Two Market-Plot Buyers Who Never Built Shops Lose 16-Year-Late Challenge To Order Directing Cancellation Steps: Karnataka HC

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to relief against the 2008 order despite having filed the writ petition after a delay of more than 16 years.

The court held

The High Court rejected the writ petition as devoid of merit.

It also directed

It denied the requested relief against the impugned order and the requested mandamus permitting construction on Plot No. 43.

01Facts

The petitioners challenged a 30 December 2008 order concerning Plot No. 43 in the Aurad-B Market Yard, which directed the Joint Director to take steps to cancel sale deeds of allottees who had not constructed shops on their plots.

p. 6

The petitioners’ plot had been allotted to them, and the respondents executed a registered sale deed on 30 April 1994; the local body entered the petitioners as khatedars and collected property taxes.

p. 6

Clause 2 of the sale deed required construction of a shop-cum-godown within two years and permitted the vendor, upon default, to cancel the sale deed, recover possession, and resell the site.

p. 7

No construction had been undertaken by the time of the impugned order or during the pendency of the writ petition.

p. 8

The petition was filed in 2024, more than 16 years after the impugned order.

p. 8

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to relief against the 2008 order despite having filed the writ petition after a delay of more than 16 years.

p. 8

ii.2. Whether the petitioners’ failure to construct within the period specified in the sale deed permitted the Market Committee to proceed with cancellation of the sale deed and recovery of the plot.

pp. 7–9

iii.3. Whether the decision in Devidas v. State of Karnataka and Others applied to the petitioners’ case.

pp. 9–10

03Law Applied

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to issue writs and exercise supervisory jurisdiction, but relief may be refused where a petitioner has delayed unduly in approaching the Court.

p. 2, 8

The sale deed’s express construction condition required construction within two years and provided for cancellation, recovery of possession, and resale in the event of default.

p. 7

Relying on Surykanth v. State of Karnataka and Others, the Court applied the principle that a writ petition may be rejected for delay and laches.

p. 8

It also relied on the Division Bench decision in M/s. Sri Venkataram and Co., Shimoga City v. State of Karnataka and Others, which it understood to recognize the Market Committee’s power to cancel the sale deed and take possession of the allotted property.

p. 9

The Court distinguished Devidas v. State of Karnataka and Others because that case concerned failure to pay the balance amount, not failure to construct on the allotted site.

pp. 9–10

04Reasoning

The petitioners had not complied with the sale deed’s two-year construction requirement, and the plot remained undeveloped even after the 2008 order and throughout the writ proceedings.

pp. 7–8

The Court further found that the petitioners had waited more than 16 years to challenge the order, making the petition liable to fail for delay and laches.

p. 8

It considered the Market Committee’s cancellation and repossession powers recognized in M/s. Sri Venkataram and found Devidas inapplicable because it involved non-payment rather than non-construction.

pp. 9–10

In these circumstances, the Court found no basis to grant relief.

p. 9