- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49275 WP No. 43658 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 43658 OF 2018 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: K.A. THAMMAIAH S/O LATE K.T.APPAIAH, AGED 58 YEARS, R/AT KOLAKERI VILLAGE AND POST, MADIKERI TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT-571216 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. T.A.KARUMBAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE-9 BY ITS COMMISSIONER 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR THE MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE-9 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-D THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 14.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.MUDA/APPN BRANCH/2017-18/50X80 AND ETC., Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49275 WP No. 43658 of 2018 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement bearing No.ªÉÄÊ£À¥Áæ/Cfð±ÁSÉ/2017-18/50x80 dated 14.07.2017 issued by the respondent No.2. He has also sought for a direction to the respondents to allot a site measuring 50' x 80' under the ex- servicemen quota. 2. (i) The petitioner claims to be a permanent resident of Kolakeri village, Madikeri Taluk, Kodagu District. His father, Sri. K.T. Appaiah, was an ex-serviceman, who had filed an application with the respondents for allotment of a site measuring 50' x 80'. The allotment was not made in the first attempt and again his father filed a second application on 27.08.2005. Even at the second attempt, he was not allotted a site. The petitioner claims that many other persons, who had made lesser attempts were allotted sites. After coming to know of the same, his father gave a representation to the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49275 WP No. 43658 of 2018 respondents bringing to their notice the apparent discrimination meted out to him. On 22.06.2017, the father of the petitioner filed an application again seeking for allotment of site. However, the respondent No.2 issued an endorsement dated 14.07.2017 stating that he owned a house and therefore, was not entitled for allotment of a site. In the meanwhile, the petitioner also being an ex-serviceman submitted a representation to the respondent No.1 requesting for allotment of a site. Again on 24.01.2018, the respondent No.2 issued an endorsement stating that the petitioner does not have the seniority to compel the respondent No.2 to allot a site on priority. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 11.02.2018 requesting the respondent No.1 to allot a site. However, there was no response from the respondents which compelled the petitioner to cause a notice on 24.02.2018. (ii) The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the endorsement dated 14.07.2017 issued by the respondent No.2, by which, the application filed by his father was rejected. He has also sought for a direction to the respondents to allot a site under the ex-servicemen quota. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49275 WP No. 43658 of 2018 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even after making several attempts, the father of petitioner was not allotted a site. The third attempt made by the father of petitioner was turned down by the respondent No.2 on the ground that he owned a house. The petitioner claims that except a farm house situated in Kolakeri village, Madikeri Taluk, Kodagu District, neither he nor his family members owned any site or house in any urban area. He therefore, prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to allot a site to the petitioner under the ex-servicemen quota. 4. (i) The petition is opposed by the respondents who admit that the father of the petitioner had filed an application on 23.04.1999 for allotment of site measuring 50' x 80' under the ex-servicemen quota. He was not allotted a site in the first attempt. He thereafter filed an application on 27.08.2005 for allotment of site in Lal Bahaddur Shastri Nagar or Shanthaveri Gopalagowda Nagar. Even in the second attempt, he was not eligible. Thereafter, he filed an application for allotment of site in R.T. Nagar Layout on 10.11.2011. Before sites could be allotted, he died on 05.07.2014. It is claimed that the applications for allotment of sites in R.T. Nagar - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49275 WP No. 43658 of 2018 Layout could not be completed in view of an interim order granted by this Court in W.A.No.2497/2012 and after disposal of W.A.No.2497/2012, process of allotment commenced and sites were allotted in the year 2017. It is claimed that when provisional list of allotment was notified, objection was filed in the name of Sri. K.T. Appaiah on 22.06.2017 though he had by that time expired. In response to the said objection, an endorsement dated 14.07.2017 was issued stating that Sri. K.T. Appaiah (father of the petitioner) had made three attempts and his date of birth is 10.05.1936 and since he owned a residential house, his application for allotment was not considered. (ii). It is contended that the said endorsement was not challenged and in the meanwhile, respondents had issued a notification inviting applications for allotment of sites at Lalithadrinagar North Layout. The petitioner had filed an application for allotment of site measuring 50 feet x 80 feet under the Ex-servicemen category on the ground that he was seeking the benefit of the number of attempts made by his father. When the provisional list of allottees of sites in Lalithadrinagar North layout was notified, the petitioner