Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1883 (KAR)

H. K. Krishnamurthy v. Govt Of Karnataka

2020-09-29

R.DEVDAS

body2020
JUDGMENT R Devdas, J. - The petitioner was allotted with a residential site bearing No.240-B, measuring about 360 sq.mtrs. under the IDSMT scheme. As per the conditions stipulated in the allotment letter dated 30.04.1998, at Annexure-A, the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.4,400/- as an initial deposit. The conditions required that the rest of the sale consideration i.e., Rs.83,600/- shall be paid within 90 days from the date of receipt of the allotment letter. Further, if the allottee failed to deposit the balance sale consideration within 90 days, he/she was required to take written permission to pay the balance sale consideration within an extended period of 60 days along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner received the allotment letter on 16.06.1998. Therefore, as per the conditions stipulated therein, the petitioner was required to deposit the balance sale consideration on or before 14.09.1998. The petitioner did not seek extension of time, but deposited the entire balance sale consideration on 16.10.1998. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had sought for extension of time orally and therefore, there is no documentary proof to say that the petitioner had sought for extension of time. It is submitted that after depositing the entire amount, the petitioner sought for the execution of the Leasecum- Sale Agreement and for issuance of Possession Certificate. However, it is submitted that the respondent-City Municipal Council did not oblige. 3. It is submitted that a representation was given by the petitioner on 04.03.2009 bringing to the notice of the Commissioner, City Municipal Council that the petitioner had paid the entire sale consideration and sought for execution of Lease-cum- Sale Agreement and Possession Certificate. It is submitted that the petitioner had also paid the rent amount for the years 2007-08 to 2011-12. Copies of the receipts for having paid the rent amount acknowledged by the respondent-City Municipal Council have been furnished at Annexure-F1 series. Once again a representation was made on 06.07.2010. It is submitted that the respondent-City Municipal Council authorities sought for certain documents and the petitioner furnished all the required documents. Inspite of the same, nothing fruitful came through. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondentauthorities to execute the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement and issue Possession Certificate. 4. Once again a representation was made on 06.07.2010. It is submitted that the respondent-City Municipal Council authorities sought for certain documents and the petitioner furnished all the required documents. Inspite of the same, nothing fruitful came through. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondentauthorities to execute the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement and issue Possession Certificate. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-City Municipal Council submits that the petitioner has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the allotment letter dated 30.04.1998. It is submitted that this writ petition cannot be entertained in view of the delay and latches on the part of the petitioner. Learned counsel would also place reliance on a decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharastra Vs. Digambar, (1995) 4 SCC 683 to submit that the petitioner is not entitled to relief against any body including the State, if the petitioner is unable to justify the undue delay and latches. 5. Having heard the learned counsels and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that the respondent-City Municipal Council is equally guilty of delay and latches as that of the petitioner. The only grievance that the municipal authorities could have against the petitioner is that the petitioner did not pay the interest at the rate of 15% per annum for a period of about 4 months. The petitioner is also guilty of not seeking extension of time in writing. However, the fact remains that the petitioner deposited the entire sale consideration of Rs.88,000/, which included the initial deposit of Rs.4,400/- as on 16.10.1998. The municipal authorities could have called upon the petitioner to pay the interest portion of it. The municipal authorities could have also communicated to the petitioner that since he failed to deposit the balance sale consideration in accordance with the terms and conditions, they could withhold the initial deposit of Rs.4,400/- and should have returned the balance amount declining to execute the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement. The municipal authorities have also remained silent after receiving the entire sale consideration and the annual rentals from the petitioner. During the course of the proceedings, it was ascertained from the learned counsels that the site allotted in favour of the petitioner is still kept vacant. 6. The municipal authorities have also remained silent after receiving the entire sale consideration and the annual rentals from the petitioner. During the course of the proceedings, it was ascertained from the learned counsels that the site allotted in favour of the petitioner is still kept vacant. 6. The power of the judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in such matters is circumscribed by the facts and circumstances of each case. Delay and latches in the present case is obvious on the part of both sides, i.e., the petitioner as well as the respondent-municipal authorities. As noticed earlier, the mistake that the petitioner committed was in not depositing the interest amount along with the balance sale consideration. On the other hand, it also does not lie on the mouth of the municipal authorities to contend that the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be granted, since it is an admitted fact that the entire sale consideration has been deposited with the municipal authorities and there was no reply given by the municipal authorities to all the representations given by the petitioner. On the contrary, the City Municipal Council also received the annual rental from the petitioner. Taking the totality of the situation into account, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled for the relief. 7. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner, who is the Chairman of the IDSMT scheme and the 3rd respondent-Commissioner of City Municipal Council, who is the Member Secretary of IDSMT scheme, Tumakur are hereby directed to receive a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the petitioner towards the interest and to execute the Lease-Cum-Sale Agreement and issue Possession Certificate to the petitioner with respect to Site No.240-B, situated at Aralimarada Palya Layout, as per the allotment letter dated 30.04.1998. 8. The 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner is required to issue such orders after convening a meeting under the IDSMT scheme. The 3rd respondent-Commissioner, City Municipal Council, shall thereafter, call upon the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- within reasonable time and once the petitioner deposits the said amount, the Leasecum- Sale Agreement shall be executed in favour of the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.