Semantic Analysis by spaCy
A Venkateshiah Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors
Decided On : Nov-09-2010
Court : Karnataka
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'A Venkateshiah Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER1', (int) 1 => 'the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagsra Palike', (int) 2 => 'Kengeri Town Municipal Council', (int) 3 => 'T.M.C', (int) 4 => 'Notification', (int) 5 => 'EMD', (int) 6 => 'T.M.C', (int) 7 => 'T.M.C', (int) 8 => 'T.M.C', (int) 9 => 'Court', (int) 10 => 'Purasabha', (int) 11 => 'Court', (int) 12 => 'the Hon'ble Supreme Court's', (int) 13 => 'Court', (int) 14 => 'ILR', (int) 15 => 'Paragraph No.23', (int) 16 => 'Court', (int) 17 => 'the Apex Court's', (int) 18 => 'MAHARAJ KRISHAN BHAT', (int) 19 => 'ILR', (int) 20 => 'KAR', (int) 21 => 'State', (int) 22 => 'the Division Bench', (int) 23 => 'Court', (int) 24 => 'the Apex Court's', (int) 25 => 'STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS', (int) 26 => 'the High Court', (int) 27 => 'Court', (int) 28 => 'Court', (int) 29 => 'Court', (int) 30 => 'the Apex Court's', (int) 31 => 'ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA', (int) 32 => 'High Court Government Pleader', (int) 33 => 'the Town Municipal Council', (int) 34 => 'Court', (int) 35 => 'Party', (int) 36 => 'Rupees', (int) 37 => 'November-19922', (int) 38 => 'Mariswamy', (int) 39 => 'T.M.C', (int) 40 => 'State', (int) 41 => 'Court' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '25.11.2009', (int) 1 => '30', (int) 2 => '20.02.1985', (int) 3 => '30', (int) 4 => '1,500/-', (int) 5 => '15,000/-', (int) 6 => '25,000/-', (int) 7 => '23,500/-', (int) 8 => 'One', (int) 9 => '30', (int) 10 => '15,000/- to 25,000/-.4', (int) 11 => '8,500/-', (int) 12 => '3,500/-', (int) 13 => '25.10.1996', (int) 14 => '25,000/-).7', (int) 15 => '2003(1', (int) 16 => '251', (int) 17 => '23', (int) 18 => '3', (int) 19 => '23.05.1992', (int) 20 => '25.06.1992', (int) 21 => '25.06.1992', (int) 22 => '2', (int) 23 => '725', (int) 24 => 'one', (int) 25 => '40', (int) 26 => 'one', (int) 27 => '5', (int) 28 => '231.17', (int) 29 => '8,500', (int) 30 => '3,500', (int) 31 => '23,500-00', (int) 32 => '25,000/-', (int) 33 => '25,000/-', (int) 34 => '25,000/-', (int) 35 => '30', (int) 36 => 'one', (int) 37 => '25.11.2009', (int) 38 => '30' ), 'PERCENT' => array( (int) 0 => '18%', (int) 1 => '18%', (int) 2 => '18%' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '13.08.1992', (int) 1 => 'February 2007.5', (int) 2 => 'November 1992', (int) 3 => '16.12.1992', (int) 4 => '3-4 months', (int) 5 => '2005', (int) 6 => '1963', (int) 7 => '2008', (int) 8 => '4651', (int) 9 => '3-4 months', (int) 10 => '49 days'', (int) 11 => '13 years', (int) 12 => '1992', (int) 13 => '2010', (int) 14 => '13.08.1992', (int) 15 => 'the last date', (int) 16 => 'the last date', (int) 17 => '2007', (int) 18 => '2007', (int) 19 => '1992', (int) 20 => '2007', (int) 21 => '3-4 months', (int) 22 => '49 days', (int) 23 => '17-18 years', (int) 24 => 'the last 17-18', (int) 25 => '1992', (int) 26 => '3-4 months', (int) 27 => 'two months', (int) 28 => 'today' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'T.M.C', (int) 1 => 'B.B.M.P', (int) 2 => 'B.B.M.P', (int) 3 => 'B.B.M.P', (int) 4 => 'B.B.M.P', (int) 5 => 'Sri Mariswamy.9', (int) 6 => 'G.JAYARAM', (int) 7 => 'Nos.2', (int) 8 => 'Savithaiarnma', (int) 9 => 'B.B.M.P', (int) 10 => 'Sri Subramanya', (int) 11 => 'B.B.M.P', (int) 12 => 'Sri Subramanya's' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'No.008' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Sri Puttige', (int) 1 => 'Smt Savithramma', (int) 2 => 'Sri Mariswamy', (int) 3 => 'Smt Savithramma', (int) 4 => 'Sri Mariswamy', (int) 5 => 'Smt Savithramma', (int) 6 => 'Kengeri', (int) 7 => 'Smt Savithramma', (int) 8 => 'Sri Mariswamy', (int) 9 => 'Sri Ramesh', (int) 10 => 'Abdul Rashid Rather', (int) 11 => 'Smt Savithramma', (int) 12 => 'Sri Mariswamy', (int) 13 => 'Sri Subramanya', (int) 14 => 'Sri Subramanya', (int) 15 => 'Smt Savithramma', (int) 16 => 'Sri Subramanya', (int) 17 => 'Sri H.T.Narendra Prasad', (int) 18 => 'Kengeri', (int) 19 => 'Sri Mariswamy', (int) 20 => 'Amount', (int) 21 => 'Smt Savithiamma', (int) 22 => 'Sri Mariswamy', (int) 23 => 'Sri Subramanya', (int) 24 => 'Sri Mariswamy's', (int) 25 => 'Sri Mariswamy's', (int) 26 => 'Sri Mariswamy' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Single Juoge', (int) 1 => 'Single Judge', (int) 2 => 'Single' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'first', (int) 2 => 'first', (int) 3 => 'third', (int) 4 => 'third', (int) 5 => 'third', (int) 6 => 'third', (int) 7 => 'first' ), 'EVENT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Year/date1' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '907571', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'HINCHIGERI WRIT PETITION NO. 11842 OF 2010 (LB-BMP)', 'appellant' => 'A Venkateshiah', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'A Venkateshiah Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors', 'casenote' => '[ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI J.] This writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the endorsement dated 25.11.2009, issued by the r3, as at ann-e and etc.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'SRI PUTTIGER RAMESH ; LAKSHMI S HOLLA, ADVS', 'counseldef' => 'SRI R SUBRAMANYA ADV', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2010-11-09', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner has called into question, the endorsement, dated 25.11.2009 (Annexure-E) intimating the petitioner that the allotment proceedings are not in accordance with law and that therefore the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagsra Palike (for short 'the B.B.M.P') has resolved to refund the allotment consideration with 18% interest thereon. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus to the B.B.M.P to allot a site measuring 30' X 40' to him n the land at Sy.Nos.38/1 and 39/1 of Valagerahalli.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts of the case in brief are that Kengeri Town Municipal Council (for short 'the T.M.C) issued the Notification, dated 20.02.1985 calling for the applications from the desirous parties for the allotment of sites. The petitioner submitted the application on 05.02.1986 for allotment of the site measuring 30' X 40'. He had paid 1,500/- towards EMD at the time of submitting the application. Originally the allotment consideration was 15,000/-; later it was raised to 25,000/-. The petitioner has paid the balance consideration of 23,500/- on 13.08.1992. The T.M.C allotted the site to the petitioner. Ir. the list of allotters notified by the T.M.C, he is at Sy.No.101. One of the resolutions passed by the said local body states that the petitioner was allotted the site bearing No.008 measuring 30' x 40'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Meanwhile, the erstwhile landowner hied writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings. Some similarly placed applicants for allotment challenged the act of T.M.C of enhancing the sale consideration from 15,000/- to 25,000/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On the reorganisation of the local bodies, the T.M.C came to be merged in B.B.M.P in February 2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner's appeals to the B.B.M.P to complete the allotment proceedings by the execution of the sale deed in his favour did not evoke the desired response from the B.B.M.P. On the other nand, the B.B.M.P held that the allotment proceedings are not in accordance with law and called upon the petitioner to take back the entire allotment consideration with interest at 18% thereon.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Sri Puttige R.Ramesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the similarly placed allottees are already-given the registered sale deeds. He submits that Smt Savithramma made the last payment of 8,500/- in November 1992. Sri Mariswamy made the last payment of S 3,500/- on 16.12.1992. The petitioner has paid the entire allotment consideration 3-4 months prior to the said Smt Savithramma and Sri Mariswamy making the payments He brings in my notice the order, dated 25.10.1996 passea by this Court in W.P.No.37534/1992 filed by Smt Savithramma directing the Purasabha, Parivarthilha Mandela Panchayath, Kengeri (predecessor of B.B.M.P) to allot the site at the revised price (25,000/-).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. This order was neither complied with nor challenged by way of writ appeal by the B.B.M.P or its predecessor. Aggrieved by the inaction of the B.B.M.P in the matter, Smt Savithramma filed W.P.No.4403/2007. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the B.B.M.P executed the sale deed in favour of Smt Savithramma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Similarly, Sri Mariswamy filed W.P.No.5639/2007, during the pendency of which, the B.B.M.P executed the sale deed in favour of Sri Mariswamy.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Sri Ramesh submits that the B.B.M.P ought to have executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner without driving the petitioner to knock at the portals of this Court. He has relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS v. M. PARAMESHWARAPPA AND OTHERS, reported in 2003(1) SLR 251. The relevant paragraph of the said decision is extracted herein below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">"9. For all the reasons stated above the appeals filed both by the state as well as by the private respondent-teachers fail and shall stand dismissed. Our declaration is extending the benefits of the judgments to others who have not approached the court, but similarly placed is to do complete and substantial justice. No costs."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Nextly, he has also brought to my notice para 23 of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of G.JAYARAM REDDY v. SATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, reported in ILR 2005 KAR 1963. Paragraph No.23 of the said judgement reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">"23. Taking the entire materials and circumstances placed before us and the case laws which have bearing on the decision-making and balancing the substantive rights of the appellant-petitioner and the consequences that flow from granting or refusing the relief, we are of the considered opinion that it will be totally unjust for the Court to refuse the relief to the appellant on the ground of delay and laches."