- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50904 WP No. 19903 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 19903 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. NAIRUTHYA S AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O K.N. SHIVATHIRTHAN, R/AT NO.43, M BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, KUVEMPU NAGAR, MYSORE, KARNATAKA- 570023 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESHA T.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSE AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. REPT BY ITS SECRETARY 2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE - 570 005, REPT BY ITS COMMISSIONER …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SPOORTHY V., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. G.M.ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50904 WP No. 19903 of 2025 10.01.2024 OF THE PETITIONER I.E., ANNEXURE-A TO ALLOT THE MARGINAL LAND ADJACENT TO SITE NO.539/B. 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 mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to consider his representation dated 10.01.2024 and allot the marginal land adjacent to site No.539/B which is owned by him. 2. The petitioner contends that the site bearing No.1291, which was allotted to his grandmother (Smt. Nanjamma) was acquired for forming a road. An alternate site bearing No.539/B at Devaraja Mohalla, Vijayanagara 4th stage, 1st phase, Mysuru City, measuring 15 Meters x 24 Meters was allotted to his grandmother by the respondent No.2 on 05.03.1994. After the death of the grandmother of the petitioner on 08.12.2005, (Smt. B. Nirmala,) the mother of the petitioner with the consent of her siblings obtained a sale deed from the respondent No.2 on 18.04.2007 (registered on 19.04.2007). Subsequently, the mother of the petitioner - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50904 WP No. 19903 of 2025 obtained khata in her name in respect of the site No.549/B. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner executed a gift deed in favour of the petitioner on 28.03.2016. 3. The mother of the petitioner had filed a representation for allotment of marginal land measuring 174.75 Sq. m. (henceforth referred to as 'the marginal land') which was adjacent to site No.539/B and was landlocked. The respondent No.2 fixed the sale consideration at Rs.53,12,400/- for the marginal land and intimated the petitioner vide letter dated 31.03.2017 and called upon the petitioner to pay the said amount. The petitioner claims that though he was continuously following up with the respondent authorities, soon after he came to know of the allotment, he arranged the said sum of Rs.53,12,400/- and paid it to the respondent No.2 on 07.12.2023. The petitioner claims that thereafter the respondent No.2 has not come forward to execute the sale deed in his favour. He, therefore, submitted a representation dated 10.01.2024 requesting the respondent No.2 to execute a conveyance in his favour. He contends that the Under Secretary to the Government, Urban Development Authority / respondent No.1 by then had issued a circular dated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50904 WP No. 19903 of 2025 22.11.2024 regarding allotment of marginal land to the adjacent site owner(s) by receiving the guidance value from the allottee. However, even after issuance of the said circular by the respondent No.1 and payment of the value of the site by the petitioner, the respondent did not take any action. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court seeking for a direction to the respondent No.2 to consider his representation dated 10.01.2024 and execute the sale deed and convey the marginal land in his favour. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the respondent No.2 is bound to convey the marginal land allotted to the petitioner. On the contrary, he contends that the respondent No.2 has relied upon a circular dated 23.04.2021 to demand the present guidance value in respect of the marginal land. He contends that when the allotment of the marginal land was made in favour of the petitioner in the year 2017, the respondent No.2 cannot compel the petitioner to pay the present guidance value. He, therefore, prays that a direction be issued to the respondent No.2 to convey the marginal land and execute necessary deed of conveyance in favour of the petitioner. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50904 WP No. 19903 of 2025 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 contended that the petitioner was bound to pay the consideration within a reasonable time from the date of allotment of the marginal land. However, the petitioner has slept over his rights and paid the allotment price in the year 2023 i.e after nearly six years from the date of allotment of the marginal land. He contends that by that time, proceedings were already before the State Government as to what should be the procedure for disposal of marginal land. He contends that the State thereafter issued a circular dated 23.04.2021 by which it held that in respect of the marginal lands, it should be the latest guidance value that should be collected. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner is not entitled for any reliefs at the hands of this Court. If the petitioner is interested, he can pay the present guidance value and take the marginal land in question. He contends that if the petitioner pays the present guidance value, the respondent No.2 is not averse to conveying the marginal land to the petitioner. 6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to pay the present guidance value and a direction be issued to the respondent No.2 to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50904 WP No. 19903 of 2025 convey the marginal land to the petitioner by executing appropriate deeds of conveyance. 7. In view of the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, no orders be issued directing the respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is ready to deposit the present guidance value, this writ petition stands disposed off on the following terms: The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.26,86,649/- to the respondent No.2 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. The respondent No.2 shall execute necessary documents conveying the marginal land to the petitioner within a period of 45 days thereafter. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62