MANDYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT vs SRI. P.C.CHANDRASHEKAR
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
®
CNR: KAHC010359302015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 43457 OF 2015 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
MANDYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BANNUR ROAD,
MANDYA-571401,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SRI. P. CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
S/O PUTTAPPA,
HITTANAHALLI KOPPALU,
KIRUGAVAL HOBLI,
MALAVALLI TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 424
2. STATE COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONS
WITH DISABILITY,
SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD BUILDING,
III FLOOR, NO.55, RESILDAR STREET,
SESHADRIPURAM,
BANGALORE-560 020
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
…RESPONDENTS
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
(BY SMT. JAYNA KOTHARI., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ROHAN KOTHARI AND
SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRA.V., ADVOCATES FOR R1;
SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI., AGA FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR SIMILAR WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION TO
QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN CASE
NO.02/2013-14/481 DATED 08.08.2013 AT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING
BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 15.09.2026, THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CAV ORDER
1. The petitioner, Mandya Urban Development Authority
(Hereinafter for brevity referred to as “ MUDA ”) is
before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
“A. Issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ or order
or direction to quash the order passed by the second
respondent in Case No.02/2013-14/481 dated
08.08.2013 at Annexure-E
B. Consequently dismiss the Complaint dated
26.06.2013 at Annexure-B;
C. Issue any other appropriate writ or order or
direction deemed fit in the circumstances of the case
in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. Respondent No.1 had approached the respondent
No.2- State Commissioner for Persons with
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
Disabilities, with a complaint dated 26.06.2013 for a
direction to allot a site on the ground that he is a
person with disabilities in the layout formed by the
MUDA of about 2,100 sites. Respondent No.2 issued
summons on 11.07.2013 under Section 62 of the
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995
(for short, ‘Disabilities Act, 1995’). The MUDA
submitted the statement of objections on
18.07.2013.
3. Respondent No.2 allowed the complaint filed by
respondent No.1 on 08.08.2013, holding that in
terms of Section 43 of the Disabilities Act, 1995, the
MUDA, while allotting sites, was required to reserve
not less than 3% of the total sites for persons with
disabilities. Such reservation not having been made,
the MUDA had violated Section 43, consequently
infringing the right of persons with disabilities such
as respondent No.1 and directed the MUDA authority
to allot a site, as also to reserve the required
percentage of sites to persons with disabilities. It is
challenging the same that the MUDA has approached
this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
4. Sri. T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for
MUDA, submitted that,
4.1. The objections filed by MUDA have not been
taken into consideration by respondent No.2.
MUDA had categorically stated that around
2,100 sites had been formed in Vivekananda
Nagar Layout, which had been allotted through
lottery to the persons belonging to various
categories in the year 2002. Insofar as persons
with disabilities are concerned, allotment had
been made at 2% reservation. Further,
respondent No.1 not having submitted any
application for allotment the same could not
have been considered.
4.2. His submission is also that the former office
bearers of MUDA having violated the applicable
provisions, the earlier Commissioner and case
workers were in judicial custody from
18.07.2013 and subsequently, the matter had
been entrusted to the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI), for investigation.
4.3. He submits that as per the applicable norms,
2% of the sites had been reserved for persons
with disabilities amounting to 42 sites. As
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
regards those 42 sites, only 11 persons had
applied who had been allotted the sites. Thus,
there is no violation of the 2% reservation in
allotment of sites for persons with disabilities.
4.4. He relies on Section 43 of the Disabilities Act,
1995 which is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
43. Schemes for preferential allotment of
land for certain purposes.– The appropriate
Governments and local authorities shall by
notification frame schemes in favour of persons
with disabilities, for the preferential allotment of
land at concessional rates of–
(a) house;
(b) setting up business;
(c) setting up of special recreational centres;
(d) establishment of special schools;
(e) establishment of research centres;
(f) establishment of factories by entrepreneurs
with disabilities.
4.5. In terms of Section 43, the appropriate
Government and Local Authorities are required
to, by notification, frame schemes in favour of
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
persons with disabilities for preferential
allotment of sites at concession rates, amongst
other things, including for the purpose of
setting up businesses, setting up special
recreation centres, establishing special schools,
research centres, factories by entrepreneurs
with disabilities, etc.
4.6. His further submission is that the scheme was
required to be formulated by the appropriate
Government. The MUDA is not the appropriate
Government. The appropriate Government
being the State Government, it was for the
State Government to have formulated the
scheme. The scheme as formulated provided
for 2% reservation; 42 sites had been reserved
and allotted to persons who had applied for the
sites. Section 43 does not provide for any
particular percentage of reservation or
preferential allotment. The same was to be as
per the scheme formulated by the appropriate
Government. The appropriate Government had
formulated a scheme for reservation of 2% of
the total number of sites formed/notified.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
4.7. He refers to Section 71 of the Karnataka Urban
Development Authorities Act, 1987 [for short
‘KUDA Act’] which is reproduced hereunder for
easy reference:
71. Power to make rules.- (1) The Government
may by notification make rules to carry out the
purposes of this Act.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the
generality of the foregoing power such rules may
provide for all or any of the following matters,
namely:-
(a) for the guidance of the Authority and persons
connected with the administration of this Act or in
cases not expressly provided for herein;
(b) the conditions of service of the Chairman and
other members of the Authority;
(c) the manner of appointment of committees and
the period of such appointment;
(d) the terms and conditions subject to which the
Authority may take up development scheme or
work and execute it;
(e) the particulars to be specified in the application
of the scheme;
(f) the restrictions, conditions and limitations
subject to which the Authority may lease, sell or
transfer movable or immovable property;
(g) regulating the allotment or sale by auction of
sites by the Authority;
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
(h) the manner of reconstitution of the Authority ;
(i) any other matter which has to be or may be
prescribed by rules.