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. He also sought to draw support from the Apex Court's judgment in the case of MAHARAJ KRISHAN BHAT AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND OTHERS, reported in ILR 2008 KAR 4651. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">"23. In fairness and in view of the fact that the decision in Abdul Rashid Rather had attained finality; the State authorities ought to have gracefully accepted the decision by granting similar benefits to the present writ petitioners. Ii, however, challenged the order passed by the Single Juoge. The Division Bench of the High Court ought to have dismissed the letters patent appeal by affirming the order of the Single Judge. The letters patent appeal, however, was allowed by the Division Bench and the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge was set aside. In our considered view, the order passed by the learned Single Judge was legal, proper and in furtherance of justice, equity and fairness in action. The said order therefore, deserves to be restored."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. He submits that when the B.B.M.P has condoned the delay of 3-4 months in the case of Smt Savithramma and Sri Mariswamy, it cannot show a different and hostile response to the petitioner by refusing to allot the site on the ground that there is 49 days' delay in the case of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri Subramanya, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 has raised a threshold objection to the entertaining of this petition. He submits that the petitioner has slept over his right, if any, for 13 years. Only because there is an increase in the price of immovable properties, the petitioner has filed this petition belatedly. He prays for the rejection of the petition on the shoat ground of delay and laches.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Sri Subramanya submits that the case of the petitioner is not akin to the case of Smt Savithramma because Smt Savithaiarnma has always been diligent in the matter. She filed her first writ petition way back in 1992 itself whereas; the petitioner approaches this Court for the first time in 2010. He submits that the petitioner has shown the delay not only in filing the petition but also in making the payments. As per the demand notice, dated 23.05.1992 (Annexure-B) issued by the local body, the petitioner ought to have made the payment before 25.06.1992. On the other hand, he has made the last payment on 13.08.1992. In view of the petitioner making the payment after the expiry of the last date, the beneficial official memorandum, dated 01.06.2004 (Annexure-C) can have no application whatsoever for the petitioner's case. The said official memorandum can have application only for those who have paid the amounts before the last date (25.06.1992). On account of the non-compliance with the payment schedule, the B.B.M.P has rightly called upon the petitioner to take back the allotment consideration with interest.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Sri Subramanya has relied on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of A.P.STEEL RE-ROLLING MILL LTD v. STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS, reported in (2007) 2 SCC 725 to advance the contention that a decision rendered in one case cannot be automatically extended to another case; much depends on the facts and circumstances of the later case. Paragraph 40 of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The benefit of a judgment is not extended to a case automatically. While granting relief in a writ petition, the High Court is entitled to consider the fact situation obtaining in each case including the conduct of the petitioner. In doing so, the Court is entitled to take into consideration the fact as to whether the writ petitioner had chosen to sit over the matter and then wake up after the decision of this Court. If it is found that the appellant approached the Court after a long delay, the same may disentitle him to obtain a discretionary relief."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Without prejudice to his earlier submissions, Sri Subramanya contends that the property in question is required for the purpose of the B.B.M.P only, which proposes to house its zonal office therein. According to him, the property acquired for one public purpose can always be diverted for another public purpose. In support of his submissions, he levies on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of RAVI KHULLAR AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, reported in (2007) 5 SCC 231.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Sri H.T.Narendra Prasad, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.l submits that the petitioner's rights are not protected under the official memorandum, dated 01.06.2004 (Annexure-C), as the petitioner has made the payments belatedly i.e. after the expiry of last date.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18 The first question that falls for my consideration is whether this petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. I answer this question in the negative for the following reasons: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The correspondence reveals that the petitioner has been diligent in the matter. As lately as on 15.12.2006 (Annexure-D), the Town Municipal Council, Kengeri was sending the letters to the allottees that there is no scope for the distribution of the sites until the pending cases are cleared.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The petition can be thrown out on the ground of delay and laches where the third party interests have come in. This is not a case where the third party interests have come in. It is nobody's case that the site in question is allotted to a third party. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) The third factor, which weighs with this Court in refusing to throw out this petition on the ground of delay and laches is that a similarly placed allotted Sri Mariswamy had not filed the writ petition in 1992. For the first time, he had filed the writ petition in 2007 and during the pendency of his writ petition; the B.B.M.P executed the sale deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) As far as the allied question of delay in making the last payment is concerned, the payment pattern can be put in the tabular form as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">SI. No. Party's name Amount paid (in Rupees) Year/date</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Savithramma 8,500-00 November-1992</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Mariswamy 3,500-00 16.12.1992</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Petitioner 23,500-00 13.08.1992</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) The delay in making the last payment on the part of Smt Savithiamma and Sri Mariswamy is 3-4 months. The said delay is readily condoned. The B.B.M.P's disinclination to condone the delay of 49 days in the case of the petitioner is absolutely unjustified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) Further, what cannot last sight be of is that the B.B.M.P and its predecessor T.M.C have retained the entire allotment consideration of 25,000/- paid by the petitioner. Now they cannot rise up and offer to refund the money after 17-18 years. The State and its instrumentalities are required to act fairly and reasonably. The delay and laches, if any, are attributable to the B.B.M.P and its predecessor, which chose to retain the petitioner's 25,000/- for the last 17-18 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. The argument thrown by the B.B.M.P that the petitioner approached this Court because of the steep increase in the price of the immovable properties would only support the case of the petitioner. The petitioner, a small timer, who may have begged and borrowed to mobilize the sum of 25,000/- in 1992 cannot be confronted with the refund. If the amounts are refunded with 18% interest also, the petitioner would not be in a position to buy a 30' X 40' site because of the steep increase in the prices. The argument advanced by Sri Subramanya cuts both ways.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The last limb of Sri Subramanya's submission that the property is required tor housing the zonal office of the B.B.M.P also does not commend itself to me. If the land is acquired compulsorily for a particular purpose, it has to be used for that purpose. If that purpose has spent itself, then it can be used for any other public purpose. Be it as it may, if the B.B.M.P wants the property in question, it can always buy it from the petitioner or resort to its compulsory acquisition even on executing the sale deed in favour of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is trite position in law that equals are to be treated equally and that the similarly placed persons are treated similarly. It is hard to distinguish between the facts of this case and the facts of Sri Mariswamy's case. Still if a subtle distinction is to be made, it can certainly be said that the case or, hand is one shade better than Sri Mariswamy's case. Sri Mariswamy had made the payment after 3-4 months of the petitioner making the payment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. For all the aforesaid reasons, I quash the impugned endorsement, dated 25.11.2009 (Annexure-EK Further, the respondents are directed to complete all the allotment proceedings culminating in the execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of a site measuring 30' X 40' in the layout in question. The time for compliance with this order is two months from the date of the production of the certified copy of today's order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. This petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State of Karnataka and ors', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '907571' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'A Venkateshiah Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER1', (int) 1 => 'the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagsra Palike', (int) 2 => 'Kengeri Town Municipal Council', (int) 3 => 'T.M.C', (int) 4 => 'Notification', (int) 5 => 'EMD', (int) 6 => 'T.M.C', (int) 7 => 'T.M.C', (int) 8 => 'T.M.C', (int) 9 => 'Court', (int) 10 => 