State & Its Instrumentalities Should Show Deference To Defense Personnel: Karnataka HC Asks MUDA To Allot Housing Site To Retired Officer
The Petitioner, an Ex-Defense Personnel approached the Karnataka High Court for quashing the Impugned Order passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of an Ex-Defense Personnel by ordering the Mysore Urban Development Authority to allot him a housing site within 8 weeks.
The Petitioner, an Ex-Defense Personnel approached the High Court for quashing the Impugned Order passed by the Respondent No.2 – Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and confirming the Order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
The Divison Bench comprising Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice G Basavaraja asserted, “It is not that if there was delay, interest cannot be levied or delay cannot be condoned when no lapse is attributable to the allottee.The MUDA has treated with scant respect & regard a Defense Personnel of the kind who has put a long & spotless service of three decades in guarding the frontiers of the nation.”
Advocate Aruna Bhat represented the Petitioner while Advocate G M Ananda represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The Petitioner was in the active service of Indian Armed Forces during the period between 1977 and 2016 i.e., about 30 years without any spot. He was awarded several awards and promotions. He retired in the year 2016 and has been raising a long battle to secure a house site. The Respondent – MUDA allotted a 60x40 house site for a concessional sale consideration of Rs1,60,000/- under the ExServicemen Category. Petitioner paid the entire sale consideration but MUDA did not come forward to execute and register a sale deed.
It issued an Endorsement to the effect that the petitioner was due in a sum of Rs.21,930, there was no provision for accepting the belated payment in the Extant Rules and therefore his prayer for execution of sale deed was negatived. The Petitioner’s legal notice yielded no result. Because of denial of the sale deed, the petitioner filed a Complaint which came to be allowed by the District Consumer directing MUDA to allot the site by executing necessary conveyance and deliver possession within 60 days. This order having been set aside in the appeal of MUDA, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, answered the first contention as to the maintainability of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner since review u/s.51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is not efficacious nor can be treated as an alternate remedy. “The very terminology of the section shows its limited scope for interference at the hands of the Forum whose order is put in challenge here. The related contention of learned HCGP that the petitioner should invoke the jurisdiction of National Commission is also not tenable inasmuch as the Act provides for only one single appeal from the orders of District Consumer Forum and thus second appeal does not lie”, it said.
The Bench found force in the submission of the petitioner that having paid the entire money as stipulated in the Allotment Letter, the MUDA ought to have executed the sale deed. The Bench also found it difficult to countenance the contention of MUDA that the petitioner had tendered a sum of Rs 21,930 which the MUDA did not accept because of delay and therefore the allotment stood automatically cancelled.
As per the High Court, the non-service of notice couldn’t be counted against him as Defense Personnel have to go wherever they are deployed, regard being had to their nature of duty and the same happened in the case of the petitioner too.“The encomia earned by him at the hands of Central Government & the State Government failed to impress the MUDA officials. The State and its instrumentalities should learn to show deference to the Defense Personnel who guard our country unfazed by enormous difficulties”, the Bench said.
Terming the State Forum’s order as ‘not much reasoned’, the Bench observed, “Strangely the order of the MUDA that forfeits the entire hard earned money of a soldier who has guarded the country for thirty years is bereft of reason & justice. Sages of law have always said that legal action should be pregnant with human values such as mercy & compassion at least qua those whose acts do not have any elements of mala fide. After all, John Rawls rightly titled his book as ‘Justice as Fairness’.
Thus, allowing the Petition, the Bench quashed the impugned order of the State Forum and restored the order of the District Forum. The Bench further issued a Writ of Mandamus to the respondent-MUDA to execute & register a sale deed in favour of the petitioner and put him in peaceable possession of the site in question or an alternative site of equal dimension & value, within eight weeks.
Cause Title: Lt.Gen (Retd) BNBM Prasad v. The Commissioner, Mysore Urban Development Authority (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:4036-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Aruna Bhat, Ajay T.
Respondent: Advocates G M Ananda, Chandini S.