4.8. He submits that it is the Government, which is
required to, by notification, make rules for
carrying out the purpose of the Act. He also
refers to Rules 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Urban
Development Authorities (Allotment of Sites)
Rules, 1991 [for short ‘KUDA Rules’], which are
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
3. Offer to site for allotment.- (1) Whenever
the Authority forms an extension or layout
according to any Scheme, the Authority may,
subject to the general or special orders of the
Government, offer any or all sites in such
extension or layout for allotment of site under
these rules.
(2) Due publicity shall be given in respect of the
sites for allotment specifying their location,
number, the last date for submission of
applications and such other particulars, as the
Commissioner may consider necessary, by affixing
a notice-on-Notice Board of the Office of the
Authority and also by publishing in daily
newspapers in English and Kannada language
having a wide circulation in the city.
4. Reservation of sites.- (1) The Authority may,
with prior approval of the Government, set apart
the sites in any area for allotment to any specified
class or specified class of persons as it may deem
necessary. In each category of sites so formed, the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
sites to be reserved so shall not exceed 10 percent
of the total number of sites in each of such
categories.
(2) Where sites are reserved under Sub-rule (1),
the procedure to be followed for allotment of such
sites shall be determined by the Authority subject
to the general or special orders of the
Government.
4.9. His submission is that the allotment of sites in
terms of Rule 3 and Rule 4 can be made only to
an applicant, who has made such an application
in terms of Rule 10 thereof. Rule 10 is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
10. Application.- (1) A person registered as
stated above shall apply in the prescribed Form II
for allotment of site along with the initial deposit of
10 percent of the notified cost of the site. The
initial deposit shall be 3 percent in the case of
persons applying for sites under the categories of
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Ex-service
men or family members of the deceased service
men and the members of the Armed Forces of the
Union.
(2) The applications shall be submitted in person
or sent by registered post so as to reach the office
of the Authority before the date and time fixed for
the receipt of such applications. Applications
received after the date and time fixed or which are
erroneous and incorrect shall be rejected.
4.10. He refers to Rule 13 which is reproduced
hereunder for easy reference;
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
13.
ೇಶನಗಳ ಹಂ ೆಾ ಅಾರರ ಆ ೕಗಳ-
(2)
ೇಶನವನು ಈ ೆಳನ ಧ ಪ"ವಗಗಳ #ೈ% ಹಂಚತಕದು*-
(ಐ ) ಅಂಗ ಕಲರು 2%
4.11. He submits that sub-rule (2) of Rule 13
provides for 2% reservation for persons with
disabilities in allotment of site. His submission
is that 2% of the sites have been reserved for
persons with disabilities. His submission is that
apart from the said 2% there is no other
scheme which has been formulated by the
appropriate Government, and it is only the 2%
reservation as provided therein which would be
applicable. He, therefore, submits that insofar
as the reservation of 2% sites that has been
made by MUDA, it has been allotted to those
who had applied, though 42 sites have been
reserved only 11 persons having been applied,
11 sites have been allotted to them.
Respondent No.1 not having submitted any
application as required, no allotment could be
made to him. He submits that for the purpose
of such allotment, various procedures are
required to be followed in terms of the
aforesaid Act and Rules. Without an application
being submitted, the question of compliance
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
with the KUDA Act and KUDA Rules would not
arise. Thus, he submits that respondent No.2
has committed a grave error by directing the
allotment of a site to respondent No.1, without
respondent No.1 having ever applied for such
allotment.
4.12. On these grounds he submits that the order
passed by respondent No.2 is required to be set
aside.
5. Smt. Jayna Kothari, the Senior Counsel appearing
respondent No.1, would submit that,
5.1. Respondent No.1 is a person with disability
having 80% locomotor disability and therefore,
comes within the definition in Section 2(t) of
the Disabilities Act, 1995. Section 2(t) is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
2(t) "Person with disability" means a person
suffering from not less than forty per cent. of any
disability as certified by a medical authority;
5.2. The basic minimum qualification being 40%
disability, respondent No.1 having 80%
locomotor disability, would satisfy the threshold
of Section 2(t) is her submission. In this
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
regard, she also refers to Section 2(r) of the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016,
which is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
2(r) “person with benchmark disability”
means a person with not less than forty per cent.
of a specified disability where specified disability
has not been defined in measurable terms and
includes a person with disability where specified
disability has been defined in measurable terms,
as certified by the certifying authority.