'Purasabha', (int) 11 => 'Court', (int) 12 => 'the Hon'ble Supreme Court's', (int) 13 => 'Court', (int) 14 => 'ILR', (int) 15 => 'Paragraph No.23', (int) 16 => 'Court', (int) 17 => 'the Apex Court's', (int) 18 => 'MAHARAJ KRISHAN BHAT', (int) 19 => 'ILR', (int) 20 => 'KAR', (int) 21 => 'State', (int) 22 => 'the Division Bench', (int) 23 => 'Court', (int) 24 => 'the Apex Court's', (int) 25 => 'STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS', (int) 26 => 'the High Court', (int) 27 => 'Court', (int) 28 => 'Court', (int) 29 => 'Court', (int) 30 => 'the Apex Court's', (int) 31 => 'ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA', (int) 32 => 'High Court Government Pleader', (int) 33 => 'the Town Municipal Council', (int) 34 => 'Court', (int) 35 => 'Party', (int) 36 => 'Rupees', (int) 37 => 'November-19922', (int) 38 => 'Mariswamy', (int) 39 => 'T.M.C', (int) 40 => 'State', (int) 41 => 'Court' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '25.11.2009', (int) 1 => '30', (int) 2 => '20.02.1985', (int) 3 => '30', (int) 4 => '1,500/-', (int) 5 => '15,000/-', (int) 6 => '25,000/-', (int) 7 => '23,500/-', (int) 8 => 'One', (int) 9 => '30', (int) 10 => '15,000/- to 25,000/-.4', (int) 11 => '8,500/-', (int) 12 => '3,500/-', (int) 13 => '25.10.1996', (int) 14 => '25,000/-).7', (int) 15 => '2003(1', (int) 16 => '251', (int) 17 => '23', (int) 18 => '3', (int) 19 => '23.05.1992', (int) 20 => '25.06.1992', (int) 21 => '25.06.1992', (int) 22 => '2', (int) 23 => '725', (int) 24 => 'one', (int) 25 => '40', (int) 26 => 'one', (int) 27 => '5', (int) 28 => '231.17', (int) 29 => '8,500', (int) 30 => '3,500', (int) 31 => '23,500-00', (int) 32 => '25,000/-', (int) 33 => '25,000/-', (int) 34 => '25,000/-', (int) 35 => '30', (int) 36 => 'one', (int) 37 => '25.11.2009', (int) 38 => '30' ), 'PERCENT' => array( (int) 0 => '18%', (int) 1 => '18%', (int) 2 => '18%' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '13.08.1992', (int) 1 => 'February 2007.5', (int) 2 => 'November 1992', (int) 3 => '16.12.1992', (int) 4 => '3-4 months', (int) 5 => '2005', (int) 6 => '1963', (int) 7 => '2008', (int) 8 => '4651', (int) 9 => '3-4 months', (int) 10 => '49 days'', (int) 11 => '13 years', (int) 12 => '1992', (int) 13 => '2010', (int) 14 => '13.08.1992', (int) 15 => 'the last date', (int) 16 => 'the last date', (int) 17 => '2007', (int) 18 => '2007', (int) 19 => '1992', (int) 20 => '2007', (int) 21 => '3-4 months', (int) 22 => '49 days', (int) 23 => '17-18 years', (int) 24 => 'the last 17-18', (int) 25 => '1992', (int) 26 => '3-4 months', (int) 27 => 'two months', (int) 28 => 'today' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'T.M.C', (int) 1 => 'B.B.M.P', (int) 2 => 'B.B.M.P', (int) 3 => 'B.B.M.P', (int) 4 => 'B.B.M.P', (int) 5 => 'Sri Mariswamy.9', (int) 6 => 'G.JAYARAM', (int) 7 => 'Nos.2', (int) 8 => 'Savithaiarnma', (int) 9 => 'B.B.M.P', (int) 10 => 'Sri Subramanya', (int) 11 => 'B.B.M.P', (int) 12 => 'Sri Subramanya's' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'No.008' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Sri Puttige', (int) 1 => 'Smt Savithramma', (int) 2 => 'Sri Mariswamy', (int) 3 => 'Smt Savithramma', (int) 4 => 'Sri Mariswamy', (int) 5 => 'Smt Savithramma', (int) 6 => 'Kengeri', (int) 7 => 'Smt Savithramma', (int) 8 => 'Sri Mariswamy', (int) 9 => 'Sri Ramesh', (int) 10 => 'Abdul Rashid Rather', (int) 11 => 'Smt Savithramma', (int) 12 => 'Sri Mariswamy', (int) 13 => 'Sri Subramanya', (int) 14 => 'Sri Subramanya', (int) 15 => 'Smt Savithramma', (int) 16 => 'Sri Subramanya', (int) 17 => 'Sri H.T.Narendra Prasad', (int) 18 => 'Kengeri', (int) 19 => 'Sri Mariswamy', (int) 20 => 'Amount', (int) 21 => 'Smt Savithiamma', (int) 22 => 'Sri Mariswamy', (int) 23 => 'Sri Subramanya', (int) 24 => 'Sri Mariswamy's', (int) 25 => 'Sri Mariswamy's', (int) 26 => 'Sri Mariswamy' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Single Juoge', (int) 1 => 'Single Judge', (int) 2 => 'Single' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'first', (int) 2 => 'first', (int) 3 => 'third', (int) 4 => 'third', (int) 5 => 'third', (int) 6 => 'third', (int) 7 => 'first' ), 'EVENT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Year/date1' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '907571', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'HINCHIGERI WRIT PETITION NO. 11842 OF 2010 (LB-BMP)', 'appellant' => 'A Venkateshiah', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'A Venkateshiah Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors', 'casenote' => '[ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI J.] This writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the endorsement dated 25.11.2009, issued by the r3, as at ann-e and etc.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'SRI PUTTIGER RAMESH ; LAKSHMI S HOLLA, ADVS', 'counseldef' => 'SRI R SUBRAMANYA ADV', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2010-11-09', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner has called into question, the endorsement, dated 25.11.2009 (Annexure-E) intimating the petitioner that the allotment proceedings are not in accordance with law and that therefore the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagsra Palike (for short 'the B.B.M.P') has resolved to refund the allotment consideration with 18% interest thereon. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus to the B.B.M.P to allot a site measuring 30' X 40' to him n the land at Sy.Nos.38/1 and 39/1 of Valagerahalli.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts of the case in brief are that Kengeri Town Municipal Council (for short 'the T.M.C) issued the Notification, dated 20.02.1985 calling for the applications from the desirous parties for the allotment of sites. The petitioner submitted the application on 05.02.1986 for allotment of the site measuring 30' X 40'. He had paid 1,500/- towards EMD at the time of submitting the application. Originally the allotment consideration was 15,000/-; later it was raised to 25,000/-. The petitioner has paid the balance consideration of 23,500/- on 13.08.1992. The T.M.C allotted the site to the petitioner. Ir. the list of allotters notified by the T.M.C, he is at Sy.No.101. One of the resolutions passed by the said local body states that the petitioner was allotted the site bearing No.008 measuring 30' x 40'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Meanwhile, the erstwhile landowner hied writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings. Some similarly placed applicants for allotment challenged the act of T.M.C of enhancing the sale consideration from 15,000/- to 25,000/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On the reorganisation of the local bodies, the T.M.C came to be merged in B.B.M.P in February 2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner's appeals to the B.B.M.P to complete the allotment proceedings by the execution of the sale deed in his favour did not evoke the desired response from the B.B.M.P. On the other nand, the B.B.M.P held that the allotment proceedings are not in accordance with law and called upon the petitioner to take back the entire allotment consideration with interest at 18% thereon.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Sri Puttige R.Ramesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the similarly placed allottees are already-given the registered sale deeds. He submits that Smt Savithramma made the last payment of 8,500/- in November 1992. Sri Mariswamy made the last payment of S 3,500/- on 16.12.1992. The petitioner has paid the entire allotment consideration 3-4 months prior to the said Smt Savithramma and Sri Mariswamy making the payments He brings in my notice the order, dated 25.10.1996 passea by this Court in W.P.No.37534/1992 filed by Smt Savithramma directing the Purasabha, Parivarthilha Mandela Panchayath, Kengeri (predecessor of B.B.M.P) to allot the site at the revised price (25,000/-).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. This order was neither complied with nor challenged by way of writ appeal by the B.B.M.P or its predecessor. Aggrieved by the inaction of the B.B.M.P in the matter, Smt Savithramma filed W.P.No.4403/2007. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the B.B.M.P executed the sale deed in favour of Smt Savithramma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Similarly, Sri Mariswamy filed W.P.No.5639/2007, during the pendency of which, the B.B.M.P executed the sale deed in favour of Sri Mariswamy.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Sri Ramesh submits that the B.B.M.P ought to have executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner without driving the petitioner to knock at the portals of this Court. He has relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS v. M. PARAMESHWARAPPA AND OTHERS, reported in 2003(1) SLR 251. The relevant paragraph of the said decision is extracted herein below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">"9. For all the reasons stated above the appeals filed both by the state as well as by the private respondent-teachers fail and shall stand dismissed. Our declaration is extending the benefits of the judgments to others who have not approached the court, but similarly placed is to do complete and substantial justice. No costs."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Nextly, he has also brought to my notice para 23 of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of G.JAYARAM REDDY v. SATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, reported in ILR 2005 KAR 1963. Paragraph No.23 of the said judgement reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">"23. Taking the entire materials and circumstances placed before us and the case laws which have bearing on the decision-making and balancing the substantive rights of the appellant-petitioner and the consequences that flow from granting or refusing the relief, we are of the considered opinion that it will be totally unjust for the Court to refuse the relief to the appellant on the ground of delay and laches."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. He also sought to draw support from the Apex Court's judgment in the case of MAHARAJ KRISHAN BHAT AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND OTHERS, reported in ILR 2008 KAR 4651. