2 shall allot site No.441 measuring 6 x 9 meters located in Chikkaharadanahalli 1st - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37807 WP No. 48485 of 2018 stage, Mysuru in favour of the petitioner after accepting the additional sale consideration, which shall be calculated as mentioned in para no.5 supra, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 7. The petitioner shall also execute a cancellation deed in respect of the earlier site and respondent No.2 shall refund the stamp duty paid on the earlier sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE hkh. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49