: 1 :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BENCH

Dated this the 23 rd day of March, 2015

Before

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR

Writ Petition No.85489/2013 (GM-RES)

Between: 1. ASIF IQUBAL S/O. HABBIBULLA REHAMAN MULLA @ DODDAMULLA, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. BETAGERI COMPOUND, DURGA COLONY, SAPTAPUR LAST STOP, DHARWAD, TQ & DIST. DHARWAD.

2. MOHAMMED ASLAM S/O. HABBIBULLA REHAMAN MULLA @ DODDAMULLA AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE R/O. BETAGERI COMPOUND, DURGA COLONY, SAPTAPUR LAST STOP, DHARWAD, TQ & DIST. DHARWAD.

3. SAJIDA BEGAUM W/O. RIDYOJ AHAMMED MUNIYAR AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE R/O. BETAGERI COMPOUND, DURGA COLONY, SAPTAPUR LAST STOP, DHARWAD, TQ & DIST. DHARWAD. : 2 :

4. MOHAMMED ARIF S/O. HABBIBULLA REHAMAN MULLA @ DODDAMULLA, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE R/O. BETAGERI COMPOUND, DURGA COLONY, SAPTAPUR LAST STOP, DHARWAD, TQ & DIST. DHARWAD. .. PETITIONERS

(By Sri MANJUNATH A KARIGANNAVAR, ADV.)

AND

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY M S BUILDING, BANGALORE

2. THE HUBLI-DHARWAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY ITS COMMISSIONER HUBLI. .. RESPONDENTS

(By Smt.K VIDYAVATHI, AGA FOR R1, Sri G I GACHCHINAMATH, ADV. FOR R2)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.01.2001 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2, VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO ALLOT THE SITE BEARING NO.35 DATED 07.05.1993 BEARING NO.H.U.D.A:NI.VI.92-93 VIDE ANNEXURE-B, ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 INTER ALIA ALLOT ANY : 3 :

SUITABLE SITE TO THE PETIONERS AS PER THE EARLIER AMOUNT FIXED BY THE AUTHORITY.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING `B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER

Petitioners in this writ petition have sought for quashing the order dated 10.1.2001 passed by the 2 nd respondent cancelling the site allotted to their father. Further, petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allot any suitable site to them and also for further reliefs.

2. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that the petitioners’ father, Habbibulla Rehaman Mulla @

Doddamulla had made an application for allotment of site. The

2nd respondent by its order dated 7.5.1993 allotted a site bearing

No.35 at Lakamanahalli village formed out of Sy.Nos.165(A) and

166. The petitioners’ father was called upon to pay a sum of

Rs.35,988/- within a period of 90 days. In spite of the said allotment letter, the petitioners’ father had not paid the remaining amount as per the conditions of allotment. Thereafter, the 2 nd : 4 : respondent issued a show cause notice on 24.2.1994 calling upon the petitioners’ father to pay the balance amount with interest. In spite of show cause notice, the petitioners’ father had not paid the balance amount. Consequently, the 2 nd respondent issued a final notice on 25.5.1998 calling upon the petitioners’ father to pay the remaining amount, otherwise the said allotment of site will be cancelled. In spite of final notice, no steps has been taken to pay the remaining balance amount. In view of that, the 2 nd respondent by its order dated 10.1.2001 cancelled the allotment of site. After 12 years of the said order, the petitioners claiming to be the sons of Habbibulla Rehaman Mulla have filed this writ petition contending that the petitioners’ father died on 23.10.2005 and they were not aware of cancellation of site. Immediately, they made a representation to the respondents and approached the 2 nd respondent. At that time, the 2 nd respondent informed that the site allotted to the petitioners’ father has already been cancelled in the year 2001 itself. Being aggrieved by the same, they have filed this writ petition. : 5 :

3. In this writ petition, the petitioners contended that their father died on 23.10.2005 and that while cleaning their house, they got documents. The cancellation has been made without following the procedure prescribed under law. The petitioners were not heard before cancelling the site allotted to their father. Therefore, they have sought for a mandamus directing the 2 nd respondent to allot an alternative site.

4. Sri G I Gachchinamath, learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent filed written statement to the writ petition interalia contending that the application filed by the petitioners’ father for allotment of site. The 2 nd respondent by its order dated 7.5.1993 allotted a site bearing No.35 at Lakamanahalli village formed out of Sy.Nos.165(A) and 166 with the specific condition that they have to pay the balance amount within a period of 90 days from the date of allotment. In spite of repeated of requests and reminders, the remaining balance amount has not been paid.

Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 24.2.1995 and final notice : 6 : dated 25.9.1998 have been issued calling upon the petitioners’ father to pay the balance amount. As per the procedure prescribed under the Act, the site allotted to the petitioners’ father has been cancelled in the year 2001 itself. Hence, it is open to the petitioners to seek for quashing the said order. Since the father of the petitioners failed to pay the balance amount, the site allotted to him has been cancelled to allot some other person. Hence, the petitioners cannot challenge the cancellation of site allotted to the petitioners’ father by order dated 10.1.2001. Hence, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned and other relevant records.

6. Admittedly, the site allotted to the petitioners’ father was cancelled on 10.1.2001. This writ petition came to be filed in the month of December, 2013 challenging the cancellation order dated 10.1.2001. There is inordinate delay of 12 years in filing the : 7 : writ petition. In para-5 of the writ petition, the petitioners have explained the delay contending that the petitioners’ father died on

23.10.2005 and while cleaning the house in the year 2012, they found the receipt and booklet. Thereafter, an enquiry was made with the 2 nd respondent. The cancellation of site has been made without following the procedure prescribed under law without hearing the petitioner, which is contrary to law. The defence taken by the 2 nd respondent is that in spite of repeated reminders and show cause notices, the remaining balance amount has not been paid. Once the site is allotted, the allottee is supposed to pay the sital amount within 90 days. In the instant case, the remaining balance amount has to be paid within 90 days. Admittedly, the petitioners’ father died in the year 2005 after cancellation of site in the year 2001. They have not challenged the cancellation. Hence, it is not open to them to challenge the cancellation of site. The delay explained at para-5 of the writ petition for condonation of delay of 12 years in filing the writ petition cannot be accepted.

The petitioners’ father had failed to pay the balance amount as per : 8 : the conditions of allotment. The amount deposited by him has been forfeited by the 2 nd respondent. Hence, I find no infirmity or irregularity in the order passed by the 2 nd respondent. The petitioners have not made out a case to quash the order dated

10.1.2001 cancelling the site allotted to the petitioners’ father.

Hence, I pass the following:

ORDER

The writ petition is dismissed.

It is open to the petitioners to make a fresh application as and when the 2 nd respondent calls for applications for allotment of site.

SD/- JUDGE bkm