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">"23. In fairness and in view of the fact that the decision in Abdul Rashid Rather had attained finality; the State authorities ought to have gracefully accepted the decision by granting similar benefits to the present writ petitioners. Ii, however, challenged the order passed by the Single Juoge. The Division Bench of the High Court ought to have dismissed the letters patent appeal by affirming the order of the Single Judge. The letters patent appeal, however, was allowed by the Division Bench and the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge was set aside. In our considered view, the order passed by the learned Single Judge was legal, proper and in furtherance of justice, equity and fairness in action. The said order therefore, deserves to be restored."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. He submits that when the B.B.M.P has condoned the delay of 3-4 months in the case of Smt Savithramma and Sri Mariswamy, it cannot show a different and hostile response to the petitioner by refusing to allot the site on the ground that there is 49 days' delay in the case of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri Subramanya, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 has raised a threshold objection to the entertaining of this petition. He submits that the petitioner has slept over his right, if any, for 13 years. Only because there is an increase in the price of immovable properties, the petitioner has filed this petition belatedly. He prays for the rejection of the petition on the shoat ground of delay and laches.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Sri Subramanya submits that the case of the petitioner is not akin to the case of Smt Savithramma because Smt Savithaiarnma has always been diligent in the matter. She filed her first writ petition way back in 1992 itself whereas; the petitioner approaches this Court for the first time in 2010. He submits that the petitioner has shown the delay not only in filing the petition but also in making the payments. As per the demand notice, dated 23.05.1992 (Annexure-B) issued by the local body, the petitioner ought to have made the payment before 25.06.1992. On the other hand, he has made the last payment on 13.08.1992. In view of the petitioner making the payment after the expiry of the last date, the beneficial official memorandum, dated 01.06.2004 (Annexure-C) can have no application whatsoever for the petitioner's case. The said official memorandum can have application only for those who have paid the amounts before the last date (25.06.1992). On account of the non-compliance with the payment schedule, the B.B.M.P has rightly called upon the petitioner to take back the allotment consideration with interest.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Sri Subramanya has relied on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of A.P.STEEL RE-ROLLING MILL LTD v. STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS, reported in (2007) 2 SCC 725 to advance the contention that a decision rendered in one case cannot be automatically extended to another case; much depends on the facts and circumstances of the later case. Paragraph 40 of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The benefit of a judgment is not extended to a case automatically. While granting relief in a writ petition, the High Court is entitled to consider the fact situation obtaining in each case including the conduct of the petitioner. In doing so, the Court is entitled to take into consideration the fact as to whether the writ petitioner had chosen to sit over the matter and then wake up after the decision of this Court. If it is found that the appellant approached the Court after a long delay, the same may disentitle him to obtain a discretionary relief."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Without prejudice to his earlier submissions, Sri Subramanya contends that the property in question is required for the purpose of the B.B.M.P only, which proposes to house its zonal office therein. According to him, the property acquired for one public purpose can always be diverted for another public purpose. In support of his submissions, he levies on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of RAVI KHULLAR AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, reported in (2007) 5 SCC 231.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Sri H.T.Narendra Prasad, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.l submits that the petitioner's rights are not protected under the official memorandum, dated 01.06.2004 (Annexure-C), as the petitioner has made the payments belatedly i.e. after the expiry of last date.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18 The first question that falls for my consideration is whether this petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. I answer this question in the negative for the following reasons: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The correspondence reveals that the petitioner has been diligent in the matter. As lately as on 15.12.2006 (Annexure-D), the Town Municipal Council, Kengeri was sending the letters to the allottees that there is no scope for the distribution of the sites until the pending cases are cleared.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The petition can be thrown out on the ground of delay and laches where the third party interests have come in. This is not a case where the third party interests have come in. It is nobody's case that the site in question is allotted to a third party. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) The third factor, which weighs with this Court in refusing to throw out this petition on the ground of delay and laches is that a similarly placed allotted Sri Mariswamy had not filed the writ petition in 1992. For the first time, he had filed the writ petition in 2007 and during the pendency of his writ petition; the B.B.M.P executed the sale deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) As far as the allied question of delay in making the last payment is concerned, the payment pattern can be put in the tabular form as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">SI. No. Party's name Amount paid (in Rupees) Year/date</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Savithramma 8,500-00 November-1992</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Mariswamy 3,500-00 16.12.1992</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Petitioner 23,500-00 13.08.1992</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) The delay in making the last payment on the part of Smt Savithiamma and Sri Mariswamy is 3-4 months. The said delay is readily condoned. The B.B.M.P's disinclination to condone the delay of 49 days in the case of the petitioner is absolutely unjustified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) Further, what cannot last sight be of is that the B.B.M.P and its predecessor T.M.C have retained the entire allotment consideration of 25,000/- paid by the petitioner. Now they cannot rise up and offer to refund the money after 17-18 years. The State and its instrumentalities are required to act fairly and reasonably. The delay and laches, if any, are attributable to the B.B.M.P and its predecessor, which chose to retain the petitioner's 25,000/- for the last 17-18 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. The argument thrown by the B.B.M.P that the petitioner approached this Court because of the steep increase in the price of the immovable properties would only support the case of the petitioner. The petitioner, a small timer, who may have begged and borrowed to mobilize the sum of 25,000/- in 1992 cannot be confronted with the refund. If the amounts are refunded with 18% interest also, the petitioner would not be in a position to buy a 30' X 40' site because of the steep increase in the prices. The argument advanced by Sri Subramanya cuts both ways.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The last limb of Sri Subramanya's submission that the property is required tor housing the zonal office of the B.B.M.P also does not commend itself to me. If the land is acquired compulsorily for a particular purpose, it has to be used for that purpose. If that purpose has spent itself, then it can be used for any other public purpose. Be it as it may, if the B.B.M.P wants the property in question, it can always buy it from the petitioner or resort to its compulsory acquisition even on executing the sale deed in favour of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is trite position in law that equals are to be treated equally and that the similarly placed persons are treated similarly. It is hard to distinguish between the facts of this case and the facts of Sri Mariswamy's case. Still if a subtle distinction is to be made, it can certainly be said that the case or, hand is one shade better than Sri Mariswamy's case. Sri Mariswamy had made the payment after 3-4 months of the petitioner making the payment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. For all the aforesaid reasons, I quash the impugned endorsement, dated 25.11.2009 (Annexure-EK Further, the respondents are directed to complete all the allotment proceedings culminating in the execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of a site measuring 30' X 40' in the layout in question. The time for compliance with this order is two months from the date of the production of the certified copy of today's order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. This petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State of Karnataka and ors', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '907571' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'A Venkateshiah Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER1', (int) 1 => 'the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagsra Palike', (int) 2 => 'Kengeri Town Municipal Council', (int) 3 => 'T.M.C', (int) 4 => 'Notification', (int) 5 => 'EMD', (int) 6 => 'T.M.C', (int) 7 => 'T.M.C', (int) 8 => 'T.M.C', (int) 9 => 'Court', (int) 10 => 'Purasabha', (int) 11 => 'Court', (int) 12 => 'the Hon'ble Supreme Court's', (int) 13 => 'Court', (int) 14 => 'ILR', (int) 15 => 'Paragraph No.23', (int) 16 => 'Court', (int) 17 => 'the Apex Court's', (int) 18 => 'MAHARAJ KRISHAN BHAT', (int) 19 => 'ILR', (int) 20 => 'KAR', (int) 21 => 'State', (int) 22 => 'the Division Bench', (int) 23 => 'Court', (int) 24 => 'the Apex Court's', (int) 25 => 'STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS', (int) 26 => 'the High Court', (int) 27 => 'Court', (int) 28 => 'Court', (int) 29 => 'Court', (int) 30 => 'the Apex