5.3. By referring to Section 2(r) her submission is
that a person with benchmark disability is a
person with not less than 40% of specified
disability, where specified disability has not
been defined in measurable terms, would
include a person with such disability as certified
by the Certifying Authority. Respondent No.1,
she submits, has obtained a disability certificate
certifying that he is a person with disability
having 80% locomotor disability; further, she
submits that Respondent No.1 is a social
activist working for rights of persons with
disabilities and has received District and State
Awards; she therefore submits that respondent
No.1 qualifies as a person with disability under
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
the Disabilities Act, 1995 and under the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 [for short
‘RPwD Act, 2016’].
5.4. She submits that exercising powers under
Section 73(1) of the Disabilities Act, 1995, a
notification had been issued on 09.11.2006
(w.e.f. 14.12.2006) amending the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of
Rights and Full Participation) (Karnataka)
Rules, 2003 by the Persons with Disabilities
(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and
Full Participation) [Karnataka Amendment]
Rules, 2006 inserting Chapter IVA, under
which Rule 28A (iii) provided for not less than
3% reservation for persons with disabilities in
allotment. Rule 28A is reproduced hereunder
for easy reference:
Rule - 28A. Benefit of persons with
disabilities.-
All the State Government Departments, Boards,
Corporations, Zilla Panchayats, Taluk Panchayats,
Town Panchayats, Gram Panchayats, Municipal
Corporations, Municipal Councils, Local Bodies,
Urban Development Authorities and other
Establishments of the State Government and other
aided institutions shall.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
(i) provide for 3% reservation in Groups 'A'
and 'B' posts and 5% reservation in Groups 'C and
'D' posts or in such ratio as specified by the State
Government from time to time in any Order,
Circular or Notification;
(ii) ensure that in all State Sector/District
Sector Schemes implemented by them not less
than 3% of the fund allocation in all poverty
alleviation schemes/development programmes,
welfare schemes, education, health and research
programmes including central and externally aided
schemes and projects, is spent on providing relief
to persons with disabilities;
(iii) ensure that when allotment of land is made
for the following purposes.
(a) House/site;
(b) Setting up of business;
(c) Setting up of special recreation centres;
(d) Establishment of special schools;
(e) Establishment of research centres;
(f) Establishment of factories by entrepreneurs
with disabilities:
(i) not less than 3% of the allottees are
persons with disabilities;
(ii) the rate charged to such persons is made
concessional.
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other
law for the time being in force a report in
compliance of clauses (i) to (iii) shall be furnished
at regular intervals to the Commissioner for
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
persons with disabilities for review and further
necessary direction.
5.5. She submits that though the MUDA claims that
2% reservation has been made, what was
required to be provided was 3% reservation,
which has not been made; therefore, there is a
violation of Rule 28A(iii).
5.6. Her submission is that respondent No.1 had
made an application on 22.08.2007 by making
payment of Rs.600/- for allotment of a site.
Despite such application having been made,
there is no allotment made, let alone, at a
concession rate and it is in that background
that respondent No.1 submitted the complaint
with respondent No.2. Summons having been
issued to the MUDA, MUDA had appeared and
made its submissions.
5.7. Respondent No.2 was of the opinion that the
submission made by the MUDA was
unsatisfactory and unsubstantiated and in
terms of Section 43 of the Disabilities Act, 1995
read with Rule 28A(iii) of the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
Rights and Full Participation) [Karnataka
Amendment] Rules, 2006, 3% of the sites not
having reserved thereby violating the rights of
persons with disabilities.
5.8. Respondent No. 2 directed the relevant
authorities to make 3% reservation for persons
with disabilities in the matter of allotment of
land at concessional rates for the specific uses.
The said order, she submits, is proper and
correct, and no fault can be found therewith.
5.9. She further relies upon Section 37 of the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
37. The appropriate Government and the local
authorities shall, by notification, make schemes in
favour of persons with benchmark disabilities, to
provide,—
(a) five per cent. reservation in allotment of
agricultural land and housing in all relevant
schemes and development programmes, with
appropriate priority to women with benchmark
disabilities;
(b) five per cent. reservation in all poverty
alleviation and various developmental schemes
with priority to women with benchmark disabilities;
(c) five per cent. reservation in allotment of
land on concessional rate, where such land is
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
to be used for the purpose of promoting
housing, shelter, setting up of occupation,
business, enterprise, recreation centres and
production centres.
5.10. By relying on Clause (c) of Section 37 of the
RPwD Act, 2016, her submission is that Rights
of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 now
requires a reservation of 5% to be made in
allotment of land at concessional rates. Thus,
the contention of the MUDA that 2% was
required to be reserved is contrary to Clause
(c) of Section 37 of the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016. She submits that the
contention of the MUDA that there is no
allotment made since 2002 and the application
of respondent No.1 having been made in the
year 2007 could not be considered since no
notification inviting application had been
published by the MUDA cannot be
countenanced in law or on facts. An application
for allotment having been made by respondent
No.1, sites being available, it was for the MUDA
to have allotted a site to respondent No.1.
5.11. Her submission is that under the amended Rule
13(2) of the Karnataka Urban Development
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
Authorities (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1991 as
amended on 12.02.2021, 3% of the sites have
to be reserved for persons with disabilities
amounting to 81, however, only 42 sites have
been reserved, out of which 11 allotments have
been made. Even if 42 sites were taken into
consideration, there are 31 sites still available
to be allotted for persons with disabilities and it
is for that reason that the application filed by
respondent No.1 ought to have been considered
even if the reservation was made at 2%.