filed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49275 WP No. 43658 of 2018 objections. The respondents considered the objections and issued an endorsement dated 21.06.2018 informing that his application was the first attempt and therefore, he is not entitled for allotment of a site. The respondents, therefore, contend that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of the attempts made by his father and that the attempt made by the petitioner does not qualify him for allotment of a site. It is then contended that Rule 21 of the Allotment of Sites Rules (for short, ‘the Rules’), prescribes that if the applicant dies before the allotment of the site, the legal representatives of the applicant are either entitled for refund of the amount or the allotment of site. It is claimed that since a site was not allotted to the father of the petitioner, the petitioner at the most was entitled for refund of the amount deposited by his father. As regards Rule 22 of the Rules, it is claimed that after the death of the applicant, the number of attempts made by the applicant could be transferred to the husband or the wife of the applicant. However, in the instant case, the transfer of the number of attempts made by his father for allotment of site is being sought by the petitioner, who is the son of the applicant. They thus contended that the benefit of attempts made by the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49275 WP No. 43658 of 2018 father of the petitioner cannot enure to the petitioner. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs sought for in the petition. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the above submissions and submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for allotment of any site. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the statement of objections filed by the respondents stating that the petitioner is an ex-serviceman, who served in EME Indian Army. It is stated that the date of birth of the petitioner is 19.08.1959. It is contended that the father of petitioner was born on 10.05.1936. However, the respondents had allotted sites to persons who also were third attemptees and who were younger than the father of the petitioner and were born on 18.04.1941 and 02.03.1945 respectively. Therefore, it is contended that the respondents have deprived the right of the father of the petitioner to be allotted a site and have discriminated him vis-a-vis persons who were less qualified / eligible for allotment of sites. It is contended that owning a farm house at Kolakery village of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49275 WP No. 43658 of 2018 Madikeri Taluk in Kodagu District cannot disqualify the father of the petitioner for allotment of a residential site in Mysore. It is claimed that neither the petitioner nor his father had any site in any urban area. It is contended that if the respondents had made allotment according to seniority, the father of the petitioner was eligible to be allotted a site in his third attempt. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for allotment of site. 7. A Memo is filed by the learned counsel for respondents indicating that there are 22 sites of 50 feet x 80 feet dimension in Lalithadrinagar which are available for allotment. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 9. The fact that the father of the petitioner had made three attempts for allotment of a site in the layouts formed by the respondents is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the father of the petitioner was born on 10.05.1936. The list of allottees which is enclosed along with the writ petition as Annexure ‘A’ shows that one Mr. B.A. Kariappa, who had also - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49275 WP No. 43658 of 2018 made three attempts and who was born on 18.04.1941 was allotted a site by the respondents. As per allotment Rules, when allotment is to be made to persons who have made similar number of attempts, the allotment should be based on the age of the applicant. Therefore, it is more than evident that the father of the petitioner, who was older than Mr. B.A.Kariappa, was entitled for allotment of a site but was deprived of the opportunity. It may be that the allotment of sites could not be finalized due to a pending proceeding before this Court. Ideally, the respondents must have extended the benefit of the number of attempts made by the father of the petitioner to the petitioner. Having regard to the fact that if the father of petitioner was alive in the year 2017 when the allotment was made, he stood a fair chance for allotment of a site. Therefore, without going into the contentions raised by the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled for allotment of a site on the ground that he owns a house in Kolakery village, it is appropriate to dispose off this writ petition by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the fact that a person who was less qualified than the father of the petitioner was allotted a site. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49275 WP No. 43658 of 2018 10. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to allot a site measuring 50 feet x 80 feet in any of the layouts formed by the respondents in Lalithadrinagar North within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 11. It is needless to mention that the petitioner shall be bound to pay the allotment rate for the site, as may be fixed by the respondents. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR - para 1 to 4 (i) SMA-paras 4(ii) till the end List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51