Court's', (int) 31 => 'ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA', (int) 32 => 'High Court Government Pleader', (int) 33 => 'the Town Municipal Council', (int) 34 => 'Court', (int) 35 => 'Party', (int) 36 => 'Rupees', (int) 37 => 'November-19922', (int) 38 => 'Mariswamy', (int) 39 => 'T.M.C', (int) 40 => 'State', (int) 41 => 'Court' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '25.11.2009', (int) 1 => '30', (int) 2 => '20.02.1985', (int) 3 => '30', (int) 4 => '1,500/-', (int) 5 => '15,000/-', (int) 6 => '25,000/-', (int) 7 => '23,500/-', (int) 8 => 'One', (int) 9 => '30', (int) 10 => '15,000/- to 25,000/-.4', (int) 11 => '8,500/-', (int) 12 => '3,500/-', (int) 13 => '25.10.1996', (int) 14 => '25,000/-).7', (int) 15 => '2003(1', (int) 16 => '251', (int) 17 => '23', (int) 18 => '3', (int) 19 => '23.05.1992', (int) 20 => '25.06.1992', (int) 21 => '25.06.1992', (int) 22 => '2', (int) 23 => '725', (int) 24 => 'one', (int) 25 => '40', (int) 26 => 'one', (int) 27 => '5', (int) 28 => '231.17', (int) 29 => '8,500', (int) 30 => '3,500', (int) 31 => '23,500-00', (int) 32 => '25,000/-', (int) 33 => '25,000/-', (int) 34 => '25,000/-', (int) 35 => '30', (int) 36 => 'one', (int) 37 => '25.11.2009', (int) 38 => '30' ), 'PERCENT' => array( (int) 0 => '18%', (int) 1 => '18%', (int) 2 => '18%' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '13.08.1992', (int) 1 => 'February 2007.5', (int) 2 => 'November 1992', (int) 3 => '16.12.1992', (int) 4 => '3-4 months', (int) 5 => '2005', (int) 6 => '1963', (int) 7 => '2008', (int) 8 => '4651', (int) 9 => '3-4 months', (int) 10 => '49 days'', (int) 11 => '13 years', (int) 12 => '1992', (int) 13 => '2010', (int) 14 => '13.08.1992', (int) 15 => 'the last date', (int) 16 => 'the last date', (int) 17 => '2007', (int) 18 => '2007', (int) 19 => '1992', (int) 20 => '2007', (int) 21 => '3-4 months', (int) 22 => '49 days', (int) 23 => '17-18 years', (int) 24 => 'the last 17-18', (int) 25 => '1992', (int) 26 => '3-4 months', (int) 27 => 'two months', (int) 28 => 'today' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'T.M.C', (int) 1 => 'B.B.M.P', (int) 2 => 'B.B.M.P', (int) 3 => 'B.B.M.P', (int) 4 => 'B.B.M.P', (int) 5 => 'Sri Mariswamy.9', (int) 6 => 'G.JAYARAM', (int) 7 => 'Nos.2', (int) 8 => 'Savithaiarnma', (int) 9 => 'B.B.M.P', (int) 10 => 'Sri Subramanya', (int) 11 => 'B.B.M.P', (int) 12 => 'Sri Subramanya's' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'No.008' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Sri Puttige', (int) 1 => 'Smt Savithramma', (int) 2 => 'Sri Mariswamy', (int) 3 => 'Smt Savithramma', (int) 4 => 'Sri Mariswamy', (int) 5 => 'Smt Savithramma', (int) 6 => 'Kengeri', (int) 7 => 'Smt Savithramma', (int) 8 => 'Sri Mariswamy', (int) 9 => 'Sri Ramesh', (int) 10 => 'Abdul Rashid Rather', (int) 11 => 'Smt Savithramma', (int) 12 => 'Sri Mariswamy', (int) 13 => 'Sri Subramanya', (int) 14 => 'Sri Subramanya', (int) 15 => 'Smt Savithramma', (int) 16 => 'Sri Subramanya', (int) 17 => 'Sri H.T.Narendra Prasad', (int) 18 => 'Kengeri', (int) 19 => 'Sri Mariswamy', (int) 20 => 'Amount', (int) 21 => 'Smt Savithiamma', (int) 22 => 'Sri Mariswamy', (int) 23 => 'Sri Subramanya', (int) 24 => 'Sri Mariswamy's', (int) 25 => 'Sri Mariswamy's', (int) 26 => 'Sri Mariswamy' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Single Juoge', (int) 1 => 'Single Judge', (int) 2 => 'Single' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'first', (int) 2 => 'first', (int) 3 => 'third', (int) 4 => 'third', (int) 5 => 'third', (int) 6 => 'third', (int) 7 => 'first' ), 'EVENT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Year/date1' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '907571', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'HINCHIGERI WRIT PETITION NO. 11842 OF 2010 (LB-BMP)', 'appellant' => 'A Venkateshiah', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'A Venkateshiah Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors', 'casenote' => '[ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI J.] This writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the endorsement dated 25.11.2009, issued by the r3, as at ann-e and etc.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'SRI PUTTIGER RAMESH ; LAKSHMI S HOLLA, ADVS', 'counseldef' => 'SRI R SUBRAMANYA ADV', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2010-11-09', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner has called into question, the endorsement, dated 25.11.2009 (Annexure-E) intimating the petitioner that the allotment proceedings are not in accordance with law and that therefore the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagsra Palike (for short 'the B.B.M.P') has resolved to refund the allotment consideration with 18% interest thereon. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus to the B.B.M.P to allot a site measuring 30' X 40' to him n the land at Sy.Nos.38/1 and 39/1 of Valagerahalli.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts of the case in brief are that Kengeri Town Municipal Council (for short 'the T.M.C) issued the Notification, dated 20.02.1985 calling for the applications from the desirous parties for the allotment of sites. The petitioner submitted the application on 05.02.1986 for allotment of the site measuring 30' X 40'. He had paid 1,500/- towards EMD at the time of submitting the application. Originally the allotment consideration was 15,000/-; later it was raised to 25,000/-. The petitioner has paid the balance consideration of 23,500/- on 13.08.1992. The T.M.C allotted the site to the petitioner. Ir. the list of allotters notified by the T.M.C, he is at Sy.No.101. One of the resolutions passed by the said local body states that the petitioner was allotted the site bearing No.008 measuring 30' x 40'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Meanwhile, the erstwhile landowner hied writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings. Some similarly placed applicants for allotment challenged the act of T.M.C of enhancing the sale consideration from 15,000/- to 25,000/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On the reorganisation of the local bodies, the T.M.C came to be merged in B.B.M.P in February 2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner's appeals to the B.B.M.P to complete the allotment proceedings by the execution of the sale deed in his favour did not evoke the desired response from the B.B.M.P. On the other nand, the B.B.M.P held that the allotment proceedings are not in accordance with law and called upon the petitioner to take back the entire allotment consideration with interest at 18% thereon.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Sri Puttige R.Ramesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the similarly placed allottees are already-given the registered sale deeds. He submits that Smt Savithramma made the last payment of 8,500/- in November 1992. Sri Mariswamy made the last payment of S 3,500/- on 16.12.1992. The petitioner has paid the entire allotment consideration 3-4 months prior to the said Smt Savithramma and Sri Mariswamy making the payments He brings in my notice the order, dated 25.10.1996 passea by this Court in W.P.No.37534/1992 filed by Smt Savithramma directing the Purasabha, Parivarthilha Mandela Panchayath, Kengeri (predecessor of B.B.M.P) to allot the site at the revised price (25,000/-).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. This order was neither complied with nor challenged by way of writ appeal by the B.B.M.P or its predecessor. Aggrieved by the inaction of the B.B.M.P in the matter, Smt Savithramma filed W.P.No.4403/2007. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the B.B.M.P executed the sale deed in favour of Smt Savithramma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Similarly, Sri Mariswamy filed W.P.No.5639/2007, during the pendency of which, the B.B.M.P executed the sale deed in favour of Sri Mariswamy.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Sri Ramesh submits that the B.B.M.P ought to have executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner without driving the petitioner to knock at the portals of this Court. He has relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS v. M. PARAMESHWARAPPA AND OTHERS, reported in 2003(1) SLR 251. The relevant paragraph of the said decision is extracted herein below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">"9. For all the reasons stated above the appeals filed both by the state as well as by the private respondent-teachers fail and shall stand dismissed. Our declaration is extending the benefits of the judgments to others who have not approached the court, but similarly placed is to do complete and substantial justice. No costs."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Nextly, he has also brought to my notice para 23 of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of G.JAYARAM REDDY v. SATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, reported in ILR 2005 KAR 1963. Paragraph No.23 of the said judgement reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">"23. Taking the entire materials and circumstances placed before us and the case laws which have bearing on the decision-making and balancing the substantive rights of the appellant-petitioner and the consequences that flow from granting or refusing the relief, we are of the considered opinion that it will be totally unjust for the Court to refuse the relief to the appellant on the ground of delay and laches."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. He also sought to draw support from the Apex Court's judgment in the case of MAHARAJ KRISHAN BHAT AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND OTHERS, reported in ILR 2008 KAR 4651. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">"23. In fairness and in view of the fact that the decision in Abdul Rashid Rather had attained finality; the State authorities ought to have gracefully accepted the decision by granting similar benefits to the present writ petitioners. Ii, however, challenged the order passed by the Single Juoge. The Division Bench of the High Court ought to have dismissed the letters patent appeal by affirming the order of the Single Judge. The letters patent appeal, however, was allowed by the Division Bench and the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge was set aside. In our considered view, the order passed by the learned Single Judge was legal, proper and in furtherance of justice, equity and fairness in action. The said order therefore, deserves to be restored."