Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 7 (KAR)

Basanagouda v. State of Karnataka

2019-01-02

G.NARENDAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : G. Narendar, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the 2nd respondent authority and the learned AGA. 2. The writ petition lies in a narrow compass and though listed for orders, matter is taken up for disposal. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he is the allottee of a site No.92 measuring 40 X 60 feet situated at T.V. Centre, Belagavi. But the allotment of the site came to be made vide Annexure B and site value fixed at Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner paid the full sital value to the 2nd respondent and lease cum sale agreement came to be executed in his favour on 15.10.1991 vide Annexure C to the writ petition. That subsequently, the petitioner by proceedings dated 06.05.1992 was also permitted to put up construction on the said site and the 2nd respondent authority also issued completion certificate, thereby enabling the petitioner to occupy the construction put up by him. 4. That thereafter, an appeal came to be preferred by land owner in M.F.A. No.2384/1996 and the sum awarded as compensation came to be enhanced by this Court. 5. Pursuant to the above, the sital value was re-fixed and a demand was raised on the petitioner and petitioner failed to deposit the enhanced rate. An order of cancellation of the allotment came to be passed which was called in question before this Court in Writ Petition No.12825/2006 which came to be allowed on 15.03.2011. That despite the writ petition being allowed, no steps were taken to execute the same. Aggrieved, the petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent which was not considered and the petitioner moved this Court in Writ Petition No.82967/2013 which came to be allowed by this Court by order dated 26.09.2013 with a direction to the respondent to consider the representation and as there was no compliance with the directions by this Court, a contempt proceeding came to be initiated which came to be disposed of, in the light of the impugned proceedings vide Annexure P dated 09.04.2014, whereunder the petitioner was called to make an additional payment of Rs.81,792/-, over and above the same paid by him pursuant to Annexure P. 6. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the 2nd respondent having received the amount in full cannot turn around and seek for enhancement of the site value and that the 2nd respondent cannot unilaterally revise the terms of the concluded contract. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would invite the attention of the Court to clause 5 of Annexure B, the allotment letter and would submit that the sital value fixed earlier is a tentative value. Under clause 5, the allotment letter, the allottee has been made known of and put on notice regarding the fact that he would be required to pay such proportionate increase in price and he would further contend that the sum of Rs.55,000/- was tentatively stipulated. He would further place reliance on the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shimla Development Authority vs. Asha Rani reported in, (1996) 8 SCC 487 and would invite the attention of the Court to the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph No.3, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to uphold the revision of the sital value, on the premise of the compensation awarded having been modified and enhanced. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner would further invite the attention of the Court to the judgment of this Court in R.S.A. No.759/2008 and other connected matters involving the respondents herein. By the said judgment and decree this Court was pleased to hold that the respondent development authority is not entitled to seek for enhancement of sital value. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would place on record the copy of the order passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.11251/2016 dated 19.09.2016, whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court by an interim order has been pleased to stay the judgment insofar as it pertains to the refund of the amount. 10. It is fairly submitted by both the counsels that the facts involved in the instant writ petition and the facts involved in the Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.11251/2016 and other connected matters are similar and the issue that is pending consideration before the Apex Court is as to whether the 2nd respondent authorities are entitled to seek escalation of the sital value after the same has been allotted in favour of the allottees. 11. 11. The instant writ petition also being similar, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be better served if the instant writ petition could be disposed of by reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent seeking for refund in the event of the special leave to appeals preferred by the 2nd respondent is ordered adversely, as against the 2nd respondent authority. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent authority seeking for refund, in the event the pending special leave to appeal preferred by the 2nd respondent authority in Special Leave to Appeal No.11251/2016 is rejected or the right of the allottee to seek for refund is upheld. Writ petition stands disposed of with the above terms. In view of the above order passed, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled for the sale deed to be executed in his favour subject to petitioner depositing the sum demanded. The sale deed shall be executed within a period of four weeks from the date of deposit of the amount. In view of the above order there shall be no order as to costs.