Mysore Urban Development Authority vs H.S. Siddegowda and Others

K.L. Manjunath, J.—The appellant has questioned the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 04.06.2010 in W.P. No. 18371/2006.

Heard the learned counsel for parties.

The facts leading to this appeal are as hereunder:

Nine writ petitioners, who are members of Joint Hindu Family, were owners of 6 Acres of land in Sy. No. 16/3 of Hinkal Village, Mysore, now within the limits of appellant - Authority. The said land was sought to be acquired by the appellant - Authority along with other lands situated in Devanahalli, Dattagalli, Sriramapura and Nachanahalli for formation of residential layout. The writ petitioners surrendered their land voluntarily without challenging the acquisition proceedings to enable the appellant - Authority to form residential layout and allot the sites to needy persons.

Based on the consent given by the writ petitioners, the appellant - Authority intimated to the writ petitioners vide Ann. D dated 19.01.1993 stating that the writ petitioners would be allotted four sites measuring 40 X 60 ft. and three sites measuring 30 X 40 ft. at costs of Rs. 1.20 lakhs and out of Rs. 3 lakhs compensation awarded the said sum of Rs. 1.20 lakhs would be deducted towards sital value and the remaining Rs. 1,80,000/- was paid on 30.09.1992. Based on the orders of the appellant - Authority, the respondents agreed to receive seven sites since joint family consists of nine members in the family. Again these nine members are having their own separate families including their children.

Pursuant to Ann. D, the writ petitioners agreed for proposal sent by the appellant - Authority and the same has been accepted by the writ petitioners and the contract has become final and conclusive, since appellant - Authority has deducted Rs. 1.20 lakhs towards sital value of seven sites to be allotted to the writ petitioners and they have only paid Rs. 1,80,000/- as compensation towards the lands acquired from the writ petitioners. Later, the said communication given to the writ petitioners were withdrawn by the appellant-Authority on 21.03.1998. Again it was intimated to them that they are not entitled for allotment of four sites measuring 40 X 60 ft. and three sites measuring 30 X 40 ft and they are entitle for only three sites measuring 40 X 60 ft. Aggrieved by the intimation given to the writ petitioners, the writ petitioners demanded appellant - Authority herein to reconsider the case and to allot remaining one site measuring 40 X 60 ft. and three sites measuring 30 X 40 ft. It was intimated to the writ petitioners that their request cannot considered for allotment of one site measuring 40 X 60 ft. and three sites measuring 30 X 40 ft. Aggrieved by the said intimation a writ petition came to be filed requesting the court to direct the appellant - Authority to allot one site measuring 40 X 60 ft. and three sites measuring 30 X 40 ft.

The learned Single Judge after considering the matter has directed the appellant - Authority-Corporation to convey to the writ petitioners the remaining one site measuring 40 X 60 ft. and three sites measuring 30 X 40 ft. This order is called in question in this appeal.

We have heard learned counsel Mr. T.P. Vivekananada appearing for appellant - Authority and the learned counsel Mr. T.N. Raghupathi appearing for respondents.

The contentions of the appellant - Authority are as hereunder:

The writ petition filed by the writ petitioners in the year 2006 was required to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of delay and latches. Further, it is contended that there was no resolution passed by them stating about the allotment of four sites measuring 40 X 60 ft. and three sites measuring 30 X 40 ft. under incentive scheme and they have agreed only for allotment of three sites. Therefore, direction could not have been given by the learned Single Judge to the appellant - Authority to allot the sites to the writ petitioners. Thus, he requests to allow the appeal by modifying the order of the learned Single Judge.

The learned counsel Mr. T.N. Raghupathi submits that none of the grounds urged by the appellant - Authority are tenable because the appellant - Authority had given proposal stating that the writ petitioners would be allotted four sites measuring 40 X 60 ft. and three sites measuring 30 X 40 ft. According to him, writ petitioners family consists of 20 major persons and each of them are entitled for allotment of a site, even if they had applied for allotment under general category. When the writ petitioners have surrendered the lands voluntarily without challenging the acquisition and when offer was made by the appellant - Authority that they would be allotted sites by deducting the sital value of Rs. 1,20,000/- out of the compensation payable to them, it is not open for them to withdraw or cancel the earlier intimation given to the writ petitioners since offer made by them has become a conclusive contract, since the proposal made by the appellant was accepted by the respondents.

He further submits that before the learned Single Judge the question of delay and latches was not raised by the appellant - Authority. Even according to him, there is no delay and latches in filing the writ petition, because only in the year 2005 vide Ann. M, it was intimated to them that their case cannot be considered for release of the remaining sites. Therefore, he submits that there is no delay and latches in approaching the court and within reasonable time they have filed the writ petition.

He further submits that when the appellant-Authority being a statutory body having given offer and made the writ petitioners to accept the proposal given by them and the writ petitioners having accepted meager compensation of only Rs. 1,80,000/-, it is not for the appellant - Authority to request this court to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge by which they have been directed to allot the remaining sites to the writ petitioners. Therefore, he requests the court to dismiss the appeal.

Having heard the learned counsel for parties, what has to be considered in this appeal is:

"Whether any error has committed by the learned Single Judge in issuing a writ of mandamus directing the appellant to allot one site measuring 40 X 60 ft. and three sites measuring 30 X 40 ft."

Admittedly, the writ petitions'' family is a very big joint family. There are nine writ petitioners. The appellant - Authority had acquired 6 acres of land in Mysore City belonging to the writ petitioners for formation of residential sites. The writ petitioners voluntarily surrendered the land accepting the offer given by the appellant - Authority. When the appellant - Authority on its own made an offer to allot four sites measuring 40 X 60 ft. and three sites measuring 30 X 40 ft. and deducted Rs. 1,20,000/- towards value of sites out of the compensation payable to the writ petitioners and when the same has been accepted by the writ petitioners, it is not open for a statutory body to withdraw or recall the offer made by it unilaterally after contract is complete in all respects because appellant-Authority has paid compensation for the lands acquired by them in a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- after deducting Rs. 1,20,000/- towards sital value payable by the writ petitioners.

In the year 2005 the appellant - Authority informed the writ petitioners that appellant - Authority is not willing to allot the remaining sites. Therefore, in 2006 the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners, which according to us is within a reasonable time. In addition to that even in the counter filed by the appellant-Authority before the learned Single Judge did raise the question of delay and latches. Therefore, at this length of time the appellant - Authority cannot be permitted to raise such contention.

The other contention of the appellant-Authority is that the learned Single Judge ought to have directed the writ petitioners to approach the Civil Court for their redressal. The appellant - Authority being a statutory body having acquired the land of the writ petitioners and awarded only paltry sum as compensation for prime land and having agreed to allot seven sites in favour of the writ petitioners, it is not fair on the part of the appellant - Authority to raise such contention.

In this view of the matter, we do not see any error in allowing the writ petition by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.