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. He submits that when the B.B.M.P has condoned the delay of 3-4 months in the case of Smt Savithramma and Sri Mariswamy, it cannot show a different and hostile response to the petitioner by refusing to allot the site on the ground that there is 49 days' delay in the case of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri Subramanya, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 has raised a threshold objection to the entertaining of this petition. He submits that the petitioner has slept over his right, if any, for 13 years. Only because there is an increase in the price of immovable properties, the petitioner has filed this petition belatedly. He prays for the rejection of the petition on the shoat ground of delay and laches.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Sri Subramanya submits that the case of the petitioner is not akin to the case of Smt Savithramma because Smt Savithaiarnma has always been diligent in the matter. She filed her first writ petition way back in 1992 itself whereas; the petitioner approaches this Court for the first time in 2010. He submits that the petitioner has shown the delay not only in filing the petition but also in making the payments. As per the demand notice, dated 23.05.1992 (Annexure-B) issued by the local body, the petitioner ought to have made the payment before 25.06.1992. On the other hand, he has made the last payment on 13.08.1992. In view of the petitioner making the payment after the expiry of the last date, the beneficial official memorandum, dated 01.06.2004 (Annexure-C) can have no application whatsoever for the petitioner's case. The said official memorandum can have application only for those who have paid the amounts before the last date (25.06.1992). On account of the non-compliance with the payment schedule, the B.B.M.P has rightly called upon the petitioner to take back the allotment consideration with interest.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Sri Subramanya has relied on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of A.P.STEEL RE-ROLLING MILL LTD v. STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS, reported in (2007) 2 SCC 725 to advance the contention that a decision rendered in one case cannot be automatically extended to another case; much depends on the facts and circumstances of the later case. Paragraph 40 of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The benefit of a judgment is not extended to a case automatically. While granting relief in a writ petition, the High Court is entitled to consider the fact situation obtaining in each case including the conduct of the petitioner. In doing so, the Court is entitled to take into consideration the fact as to whether the writ petitioner had chosen to sit over the matter and then wake up after the decision of this Court. If it is found that the appellant approached the Court after a long delay, the same may disentitle him to obtain a discretionary relief."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Without prejudice to his earlier submissions, Sri Subramanya contends that the property in question is required for the purpose of the B.B.M.P only, which proposes to house its zonal office therein. According to him, the property acquired for one public purpose can always be diverted for another public purpose. In support of his submissions, he levies on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of RAVI KHULLAR AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, reported in (2007) 5 SCC 231.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Sri H.T.Narendra Prasad, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.l submits that the petitioner's rights are not protected under the official memorandum, dated 01.06.2004 (Annexure-C), as the petitioner has made the payments belatedly i.e. after the expiry of last date.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18 The first question that falls for my consideration is whether this petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. I answer this question in the negative for the following reasons: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The correspondence reveals that the petitioner has been diligent in the matter. As lately as on 15.12.2006 (Annexure-D), the Town Municipal Council, Kengeri was sending the letters to the allottees that there is no scope for the distribution of the sites until the pending cases are cleared.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The petition can be thrown out on the ground of delay and laches where the third party interests have come in. This is not a case where the third party interests have come in. It is nobody's case that the site in question is allotted to a third party. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) The third factor, which weighs with this Court in refusing to throw out this petition on the ground of delay and laches is that a similarly placed allotted Sri Mariswamy had not filed the writ petition in 1992. For the first time, he had filed the writ petition in 2007 and during the pendency of his writ petition; the B.B.M.P executed the sale deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) As far as the allied question of delay in making the last payment is concerned, the payment pattern can be put in the tabular form as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">SI. No. Party's name Amount paid (in Rupees) Year/date</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Savithramma 8,500-00 November-1992</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Mariswamy 3,500-00 16.12.1992</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Petitioner 23,500-00 13.08.1992</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) The delay in making the last payment on the part of Smt Savithiamma and Sri Mariswamy is 3-4 months. The said delay is readily condoned. The B.B.M.P's disinclination to condone the delay of 49 days in the case of the petitioner is absolutely unjustified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) Further, what cannot last sight be of is that the B.B.M.P and its predecessor T.M.C have retained the entire allotment consideration of 25,000/- paid by the petitioner. Now they cannot rise up and offer to refund the money after 17-18 years. The State and its instrumentalities are required to act fairly and reasonably. The delay and laches, if any, are attributable to the B.B.M.P and its predecessor, which chose to retain the petitioner's 25,000/- for the last 17-18 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. The argument thrown by the B.B.M.P that the petitioner approached this Court because of the steep increase in the price of the immovable properties would only support the case of the petitioner. The petitioner, a small timer, who may have begged and borrowed to mobilize the sum of 25,000/- in 1992 cannot be confronted with the refund. If the amounts are refunded with 18% interest also, the petitioner would not be in a position to buy a 30' X 40' site because of the steep increase in the prices. The argument advanced by Sri Subramanya cuts both ways.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The last limb of Sri Subramanya's submission that the property is required tor housing the zonal office of the B.B.M.P also does not commend itself to me. If the land is acquired compulsorily for a particular purpose, it has to be used for that purpose. If that purpose has spent itself, then it can be used for any other public purpose. Be it as it may, if the B.B.M.P wants the property in question, it can always buy it from the petitioner or resort to its compulsory acquisition even on executing the sale deed in favour of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is trite position in law that equals are to be treated equally and that the similarly placed persons are treated similarly. It is hard to distinguish between the facts of this case and the facts of Sri Mariswamy's case. Still if a subtle distinction is to be made, it can certainly be said that the case or, hand is one shade better than Sri Mariswamy's case. Sri Mariswamy had made the payment after 3-4 months of the petitioner making the payment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. For all the aforesaid reasons, I quash the impugned endorsement, dated 25.11.2009 (Annexure-EK Further, the respondents are directed to complete all the allotment proceedings culminating in the execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of a site measuring 30' X 40' in the layout in question. The time for compliance with this order is two months from the date of the production of the certified copy of today's order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. This petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State of Karnataka and ors', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '907571' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'A Venkateshiah Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER1', (int) 1 => 'the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagsra Palike', (int) 2 => 'Kengeri Town Municipal Council', (int) 3 => 'T.M.C', (int) 4 => 'Notification', (int) 5 => 'EMD', (int) 6 => 'T.M.C', (int) 7 => 'T.M.C', (int) 8 => 'T.M.C', (int) 9 => 'Court', (int) 10 => 'Purasabha', (int) 11 => 'Court', (int) 12 => 'the Hon'ble Supreme Court's', (int) 13 => 'Court', (int) 14 => 'ILR', (int) 15 => 'Paragraph No.23', (int) 16 => 'Court', (int) 17 => 'the Apex Court's', (int) 18 => 'MAHARAJ KRISHAN BHAT', (int) 19 => 'ILR', (int) 20 => 'KAR', (int) 21 => 'State', (int) 22 => 'the Division Bench', (int) 23 => 'Court', (int) 24 => 'the Apex Court's', (int) 25 => 'STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS', (int) 26 => 'the High Court', (int) 27 => 'Court', (int) 28 => 'Court', (int) 29 => 'Court', (int) 30 => 'the Apex Court's', (int) 31 => 'ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA', (int) 32 => 'High Court Government Pleader', (int) 33 => 'the Town Municipal Council', (int) 34 => 'Court', (int) 35 => 'Party', (int) 36 => 'Rupees', (int) 37 => 'November-19922', (int) 38 => 'Mariswamy', (int) 39 => 'T.M.C', (int) 40 => 'State', (int) 41 => 'Court' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '25.11.2009', (int) 1 => '30', (int) 2 => '20.02.1985', (int) 3 => '30', (int) 4 => '1,500/-', (int) 5 => '15,000/-', (int) 6 => '25,000/-', (int) 7 => '23,500/-', (int) 