Failure to pay within stipulated and extended deadlines bars a belated claim to site allotment.

MUDA allotted the petitioner, under a scheme for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Site No. 902 in Lal Bahadur Shastri Nagar, Mysuru, for ₹3,91,000. After crediting her initial payment of ₹11,730, the balance was payable within 90 days of receipt of the allotment letter; the petitioner received that letter on 9 October 2007.

On her request for more time, MUDA issued an endorsement dated 28 January 2008 requiring payment of the balance with 18% interest within 30 days. A further opportunity was given by endorsement dated 13 November 2008, but the petitioner did not pay.

She filed this petition in 2016, seeking to quash the 2008 endorsement and to compel MUDA to complete the allotment upon payment of the balance with reasonable interest. She attributed the delay to financial hardship and illness in her family.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to further time or a direction compelling MUDA to complete the allotment despite failing to pay within the stipulated period and the extensions granted

2. Whether the petition, filed nearly eight years after the challenged endorsement, was maintainable in light of the petitioner’s delay and lack of diligence

The Court referred to the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites) Rules, 1991, noting that the Rules provide no basis for further extension of the payment period; it also cited Rule 13(1), under which the allottee must pay the sital value and the authority may allow a further period, not exceeding 60 days, as a final opportunity with additional interest.

Relying on V. Chinnabai v. Mysore Urban Development Authority, ILR 2013 KAR 5119, the Court reiterated that relief is not available to a litigant who sleeps over her rights and fails to act diligently.

It also relied on the authorities quoted in The Commissioner, Bengaluru Development Authority v. T. Seetharamappa (Dead) through LRs, SLP(C) Nos. 13871–13872 of 2021 and connected matters, including Bangalore Development Authority v. Gundappa, Civil Appeal No. 2884 of 2022: failure to pay within the stipulated period defeats the allottee’s claim to the site or an alternative site, and prolonged inaction is not justified.

The petitioner did not pay the balance within the original 90-day period, or within either of the two later opportunities given by MUDA. The Court considered the allotment to have been offered at a subsidised price and found that the petitioner had not shown sufficient diligence in securing payment.

Her husband’s death in 2016 did not explain the failure to pay in 2007–08, and her asserted financial and family difficulties did not establish a legal entitlement to further extensions.

The Court also treated the nearly eight-year delay in challenging the endorsement as an additional reason to refuse relief.

Finding the petition lacking in merit, it dismissed the writ petition.