- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49337 RSA No. 621 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 621 OF 2019 (DEC) BETWEEN: SRI M CHANDRA SHETTY S/O MUTHA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.C-6 P & T QUARTERS, UDAYAGIRI, MYSURU-570 007. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MANJESH H.M, ADVOCATE) AND: MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY J.L.B. ROAD, MYSURU-570 007, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAJWAL P KANCHI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SACHIN V.R, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.11.2018 PASSED IN RA.NO.278/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.02.2017 PASSED IN OS.NO. 1077/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL I CIVIL JUDGE, MYSURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSOIN, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49337 RSA No. 621 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT The plaintiff has filed this regular second appeal. 2. The plaintiff has filed suit against the defendant for relief of declaration and mandatory injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was allotted site No.1122 in Hanchaya Sathagally B Zone measuring 20X30 feet by the defendant-Mysure Urban Development Authority (for brevity, 'MUDA'), and in pursuance to the same, on 06.06.2001, he paid a sum of Rs.3,300/- and thereafter based on the letter issued by the defendant, he paid Rs.10,000/- on 29.01.2003. However, thereafter due to his personal inconvenience, he could not pay the balance amount within time. Hence, he filed an application seeking extension of time for making balance amount. For such application, it was informed to him that the site which had been allotted to him has been cancelled on 16.12.2002 with an endorsement dated 27.05.2006. Thereafter, the plaintiff issued a notice under Section 64 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, to the defendant but - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49337 RSA No. 621 of 2019 the defendant had not replied to the same and not allotted the site. Hence, left with no other option, the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for declaration that the endorsement dated 27.05.2006 issued by the defendant stating that allotment of site bearing No.1122 has been cancelled on 16.12.2002 is null and void and also for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to allot site measuring 20X30 feet in Hanchaya Sathagally B Zone layout in favour of the plaintiff. 3. On service of the suit summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed written statement by denying the plaint averments. It is contended by the defendant that the plaintiff has violated the terms of the allotment and not paid sital value as per the time stipulated under the allotment rules and therefore, the allotment was rightly cancelled by the defendant. It is also contended that the suit is barred by limitation and also for non-issuance of notice as contemplated under Section 64 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49337 RSA No. 621 of 2019 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act. Hence, he prays to dismiss the suit. 4. Considering the rival pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the relevant issues. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and marked 13 documents as Exs.P1 to P13. The office of the defendant examined as DW1 and produced 9 documents as Exs.D1 to D9. 5. On assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 17.02.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred R.A.No.278/2018. The First Appellate Court on reassessment of the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the regular appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49337 RSA No. 621 of 2019 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff and learned counsel for the respondent- defendant. 7. Primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the suit schedule site was allotted in his favour and he had paid Rs.3,300/- on 06.06.2001 and subsequently, Rs.10,000/- on 29.01.2003. Though he was unable to pay the balance amount within the time but he filed a necessary application before the defendant for extension of time. However, the same was not considered by the defendant and unilaterally cancelled the grant and allotted the site to some other allottee. The said order is legally sustainable under law. 8. He further contended that as per the amendment to the proviso to Rule 19 (1) of Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (allotment of sites) Rules, 1991, if the allottee is belonging to SC/ST they have to be given three years of time to pay the sital value in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49337 RSA No. 621 of 2019 installments. As such, the cancellation of the grant by not extending the time, despite the plaintiff filed a necessary application for extension of time, is bad in law. 9. These aspects of the matter was not properly appreciated by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Accordingly, he prays to set aside the judgment passed in regular appeal so also by the Trial Court and prays to decree the suit. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant contended that the plaintiff has failed to pay the amount on time as per the terms of allotment order, despite issuing notice to the plaintiff for payment of the amount. He further contended that as per the condition stated in the allotment order-Ex.P3 the plaintiff has to pay the balance amount of Rs.18,520/- within a period of ninety days, in case of failure, the advance amount forfeited to MUDA and the allotment will get automatically cancelled - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49337 RSA No. 621 of 2019 and there was no need for MUDA to issue any show cause notice to the plaintiff. 11. In view of the said recital, the defendant after the prescribed time, cancelled the allotment and allotted the suit schedule site to some other allottee. He also contended that the allotment of the site was cancelled vide order dated 16.12.2002. Thereafter, a communication was sent in respect of the cancellation order on 16.12.2002 and the same was served to the plaintiff. Despite the plaintiff filed the suit in the year 2006 i.e., on 16.11.2006. As such, the suit is barred by limitation and both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court has rightly dismissed the suit. 12. I have given my anxious consideration both on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties so also perused the evidence available before this Court. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49337 RSA No. 621 of 2019 13. As could be gathered from records, the suit schedule site was allotted to the plaintiff with a condition that he has to pay the amount within a period of ninety days immediately from the date of allotment. Though the plaintiff has made a payment of Rs.3,300/- on 06.06.2001, however, he made the subsequent payment of Rs.10,000/- only on 29.01.2003 i.e., after the prescribed period of ninety days. By that time, the allotment of the site in favour of the plaintiff is already cancelled vide order dated 16.12.2002 and said aspect was intimated to the plaintiff on 16.12.2002. This aspect is clearly forthcoming in the cross-examination of PW1 dated 05.03.2007. 14. As could be gathered from the terms and conditions of the allotment order, if the plaintiff failed to pay the prescribed amount within the stipulated period of ninety days, then the defendant is at liberty to cancel the allotment without issuing any further notice and also liberty to re-allot the same to other allottee. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49337 RSA No. 621 of 2019 15. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that if the allotment is made to the person belonging to SC/ST, than three years time has to be given to pay the sital value in installment as per the proviso of Rule 19 (1) of Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (allotment of sites) Rules, 1991. However, on perusal of the same, the said amendment introduced with effect from 19.07.2008, whereas in the instant case, the allotment made in favour of the plaintiff in the year 2001. As such, the amendment was not applicable in the case on hand. 16. Further, the cancellation order was made known to the plaintiff on 16.12.2002, despite the plaintiff filed the suit in the year 2006 i.e., on 16.11.2006 is beyond the period of three years from date of cancellation of allotment i.e., on 16.12.2002. On that count also, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court rightly held that the suit is barred by limitation as well as on merits. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49337 RSA No. 621 of 2019 17. In such circumstances, I find no such question of law much less substantial question of law arise for my consideration in this appeal and interference in the impugned judgments passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court do not call for. 18. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, the defendant is directed to make the repayment of the admitted amount paid by the plaintiff within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30