Maheshwari Vidya Vardhak Sangh vs Swami Vivekananda Educational and Welfare Society

B.S. Patil, J.—This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 28.03.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the present appellant.

The dispute pertains to allotment of civic amenity site which has been made in favour of the 1st respondent pursuant to a notification dated 16.06.2001 issued by the Gulbarga Development Authority notifying the site for allotment and calling for applications. The allotment of the site was made in favour of the 1st respondent on 01.08.2002. The Gulbarga Development Authority again issued another notification dated 19.07.2004 notifying for allotment certain civic amenity sites including the one that had been already allotted in favour of the 1st respondent. The appellant/writ petitioner applied for allotment of the said site, which had been already allotted to the 1st respondent. An endorsement was issued by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-E to the writ petition proposing to allot another civic amenity site to the writ petitioner. The appellant/writ petitioner urged that even before the expiry of the time fixed for filing the application as per the notification dated 19.07.2004, allotment was made in favour of the 1st respondent and therefore, the same was illegal. This contention has been repelled by the learned Single Judge holding that the Gulbarga Development Authority in the affidavit filed, before the Court had made it clear that by mistake the site in question was included in the notification dated 19.07.2004, though the said site had been already allotted in favour of the 1st respondent pursuant to the earlier notification dated 16.06.2001.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the action of the 2nd respondent-authority is arbitrary and illegal, as it has been passed without affording any opportunity to the appellant/writ petitioner. He also submits that the site allotted in favour of the 1st respondent and the one sought to be allotted by way of second notification were different and therefore, the action of the 2nd respondent is illegal.

Learned counsel for the respondents strongly supports the order passed.

We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions urged. As can be seen from paragraph 4 of the statement of objections filed by the 2nd respondent-Gulbarga Development Authority, it is specifically urged that plot No. 35 mentioned at Sl. No. 10 was included by oversight in the notification dated 19.07.2004, though the said site had been already allotted in favour of the 1st respondent herein pursuant to the earlier notification dated 16.06.2001. It is further stated therein that as soon as it was learnt that such mistake had been committed, it was resolved in the meeting held on 26.02.2005 to allot an alternate site to the writ petitioner and accordingly intimation had-been issued to the petitioner.

We have no reason to hold that any illegality was committed by the Gulbarga Development Authority with an intention to deprive the writ petitioner of his entitlement to the civic amenity site in question. As the civic amenity site had been already allotted in favour of the 1st respondent, it was not available for being notified for allotment when the second notification was issued on 19.07.2004. Therefore, as rightly contended by the 2nd respondent-Gulbarga Development Authority, the inclusion of the civic amenity site in the second notification was by oversight and the mistake was sought to be corrected by offering allotment of alternative site to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner ought to have rest satisfied with the offer made by the Gulbarga Development Authority. Hence, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.