However, her submission is that the reservation
initially was to be made at 3% and
subsequently at 5%, after the coming into force
of Clause (c) of Section 37 of the Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016.
5.12. As regards the matter pending with the CBI,
she submits that that was an aspect relating to
allotment of sites in the lottery system and not
in relation to sites to be allotted in favour of
persons with disabilities and as such that would
not come in the way of allotment of site to
respondent No.1.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
5.13. She relies on Sections 61 and 62 of the
Disabilities Act 1995 which are reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
61. Powers of Commissioner.-
The Commissioner within the State shall--
(a) co-ordinate with the departments of the State
Government for the programmes and schemes for
the benefit of persons with disabilities;
(b) monitor the utilisation of funds disbursed by
the State Government;
(c) take steps to safeguard the rights and facilities
made available to persons with disabilities;
(d) submit reports to the State Government on the
implementation of the Act at such intervals as that
Government may prescribe and forward a copy
thereof to the Chief Commissioner.
62. Commissioner to look into complaints
with respect to matters relating to
deprivation of rights of persons with
disabilities.-
Without prejudice to the provisions of section 61
the Commissioner may of his own motion or on the
application of any aggrieved person or otherwise
look into complaints with respect to matters
relating to--
(a) deprivation of rights of persons with
disabilities;
(b) non-implementation of laws, rules, bye-laws,
regulations, executive orders, guidelines or
instructions made or issued by the appropriate
Governments and the local authorities for the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
welfare and protection of rights of persons with
disabilities,
and take up the matter with the appropriate
authorities.
5.14. By relying on Sections 61 and 62, her
submission is that the Commissioner has the
powers to pass necessary orders in favour of
persons with disabilities when the rights of such
a person are adversely affected.
5.15. During the pendency of the matter, this Court
had called upon the MUDA and the State to
make their submission as regards the
reservation in allotment of sites in terms of
Clause (c) to Section 37 of the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, pursuant to
which several reports were submitted and
finally a notification had been issued mandating
reservation of 5% in allotment of sites for
persons with disabilities under the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
6. Heard Sri. T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel for the
MUDA, Smt. Jayna Kothari, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt. Saritha
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
Kulkarni, learned AGA appearing for respondent
Nos.2 and 3 and perused the papers.
7. The points that would arise for consideration are,
(i) Whether 2% reservation under Rule
13(2) of the KUDA Rules, 1991 or 3%
reservation under Rule 28A(iii) of the
Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and
Full Participation) (Karnataka) Rules,
2003 read with Section 43 of the
Disabilities Act, 1995, or the 5%
reservation under Section 37(c) of the
RPwD Act, 2016, applies to the
allotment of sites by the MUDA?
(ii) Whether a person with disabilities can
claim for allotment of site on the ground
that they qualify as person with
disabilities without having applied for
such allotment under the Karnataka
Urban Development Authorities Act,
1987 read with Karnataka Urban
Development Authorities (Allotment of
Sites) Rules, 1991 ?
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
8. The above points are answered as follows:
9. Answer to Point No. (i): Whether 2%
reservation under Rule 13(2) of the KUDA
Rules, 1991 or 3% reservation under Rule
28A(iii) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) (Karnataka) Rules, 2003 read
with Section 43 of the Disabilities Act, 1995, or
the 5% reservation under Section 37(c) of the
RPwD Act, 2016, applies to the allotment of
sites by the MUDA?
9.1. Sri T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel for the
MUDA, submitted that around 2,100 sites were
formed in Vivekananda Nagar Layout and
allotted by lottery in 2002. Of these, 42 sites
(2%) were reserved for persons with
disabilities. Only 11 persons applied, and all
received sites. He contended that the
reservation had therefore been complied with.
9.2. He submitted that Section 43 of the Disabilities
Act, 1995 requires the appropriate Government
to frame schemes for preferential allotment of
land but prescribes no percentage. In his
submission, the State Government is the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
appropriate Government and its scheme
provides for 2% reservation.
9.3. Relying on Section 71 of the KUDA Act and Rule
13(2) of the KUDA Rules, he submitted that the
applicable reservation was 2% and that no
other scheme had been framed by the
appropriate Government.
9.4. He also relied on Rule 4 of the KUDA Rules,
which permits the Authority to set apart sites
for a specified class of persons.
9.5. Smt Jayna Kothari, learned Senior Counsel for
Respondent No. 1, submitted that a notification
dated 09.11.2006, issued under Section 73(1)
of the Disabilities Act, 1995, inserted Chapter
IVA into the Karnataka Rules of 2003. Rule
28A(iii), she argued, requires at least 3%
reservation for persons with disabilities.
9.6. She contended that the MUDA’s 2% reservation
fell short of the 3% required by Rule 28A(iii),
and that Respondent No. 2 was justified in
rejecting the MUDA’s explanation.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
9.7. She also relied on Section 37(c) of the RPwD
Act, 2016, which provides for 5% reservation
when land is allotted at concessional rates.