8 => 'One', (int) 9 => '30', (int) 10 => '15,000/- to 25,000/-.4', (int) 11 => '8,500/-', (int) 12 => '3,500/-', (int) 13 => '25.10.1996', (int) 14 => '25,000/-).7', (int) 15 => '2003(1', (int) 16 => '251', (int) 17 => '23', (int) 18 => '3', (int) 19 => '23.05.1992', (int) 20 => '25.06.1992', (int) 21 => '25.06.1992', (int) 22 => '2', (int) 23 => '725', (int) 24 => 'one', (int) 25 => '40', (int) 26 => 'one', (int) 27 => '5', (int) 28 => '231.17', (int) 29 => '8,500', (int) 30 => '3,500', (int) 31 => '23,500-00', (int) 32 => '25,000/-', (int) 33 => '25,000/-', (int) 34 => '25,000/-', (int) 35 => '30', (int) 36 => 'one', (int) 37 => '25.11.2009', (int) 38 => '30' ), 'PERCENT' => array( (int) 0 => '18%', (int) 1 => '18%', (int) 2 => '18%' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '13.08.1992', (int) 1 => 'February 2007.5', (int) 2 => 'November 1992', (int) 3 => '16.12.1992', (int) 4 => '3-4 months', (int) 5 => '2005', (int) 6 => '1963', (int) 7 => '2008', (int) 8 => '4651', (int) 9 => '3-4 months', (int) 10 => '49 days'', (int) 11 => '13 years', (int) 12 => '1992', (int) 13 => '2010', (int) 14 => '13.08.1992', (int) 15 => 'the last date', (int) 16 => 'the last date', (int) 17 => '2007', (int) 18 => '2007', (int) 19 => '1992', (int) 20 => '2007', (int) 21 => '3-4 months', (int) 22 => '49 days', (int) 23 => '17-18 years', (int) 24 => 'the last 17-18', (int) 25 => '1992', (int) 26 => '3-4 months', (int) 27 => 'two months', (int) 28 => 'today' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'T.M.C', (int) 1 => 'B.B.M.P', (int) 2 => 'B.B.M.P', (int) 3 => 'B.B.M.P', (int) 4 => 'B.B.M.P', (int) 5 => 'Sri Mariswamy.9', (int) 6 => 'G.JAYARAM', (int) 7 => 'Nos.2', (int) 8 => 'Savithaiarnma', (int) 9 => 'B.B.M.P', (int) 10 => 'Sri Subramanya', (int) 11 => 'B.B.M.P', (int) 12 => 'Sri Subramanya's' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'No.008' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Sri Puttige', (int) 1 => 'Smt Savithramma', (int) 2 => 'Sri Mariswamy', (int) 3 => 'Smt Savithramma', (int) 4 => 'Sri Mariswamy', (int) 5 => 'Smt Savithramma', (int) 6 => 'Kengeri', (int) 7 => 'Smt Savithramma', (int) 8 => 'Sri Mariswamy', (int) 9 => 'Sri Ramesh', (int) 10 => 'Abdul Rashid Rather', (int) 11 => 'Smt Savithramma', (int) 12 => 'Sri Mariswamy', (int) 13 => 'Sri Subramanya', (int) 14 => 'Sri Subramanya', (int) 15 => 'Smt Savithramma', (int) 16 => 'Sri Subramanya', (int) 17 => 'Sri H.T.Narendra Prasad', (int) 18 => 'Kengeri', (int) 19 => 'Sri Mariswamy', (int) 20 => 'Amount', (int) 21 => 'Smt Savithiamma', (int) 22 => 'Sri Mariswamy', (int) 23 => 'Sri Subramanya', (int) 24 => 'Sri Mariswamy's', (int) 25 => 'Sri Mariswamy's', (int) 26 => 'Sri Mariswamy' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Single Juoge', (int) 1 => 'Single Judge', (int) 2 => 'Single' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'first', (int) 2 => 'first', (int) 3 => 'third', (int) 4 => 'third', (int) 5 => 'third', (int) 6 => 'third', (int) 7 => 'first' ), 'EVENT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Year/date1' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '907571', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'HINCHIGERI WRIT PETITION NO. 11842 OF 2010 (LB-BMP)', 'appellant' => 'A Venkateshiah', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'A Venkateshiah Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors', 'casenote' => '[ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI J.] This writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the endorsement dated 25.11.2009, issued by the r3, as at ann-e and etc.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'SRI PUTTIGER RAMESH ; LAKSHMI S HOLLA, ADVS', 'counseldef' => 'SRI R SUBRAMANYA ADV', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2010-11-09', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner has called into question, the endorsement, dated 25.11.2009 (Annexure-E) intimating the petitioner that the allotment proceedings are not in accordance with law and that therefore the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagsra Palike (for short 'the B.B.M.P') has resolved to refund the allotment consideration with 18% interest thereon. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus to the B.B.M.P to allot a site measuring 30' X 40' to him n the land at Sy.Nos.38/1 and 39/1 of Valagerahalli.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts of the case in brief are that Kengeri Town Municipal Council (for short 'the T.M.C) issued the Notification, dated 20.02.1985 calling for the applications from the desirous parties for the allotment of sites. The petitioner submitted the application on 05.02.1986 for allotment of the site measuring 30' X 40'. He had paid 1,500/- towards EMD at the time of submitting the application. Originally the allotment consideration was 15,000/-; later it was raised to 25,000/-. The petitioner has paid the balance consideration of 23,500/- on 13.08.1992. The T.M.C allotted the site to the petitioner. Ir. the list of allotters notified by the T.M.C, he is at Sy.No.101. One of the resolutions passed by the said local body states that the petitioner was allotted the site bearing No.008 measuring 30' x 40'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Meanwhile, the erstwhile landowner hied writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings. Some similarly placed applicants for allotment challenged the act of T.M.C of enhancing the sale consideration from 15,000/- to 25,000/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On the reorganisation of the local bodies, the T.M.C came to be merged in B.B.M.P in February 2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petitioner's appeals to the B.B.M.P to complete the allotment proceedings by the execution of the sale deed in his favour did not evoke the desired response from the B.B.M.P. On the other nand, the B.B.M.P held that the allotment proceedings are not in accordance with law and called upon the petitioner to take back the entire allotment consideration with interest at 18% thereon.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Sri Puttige R.Ramesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the similarly placed allottees are already-given the registered sale deeds. He submits that Smt Savithramma made the last payment of 8,500/- in November 1992. Sri Mariswamy made the last payment of S 3,500/- on 16.12.1992. The petitioner has paid the entire allotment consideration 3-4 months prior to the said Smt Savithramma and Sri Mariswamy making the payments He brings in my notice the order, dated 25.10.1996 passea by this Court in W.P.No.37534/1992 filed by Smt Savithramma directing the Purasabha, Parivarthilha Mandela Panchayath, Kengeri (predecessor of B.B.M.P) to allot the site at the revised price (25,000/-).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. This order was neither complied with nor challenged by way of writ appeal by the B.B.M.P or its predecessor. Aggrieved by the inaction of the B.B.M.P in the matter, Smt Savithramma filed W.P.No.4403/2007. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the B.B.M.P executed the sale deed in favour of Smt Savithramma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Similarly, Sri Mariswamy filed W.P.No.5639/2007, during the pendency of which, the B.B.M.P executed the sale deed in favour of Sri Mariswamy.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Sri Ramesh submits that the B.B.M.P ought to have executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner without driving the petitioner to knock at the portals of this Court. He has relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS v. M. PARAMESHWARAPPA AND OTHERS, reported in 2003(1) SLR 251. The relevant paragraph of the said decision is extracted herein below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">"9. For all the reasons stated above the appeals filed both by the state as well as by the private respondent-teachers fail and shall stand dismissed. Our declaration is extending the benefits of the judgments to others who have not approached the court, but similarly placed is to do complete and substantial justice. No costs."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Nextly, he has also brought to my notice para 23 of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of G.JAYARAM REDDY v. SATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, reported in ILR 2005 KAR 1963. Paragraph No.23 of the said judgement reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">"23. Taking the entire materials and circumstances placed before us and the case laws which have bearing on the decision-making and balancing the substantive rights of the appellant-petitioner and the consequences that flow from granting or refusing the relief, we are of the considered opinion that it will be totally unjust for the Court to refuse the relief to the appellant on the ground of delay and laches."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. He also sought to draw support from the Apex Court's judgment in the case of MAHARAJ KRISHAN BHAT AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND OTHERS, reported in ILR 2008 KAR 4651. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">"23. In fairness and in view of the fact that the decision in Abdul Rashid Rather had attained finality; the State authorities ought to have gracefully accepted the decision by granting similar benefits to the present writ petitioners. Ii, however, challenged the order passed by the Single Juoge. The Division Bench of the High Court ought to have dismissed the letters patent appeal by affirming the order of the Single Judge. The letters patent appeal, however, was allowed by the Division Bench and the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge was set aside. In our considered view, the order passed by the learned Single Judge was legal, proper and in furtherance of justice, equity and fairness in action. The said order therefore, deserves to be restored."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. He submits that when the B.B.M.P has condoned the delay of 3-4 months in the case of Smt Savithramma and Sri Mariswamy, it cannot show a different and hostile response to the petitioner by refusing to allot the site on the ground that there is 49 days' delay in the case of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri Subramanya, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 has raised a threshold objection to the entertaining of this petition. He submits that the petitioner has slept over his right, if any, for 13 years. Only because there is an increase in the price of immovable properties, the petitioner has filed this petition belatedly. He prays for the rejection of the petition on the shoat ground of delay and laches.