Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1472 (KAR)

G. Mohan v. State of Karnataka

2022-11-16

M.NAGAPRASANNA

body2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to considering his letter / communication dtd. 17/1/2020 submitted to the respondent No.4 - the Commissioner of Tumkuru Development Authority. 2. Heard Sri Allah Bakash M., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner claims to be one of the members of the special task force, which was formed for nabbing Veerapan and were successful in the effort. All those members of the special task force, who were denied allotment of sites in their favour, were before this Court in W.P.Nos.18063-18072/2010 and connected matters. This Court by a common order dtd. 19/11/2010, directed consideration of their cases by passing the following order: "9. ........................Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances and in the interest of equity, the following order is made: i) The prayer relating to quashing of Annexure-J, dtd. 17/5/2010, is rejected. The order at Annexure-) is held to be valid. ii) However, sites as per their eligibility shall be allotted to the petitioners, within two months, if available as of now. iii) If sites are not available as of now, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to comply with the order, at Annexure-3, and the Corrigendum, dtd. 26/10/2010, issued by the State Government clarifying that the sital value (allotment price) of BDA is 2, 100/- per sq.mtr, as early as possible, but not later than the outer limit of three months from the date of this order. It is made clear that if the sital value (allotment price) is not paid within three months, but is paid later, then, the State Government is directed to pay Interest at the rate of 12% per annum, or the amount of sital value fixed by BDA, which would be existing as on the date of making payment, whichever is higher. iv) If sites are not allotted to any of the petitioners now, the petitioners and other similarly placed STF personnel are entitled to preferential allotment of sites in their respective Districts as and when the sites are formed and notified for allotment either by concerned Urban Development Authority/BDA or by the Housing Board. iv) If sites are not allotted to any of the petitioners now, the petitioners and other similarly placed STF personnel are entitled to preferential allotment of sites in their respective Districts as and when the sites are formed and notified for allotment either by concerned Urban Development Authority/BDA or by the Housing Board. v) In case if the sites are allotted to the petitioners and other similarly situated STF personnel as mentioned in order (iv) above, the sital value (allotment price) should be paid by the petitioners. vi) In case if the petitioners do not accept the sital value pursuant to the impugned order at Annexure-3/ Corrigendum (as arrived at in orderiii), the petitioners are liable to pay the difference of amount of sital value (allotment price), if any, as on the date of such allotment. It is also made clear that in case if the sital value as fixed by the Allotting Authority is less than the amount to which the STF personnel are entitled to pursuant to the order at Annexure-J/Corrigendum (as arrived at in order-iii), the difference of amount should be paid to the petitioners by the State Government. Writ petitions are disposed of in the aforementioned terms." Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, it transpires that all those petitioners who submitted representations seeking sites, were considered and distributed. It is only the petitioner, who is left out. The Commissioner of Tumkuru Development Authority by his order dtd. 4/1/2020, observes with regard to entitlement and availability of a site measuring 20" x 30" sq. ft. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that if reasonable time is granted, appropriate order would be passed after consideration of the communication submitted to respondent No.4, dtd. 17/1/2020, in accordance with law. 5. Placing the said submission on record, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall consider the communication dtd. 17/1/2020, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of this order and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands disposed. Ordered accordingly.