9.8. During the pendency of this petition, the Court
sought the views of the MUDA and the State
Government on Section 37(c). After reports
were filed, a notification was issued on
18.04.2026 amending Rule 13(2) of the
Karnataka Urban Development (allotment of
sites) Rules 1991 increasing the reservation
percentage from 3% to 5% reservation in the
allotment of sites for persons with disabilities.
9.9. The issue is whether site allotments by MUDA
were subject to 2% reservation under Rule
13(2) of the KUDA Rules 1991, 3% under Rule
28A(iii) of the Karnataka Rules of 2003 read
with Section 43 of the Disabilities Act, 1995, or
5% under Section 37(c) of the RPwD Act, 2016
read with Rule 13(2) of the KUDA Rules, 1991
as amended on 18.04.2026.
9.10. The first provision relied on is Rule 13(2) of the
KUDA Rules, 1991. The relevant text, reads:
“13. Policies for selection of applicants for
allotment of sites—
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
(2) Sites shall be allotted among the following
categories:
(i) Persons with disabilities — 2%.”
9.11. It is on that basis that MUDA contends that 2%
reservation is to be provided. Respondent No.
1’s case is that the Rule was later amended to
provide 3%. The amendment relied on is dated
12.02.2021.
9.12. Respondent No. 1 paid Rs. 600 on 22.08.2007,
complained on 26.06.2013, and Respondent
No. 2 passed the impugned order on
08.08.2013. The 2021 amendment cannot,
without a legal basis for retrospective
operation, determine the obligations arising in
2007 or 2013.
9.13. The MUDA also relies on Section 71 of the
KUDA Act, which empowers the Government to
make rules to carry out the purposes of the
Act. Section 71(2)(g) specifically permits rules
regulating the allotment or sale by auction of
sites by the Authority.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
9.14. The next provision is Section 43 of the
Disabilities Act, 1995, which states:
“ 43. Schemes for preferential allotment of
land for certain purposes.— The appropriate
Governments and local authorities shall, by
notification, frame schemes in favour of persons
with disabilities for the preferential allotment of
land at concessional rates for housing, setting up
businesses, special recreational centres, special
schools, research centres and factories established
by entrepreneurs with disabilities.”
9.15. Section 43 requires the appropriate
Governments and local authorities to frame, by
notification, schemes for preferential allotment
of land at concessional rates for the listed
purposes.
9.16. Section 37(c) of the RPwD Act, 2016 provides
for 5% reservation in the allotment of land at
concessional rates for housing, shelter,
occupation, business, enterprise, recreation
centres and production centres. Section 37 also
addresses reservation in agricultural land,
housing and development schemes.
9.17. Section 37 requires the appropriate
Government and local authorities to notify
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
schemes for persons with benchmark
disabilities.
9.18. The RPwD Act was enacted in 2016, after the
impugned order of 08.08.2013. Section 37(c)
therefore cannot determine whether that order
was lawful when made. Respondent No. 1
accepts that the 5% requirement arose later.
9.19. This Court answers Point No. (i) by holding that
9.19.1. The reservation in allotment of sites
required to be made by MUDA was 2%
until 14.12.2006
9.19.2. From 14.12.2006 the reservation was to
be made at 3% on the notification issued
under Section 73(1) of the Disabilities
Act, 1995, inserting Chapter IVA into the
Karnataka Rules of 2003. Rule 28A(iii)
requiring 3% reservation.
9.19.3. Though Section 37(c) of the RPwD Act,
2016 provides for 5% reservation, it
requires the appropriate Government
and the local authorities to issue
notifications, making schemes in favour
of persons with benchmark disabilities.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
The said notification was issued on
18.04.2026, hence it is from 18.04.2026
that the reservation is 5%.
10. Answer to Point No.(ii): Whether a person with
disabilities can claim for allotment of site on
the ground that they qualify as person with
disabilities without applying for such allotment
under the Karnataka Urban Development
Authorities Act, 1987 read with Karnataka
Urban Development Authorities (Allotment of
Sites) Rules, 1991 ?
10.1. Sri. T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel for the
MUDA, submitted that Respondent No.2 had
failed to consider the MUDA’s objections. The
MUDA stated that approximately 2,100 sites
had been formed and allotted by lottery in
2002, with 2% reserved for persons with
disabilities. Respondent No.1 had not submitted
an application and, therefore, his claim could
not have been considered.
10.2. It was further submitted that former office
bearers of the MUDA had violated the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
applicable provisions. The former Commissioner
and the case workers had been in judicial
custody since 18.07.2013, and the matter had
subsequently been handed over to the CBI for
investigation.
10.3. Of the 42 sites reserved for persons with
disabilities, only 11 persons had applied, and all
11 had been allotted sites. Learned counsel
submitted that, under Rules 3 and 4 of the
KUDA Rules, allotment could be made only to a
person who had applied in accordance with Rule
10. In the absence of an application, the
prescribed procedure for allotment under the
KUDA Act and Rules could not be followed.
Respondent No.2 had, therefore, erred in
directing the allotment of a site to Respondent
No.1, who had not applied under the prescribed
procedure. On these grounds, the order of
Respondent No.2 ought to be set aside.
