Karnataka HC Quashes Order To Give 80%-Disabled Man A MUDA Site: ₹600 Registration Wasn’t An Application; MUDA Must Consider His 2007 Seniority If He Applies

Mandya Urban Development Authority (MUDA) formed approximately 2,100 sites in Vivekananda Nagar Layout and allotted them by lottery in 2002.

MUDA stated that 42 sites were reserved for persons with disabilities and that the 11 applicants in that category received sites.

Respondent No. 1, who had an 80% locomotor disability, paid Rs. 600 to MUDA on 22 August 2007; he claimed this was an application for a site, while MUDA maintained it was only registration and that he had not applied in response to a notification.

On his complaint, the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities directed MUDA to allot him a site and reserve the prescribed percentage of sites. MUDA challenged that order by writ petition.

Section 43 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 requires appropriate Governments and local authorities to frame schemes for preferential allotment of land at concessional rates; Rule 28A(iii) of the Karnataka Rules, 2003 required at least 3% reservation from 14 December 2006.

Section 37(c) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 provides for 5% reservation in specified concessional land allotments, which the Court held applied from the notification issued on 18 April 2026.

Under Rules 3 and 10 of the 1991 KUDA Rules, allotment requires public notice and an application in the prescribed Form II, submitted within the specified period; reservation does not dispense with that process.

Sections 61 and 62 of the 1995 Act empower the Commissioner to safeguard rights, investigate complaints and take matters up with the authorities, but do not authorise the Commissioner to allot a particular site or override the statutory allotment procedure.

The Court held that the applicable reservation was 3% when the Commissioner made the impugned order in 2013: the 2021 amendment and the 2016 Act could not retrospectively determine the obligations at issue, while the 5% requirement applied only from the 2026 notification.

Although Respondent No. 1 qualified as a person with disabilities, his 2007 payment was not an application under Rule 10: it was not shown to be on Form II, was not made in response to a notice, and was not the required initial deposit calculated by reference to the notified site cost.

The availability of unallotted reserved sites did not entitle him to one without the application process, which also protects other eligible applicants’ opportunity to compete.

The Commissioner could not use Sections 61 or 62 to direct an individual allotment contrary to the KUDA Rules.

It allowed the writ petition, quashed the Commissioner’s order and dismissed the complaint.

Respondent No. 1 was left at liberty to apply if MUDA issues a future allotment notification, and MUDA was directed to take his 22 August 2007 registration into account when considering his seniority.