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Sri Subramanya submits that the case of the petitioner is not akin to the case of Smt Savithramma because Smt Savithaiarnma has always been diligent in the matter. She filed her first writ petition way back in 1992 itself whereas; the petitioner approaches this Court for the first time in 2010. He submits that the petitioner has shown the delay not only in filing the petition but also in making the payments. As per the demand notice, dated 23.05.1992 (Annexure-B) issued by the local body, the petitioner ought to have made the payment before 25.06.1992. On the other hand, he has made the last payment on 13.08.1992. In view of the petitioner making the payment after the expiry of the last date, the beneficial official memorandum, dated 01.06.2004 (Annexure-C) can have no application whatsoever for the petitioner's case. The said official memorandum can have application only for those who have paid the amounts before the last date (25.06.1992). On account of the non-compliance with the payment schedule, the B.B.M.P has rightly called upon the petitioner to take back the allotment consideration with interest.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Sri Subramanya has relied on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of A.P.STEEL RE-ROLLING MILL LTD v. STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS, reported in (2007) 2 SCC 725 to advance the contention that a decision rendered in one case cannot be automatically extended to another case; much depends on the facts and circumstances of the later case. Paragraph 40 of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The benefit of a judgment is not extended to a case automatically. While granting relief in a writ petition, the High Court is entitled to consider the fact situation obtaining in each case including the conduct of the petitioner. In doing so, the Court is entitled to take into consideration the fact as to whether the writ petitioner had chosen to sit over the matter and then wake up after the decision of this Court. If it is found that the appellant approached the Court after a long delay, the same may disentitle him to obtain a discretionary relief."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Without prejudice to his earlier submissions, Sri Subramanya contends that the property in question is required for the purpose of the B.B.M.P only, which proposes to house its zonal office therein. According to him, the property acquired for one public purpose can always be diverted for another public purpose. In support of his submissions, he levies on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of RAVI KHULLAR AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, reported in (2007) 5 SCC 231.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Sri H.T.Narendra Prasad, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.l submits that the petitioner's rights are not protected under the official memorandum, dated 01.06.2004 (Annexure-C), as the petitioner has made the payments belatedly i.e. after the expiry of last date.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18 The first question that falls for my consideration is whether this petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. I answer this question in the negative for the following reasons: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) The correspondence reveals that the petitioner has been diligent in the matter. As lately as on 15.12.2006 (Annexure-D), the Town Municipal Council, Kengeri was sending the letters to the allottees that there is no scope for the distribution of the sites until the pending cases are cleared.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The petition can be thrown out on the ground of delay and laches where the third party interests have come in. This is not a case where the third party interests have come in. It is nobody's case that the site in question is allotted to a third party. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) The third factor, which weighs with this Court in refusing to throw out this petition on the ground of delay and laches is that a similarly placed allotted Sri Mariswamy had not filed the writ petition in 1992. For the first time, he had filed the writ petition in 2007 and during the pendency of his writ petition; the B.B.M.P executed the sale deed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) As far as the allied question of delay in making the last payment is concerned, the payment pattern can be put in the tabular form as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">SI. No. Party's name Amount paid (in Rupees) Year/date</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Savithramma 8,500-00 November-1992</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Mariswamy 3,500-00 16.12.1992</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Petitioner 23,500-00 13.08.1992</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) The delay in making the last payment on the part of Smt Savithiamma and Sri Mariswamy is 3-4 months. The said delay is readily condoned. The B.B.M.P's disinclination to condone the delay of 49 days in the case of the petitioner is absolutely unjustified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) Further, what cannot last sight be of is that the B.B.M.P and its predecessor T.M.C have retained the entire allotment consideration of 25,000/- paid by the petitioner. Now they cannot rise up and offer to refund the money after 17-18 years. The State and its instrumentalities are required to act fairly and reasonably. The delay and laches, if any, are attributable to the B.B.M.P and its predecessor, which chose to retain the petitioner's 25,000/- for the last 17-18 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. The argument thrown by the B.B.M.P that the petitioner approached this Court because of the steep increase in the price of the immovable properties would only support the case of the petitioner. The petitioner, a small timer, who may have begged and borrowed to mobilize the sum of 25,000/- in 1992 cannot be confronted with the refund. If the amounts are refunded with 18% interest also, the petitioner would not be in a position to buy a 30' X 40' site because of the steep increase in the prices. The argument advanced by Sri Subramanya cuts both ways.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The last limb of Sri Subramanya's submission that the property is required tor housing the zonal office of the B.B.M.P also does not commend itself to me. If the land is acquired compulsorily for a particular purpose, it has to be used for that purpose. If that purpose has spent itself, then it can be used for any other public purpose. Be it as it may, if the B.B.M.P wants the property in question, it can always buy it from the petitioner or resort to its compulsory acquisition even on executing the sale deed in favour of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. It is trite position in law that equals are to be treated equally and that the similarly placed persons are treated similarly. It is hard to distinguish between the facts of this case and the facts of Sri Mariswamy's case. Still if a subtle distinction is to be made, it can certainly be said that the case or, hand is one shade better than Sri Mariswamy's case. Sri Mariswamy had made the payment after 3-4 months of the petitioner making the payment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. For all the aforesaid reasons, I quash the impugned endorsement, dated 25.11.2009 (Annexure-EK Further, the respondents are directed to complete all the allotment proceedings culminating in the execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of a site measuring 30' X 40' in the layout in question. The time for compliance with this order is two months from the date of the production of the certified copy of today's order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. This petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State of Karnataka and ors', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '907571' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
ORG: ORDER1, the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagsra Palike, Kengeri Town Municipal Council, T.M.C, Notification, EMD, T.M.C, T.M.C, T.M.C, Court, Purasabha, Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court's, Court, ILR, Paragraph No.23, Court, the Apex Court's, MAHARAJ KRISHAN BHAT, ILR, KAR, State, the Division Bench, Court, the Apex Court's, STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS, the High Court, Court, Court, Court, the Apex Court's, ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA, High Court Government Pleader, the Town Municipal Council, Court, Party, Rupees, November-19922, Mariswamy, T.M.C, State, Court
CARDINAL: 25.11.2009, 30, 20.02.1985, 30, 1,500/-, 15,000/-, 25,000/-, 23,500/-, One, 30, 15,000/- to 25,000/-.4, 8,500/-, 3,500/-, 25.10.1996, 25,000/-).7, 2003(1, 251, 23, 3, 23.05.1992, 25.06.1992, 25.06.1992, 2, 725, one, 40, one, 5, 231.17, 8,500, 3,500, 23,500-00, 25,000/-, 25,000/-, 25,000/-, 30, one, 25.11.2009, 30
PERCENT: 18%, 18%, 18%
DATE: 13.08.1992, February 2007.5, November 1992, 16.12.1992, 3-4 months, 2005, 1963, 2008, 4651, 3-4 months, 49 days', 13 years, 1992, 2010, 13.08.1992, the last date, the last date, 2007, 2007, 1992, 2007, 3-4 months, 49 days, 17-18 years, the last 17-18, 1992, 3-4 months, two months, today
GPE: T.M.C, B.B.M.P, B.B.M.P, B.B.M.P, B.B.M.P, Sri Mariswamy.9, G.JAYARAM, Nos.2, Savithaiarnma, B.B.M.P, Sri Subramanya, B.B.M.P, Sri Subramanya's
PRODUCT: No.008
PERSON: Sri Puttige, Smt Savithramma, Sri Mariswamy, Smt Savithramma, Sri Mariswamy, Smt Savithramma, Kengeri, Smt Savithramma, Sri Mariswamy, Sri Ramesh, Abdul Rashid Rather, Smt Savithramma, Sri Mariswamy, Sri Subramanya, Sri Subramanya, Smt Savithramma, Sri Subramanya, Sri H.T.Narendra Prasad, Kengeri, Sri Mariswamy, Amount, Smt Savithiamma, Sri Mariswamy, Sri Subramanya, Sri Mariswamy's, Sri Mariswamy's, Sri Mariswamy
LOC: the Single Juoge, Single Judge, Single
ORDINAL: first, first, first, third, third, third, third, first
EVENT: Year/date1