10.4. Smt. Jayna Kothari, learned Senior Counsel for
Respondent No.1, submitted that Respondent
No.1 is a person with 80% locomotor disability
and therefore fell within the definition of
“person with disability” under Section 2(t) of
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 30 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
the Disabilities Act, 1995, which prescribed a
minimum disability of 40%. She further
submitted that, having obtained a disability
certificate, Respondent No.1 also qualified as a
person with benchmark disability under Section
2(r) of the RPwD Act, 2016. She added that he
was a social activist working for the rights of
persons with disabilities and had received
District and State awards.
10.5. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that
Respondent No.1 had applied for a site on
22.08.2007 by paying Rs.600/-. However, no
site had been allotted to him, even at a
concessional rate. He had, therefore,
approached Respondent No.2 by filing a
complaint. Respondent No.2 had found the
MUDA’s explanation unsatisfactory and
unsupported by evidence. Accordingly, the
order was justified.
10.6. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that
the MUDA’s contention that no sites had been
allotted after 2002 and that Respondent No.1’s
application could not be considered because no
notification inviting applications had been
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 31 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
issued was untenable. According to her, once
Respondent No.1 had applied and sites were
available, the MUDA ought to have allotted a
site to him.
10.7. She also submitted that the CBI investigation
concerned allotments made by lottery and did
not concern sites reserved for persons with
disabilities. Therefore, the investigation did not
prevent the MUDA from allotting a site to
Respondent No.1.
10.8. Finally, learned Senior Counsel relied on
Sections 61 and 62 of the Disabilities Act,
1995, and submitted that these provisions
empowered the Commissioner to pass
appropriate orders where the rights of persons
with disabilities had been adversely affected.
10.9. This Point for consideration has two parts. 1)
Can a person claim a site simply because he
qualifies as a person with disabilities? 2) does
he first have to apply for it under the KUDA Act
read with the KUDA Rules? The second part
answers the first, so the two are taken
together.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 32 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
10.10. The facts that matter are:
10.10.1. Respondent No.1 is a person with 80%
locomotor disability.
10.10.2. The MUDA offered sites in the
Vivekananda Nagar Layout by a
notification issued in 2002, and sites
came to be allotted by lottery. Of the 42
sites reserved for persons with
disabilities, 11 went to the 11 persons
with disabilities who applied.
10.10.3. On 22.08.2007 Respondent No.1 paid
Rs.600/- to the MUDA. The MUDA says
no application was made. Respondent
No.1 contends that the payment was an
application.
10.10.4. MUDA contends that an application for
allotment of site has to be made on a
notification inviting applications.
Respondent No.1 contends that payment
of 2007 was itself an application, and
that the absence of a notification should
not count against him.
10.10.5. No site was allotted to Respondent No.1.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 33 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
10.11. Smt. Jayna Kothari began with the status of
Respondent No.1. The two definitions she relied
on reads:
Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995-
2(t) " Person with disability " means a person
suffering from not less than forty per cent. of
any disability as certified by a medical
authority;
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016-
2(r) “ person with benchmark disability ” means
a person with not less than forty per cent. of a
specified disability where specified disability has
not been defined in measurable terms and includes
a person with disability where specified disability
has been defined in measurable terms, as
certified by the certifying authority.
10.12. A person with at least 40% disability, certified
by the proper authority, is a person with
disability under the 1995 Act and a person with
benchmark disability under the RPwD Act,
2016. Respondent No.1 has 80% locomotor
disability backed by a certificate, which that
MUDA does not contest. Therefore, he qualifies
under both definitions.
10.13. Rule 3 of the KUDA Rules deals with the offer of
sites:
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 34 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
3. Offer to site for allotment.- (1) Whenever
the Authority forms an extension or layout
according to any Scheme, the Authority may,
subject to the general or special orders of the
Government, offer any or all sites in such
extension or layout for allotment of site
under these rules.
(2) Due publicity shall be given in respect of
the sites for allotment specifying their location,
number, the last date for submission of
applications and such other particulars, as the
Commissioner may consider necessary, by
affixing a notice-on-Notice Board of the Office
of the Authority and also by publishing in daily
newspapers in English and Kannada language
having a wide circulation in the city .
10.14. When the MUDA offers any or all sites in such
extension or layout for allotment of site under
the rules, due publicity shall be given,
specifying their location, number, the last date
for submission of applications, by affixing a
notice, on the Notice Board and also by
publishing in daily newspapers in English and
Kannada language having a wide circulation in
the city. The offer and the publicity come first,
and applications come in answer to them.
10.15. Rule 10 deals with the application itself:
10. Application .-(1) A person registered as
stated above shall apply in the prescribed
Form II for allotment of site along with the
initial deposit of 10 percent of the notified
cost of the site. The initial deposit shall be 3
percent in the case of persons applying for sites
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 35 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
under the categories of Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, Ex-service men or family
members of the deceased service men and the
members of the Armed Forces of the Union.
(2) The applications shall be submitted in person
or sent by registered post so as to reach the
office of the Authority before the date and
time fixed for the receipt of such
applications. Applications received after the date
and time fixed or which are erroneous and
incorrect shall be rejected.
10.16. What this means is that a registered person
must then apply, in the prescribed form and
with the initial deposit, and the application
must reach the Authority before the date and
time fixed. Late or faulty applications are
rejected. Four things follow from the text.
10.17. First, registration and application are two
separate steps. The words “A person registered
as stated above shall apply” show that
registration comes first and application after it.
Rule 10(1) itself makes it clear that being
registered is not the same as having applied. If
registration were already an application, the
words “shall apply” would have nothing left to
do.
10.18. Second, an application has a set form, Form II,
and an initial deposit worked out as a
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 36 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
percentage of the notified cost of the site. The
cost of a site is notified when sites are offered
under Rule 3.
10.19. Third, sub-rule (2) requires that the
applications to reach the Authority “before the
date and time fixed for the receipt of such
applications”. A date and time can be fixed only
by a notice calling for applications, which is the
notice Rule 3(2) requires, with “the last date for
submission of applications”. The two Rules fit
together. No notice means no last date, and
with no last date there can be no application in
terms of sub-rule (2).
10.20. Fourth, the cost of non-compliance with the
conditions of the notification would result in the
application being labelled as an incorrect
application which “shall be rejected”. A Rule
this strict about the form and timing of an
application cannot be read to treat an earlier
payment on registration as an application.
10.21. Applying these Rules, this Court holds that the
payment of Rs.600/- on 22.08.2007 was
merely registration with the MUDA and not an
application for allotment. It was not made in
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 37 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
answer to any notice, because there was none.
It is not shown to have been on Form II, and it
was not the initial deposit that Rule 10(1)
requires. Respondent No.1's contention that
registration with the MUDA was itself an
application is therefore not accepted.
10.22. The MUDA also relied on Rule 4(2), set out in
paragraph 4.8. Where sites are reserved for a
class, the Authority decides the procedure for
allotting them, subject to Government orders. A
reservation, in other words, does not do away
with procedure, and reserved sites are filled
through a process like any other. The category
share in Rule 13(2) works the same way. It
fixes how many sites go to persons with
disabilities, and the Rules then expect persons
with disabilities to apply for them. Neither Rules
gives a registered person the right to be
handed a reserved site without applying.
10.23. The most pressing argument for Respondent
No.1 is that 31 reserved sites lie unallotted, so
one could have been given to him. The same
cannot be accepted for the following three
reasons.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 38 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
10.23.1. Vacant reserved sites shows that those
sites are available. They do not show
that Respondent No.1 is the person
entitled to one. Under Rule 10 it is the
application that is required to be
considered for determining the rights to
the claimant.
10.23.2. Several persons with disabilities may
have wanted a site. Rule 3(2) requires
public notice precisely so that every
eligible person gets the same chance to
apply. Competing applicants from the
disability category are to be ranked as
per Rule 4(2) which leaves the procedure
to the MUDA, subject to Government
orders. To hand a site, without notice, to
one person who registered would shut
out other persons with disabilities who
never had the chance to apply. The
Commissioner ought not have done that
and a Court should not do that on the
complaint of one person.
10.23.3. On the MUDA's account, only 11 persons
applied for 42 sites, and all 11 were
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 39 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
allotted sites. The rest of the sites
remained vacant because no more
persons applied in 2002, and not
because anyone was turned away.
Respondent No.1 was not turned away
either, since nothing had been offered
for him to apply for.
10.24. Smt. Jayna Kothari's strongest contention is
that the MUDA cannot rely on its own failure to
issue a notification after 2002. There is real
force in the concern behind it, and this Court
has weighed it with care. The record indicates
that there being violation of applicable
provisions, an investigation by CBI was taken
up and the MUDA is interdicted form issuing
any notification, many of the officers of MUDA
being in Judicial Custody.
10.25. Respondent No.1 contends that CBI
investigation concerned allotments by lottery
and not sites for persons with disabilities. This
Court accepts that the investigation was about
allotments by lottery. But the investigation has
brought an embargo on the MUDA, the MUDA
cannot issue any notification or make any
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 40 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
allotment of sites to anyone while the
investigation is pending. The bar falls on the
MUDA's power to notify and allot. It does not
depend on who the allottee would be or which
category of site. So even today no fresh
notification can be issued, and a direction to
allot a site to Respondent No.1 would ask the
MUDA to do what it cannot lawfully do now and
would again be a violation of the Rules.
10.26. This Court does not examine the investigation
itself. It makes no finding against any person,
including the former office bearers and the
earlier Commissioner mentioned by Sri. T.P.
Vivekananda. All such aspects are left open to
be considered by the investigating agency and
the competent court.
10.27. The investigation is mentioned only as the
background to the embargo, and it is no reason
either to grant or to refuse relief to Respondent
No.1.
10.28. Respondent No.2 acted under Sections 61 and
62 of the Disabilities Act, 1995, and Smt. Jayna
Kothari relies on them. Section 61 reads as
under:
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 41 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
61. Powers of Commissioner.- The
Commissioner within the State shall--
(a) co-ordinate with the departments of the State
Government for the programmes and schemes for
the benefit of persons with disabilities;
(b) monitor the utilisation of funds disbursed by
the State Government;
(c) take steps to safeguard the rights and
facilities made available to persons with
disabilities;
(d) submit reports to the State Government on the
implementation of the Act at such intervals as that
Government may prescribe and forward a copy
thereof to the Chief Commissioner.
10.29. Section 62 reads as under:
62. Commissioner to look into complaints
with respect to matters relating to
deprivation of rights of persons with
disabilities.- Without prejudice to the provisions
of section 61 the Commissioner may of his own
motion or on the application of any aggrieved
person or otherwise look into complaints with
respect to matters relating to--
(a) deprivation of rights of persons with
disabilities;
(b) non-implementation of laws, rules, bye-laws,
regulations, executive orders, guidelines or
instructions made or issued by the appropriate
Governments and the local authorities for the
welfare and protection of rights of persons with
disabilities,
and take up the matter with the appropriate
authorities.
10.30. Section 61 mandates the Commissioner to
coordinate, monitor, safeguard rights and
report. Section 62 allows the Commissioner
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 42 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
look into complaints about the deprivation of
rights, or about laws and rules for persons with
disabilities not being carried out, and then take
the matter up with the appropriate authorities.
Three points follow.
10.30.1. The words of Section 62 gives the
Commissioner the job of looking into
complaints and taking the matter up
with the authorities concerned. They do
not say that the Commissioner may
himself allot property, or order a
statutory authority to give a particular
site to a particular person.
10.30.2. The duty of the Commissioner is to
safeguard the rights the law provides for
persons with disabilities. A person's right
to be considered for allotment of site
under the KUDA Rules comes into being
only when he applies in response to a
notification, and until then there is no
right in respect of a site for the
Commissioner to safeguard. An order to
allot a site outside of the Rules would
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 43 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
not protect a right. It would create one
the law does not provide for.
10.30.3. Smt. Jayna Kothari submits that the
Commissioner may pass necessary
orders in favour of persons with
disabilities whose rights are adversely
affected. That is accepted only in the
sense that he may look into a complaint
and take the matter up with the
authorities. It is not accepted as a power
to override the KUDA Act and Rules.
10.31. The KUDA Act and Rules bind the MUDA.
Section 71(2)(g), extracted above allows rules
“regulating the allotment or sale by auction of
sites by the Authority”. Rules 3, 4 and 10 are
the rules on the allotment of sites by the
Authority. A direction that the MUDA allot a site
to a person who has not followed such
procedure runs against the Act and the Rules,
and neither Section 61 nor Section 62 can be
used to give it.
10.32. Two remaining points, one from each side, can
be taken together. The MUDA says its
objections were not considered, while
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 44 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
Respondent No.1 says Respondent No.2 found
the MUDA's stand unsatisfactory and
unsubstantiated. This Court need not decide
who is right.
10.33. The objections raised a point of law: no
application had been made, and the Rules
require one. That point had to be met, and on
the Rules it could not be answered in favour of
Respondent No.1. Whether the objections were
looked at closely or not, the order cannot
stand.
10.34. For these reasons the direction of Respondent
No.2 to allot a site to Respondent No.1 could
not have been made. Respondent No.1 qualifies
as a person with disabilities, but he did not
apply as the Rules require, there was no
notification he could have answered by applying
to, and the MUDA cannot now lawfully issue a
notification or allot any site. Sections 61 and 62
cannot be used to circumvent the procedure
laid down by the Rules.
10.35. This finding decides the relief. The complaint
sought for a direction to allot a site. That relief
cannot be granted without an application, so
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 45 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
the complaint must be dismissed. It would still
be harsh to treat the payment and registration
of 22.08.2007 as if they had never happened.
Respondent No.1 has a substantial disability,
and the registration shows he came forward in
2007. He is free to apply when the MUDA
issues a notification for allotment, and the
MUDA must then take into account his seniority
in terms of his registration. This Court does not
direct the MUDA to issue a notification, since
the embargo noted above stands in the way in
any case. Nor does it direct the allotment of
any site.
10.36. This court answers Point No. (ii) by holding that
a person with disabilities cannot claim the
allotment of a site from the MUDA only because
he qualifies as a person with disabilities. Under
the KUDA Act read with the KUDA Rules he
must apply for it, in the prescribed form and in
answer to a notification calling for applications.
Registration on payment of Rs.600/- is not an
application.
11. Answer to Point No.(iii): What Order?
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
- 46 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59899
WP No. 43457 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010359302015
11.1. For the reasons given above, this Court
passes the following:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed .
(ii) The order passed by Respondent No.2 in Case
No.02/2013-14/481 dated 08.08.2013 at
Annexure-E is quashed. This includes the
direction to allot a site to Respondent No.1 and
the direction to reserve the required
percentage.
(iii) Consequently, the Complaint dated 26.06.2013
at Annexure-B is dismissed.
(iv) Liberty is reserved to Respondent No.1 to apply
for allotment as and when a notification is
issued for such allotment by the MUDA.
(v) While considering the application of Respondent
No.1, the MUDA shall take into account the
seniority of Respondent No.1 in terms of the
registration made by him on 22.08.2007.
This Court has been assisted by Mr. Sourav, Law
Clerk, in the formulation of the Judgement.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:43, Bengaluru
Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
LN, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65