J. SUNDRAMMA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

Citation: [2013] 2 S.C.R. 453 · Decided: 21-03-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S. NIJJAR, PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 2 S.C.R. 453 
J. SUNDRAMMA 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2648 of 2013) 
MARCH 21, 2013. 
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND 
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] 
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: 
Art.142 - Allotment of plot cancelled for deficiency in 
payment - Stand of allottee that being an illiterate widow, she 
could not notice the amount that remained to be paid - Held: 
A 
B 
c 
It may be that the Development Authority did not have any 
discretion either to extend the time for payment or to 
0 
regularize the allotment which had been initially made in 
favour of husband of appellant - Therefore, decision rendered 
by Single Judge, as confirmed by Division Bench of High 
Court cannot be said to be legally erroneous - However, it also 
cannot be ignored that appellant is an illiterate widow and has E 
two minor children - This apart, it has been pointed out that 
the site which was allotted to her is still available and can be 
given to her - In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of 
the case, and, purely in the interest of justice on humanitarian 
grounds, in exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 142 of the 
Constitution, it is directed that the site which was originally 
F 
allotted to appellant's husband and subsequently allotted to 
her, be regularized and registered in her name - She will, 
however, make payment of balance amount along with 18% 
interest from due date. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
2648 of 2013. 
From the Judgment and order dated 17.01.2011 of the 
G 
453 
H 
454 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2013) 2 S.C.R. 
A High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in WA No. 901 of 2010. 
B 
c 
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, M.C. Dhingra, D.L. Chidananda, 
Gaurav Dhingra, Anitha Shenoy, Sharan Thakur, Vijay Kumar 
Paradesi and Dr. Sushi! Balwada for the appearing parties. 
The following order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
2. Leave granted. 
3. The appellant is the widow of the original applicant, S. 
Ramakrishna, who was allotted a site bearing No. 7119 
measuring 6 meters x 9 meters in Vijayanagar, 4th Stage, 2nd 
D Phase, Mysore, by the Mysore Urban Development Authority, 
under general category. The allottee made part payment of the 
consideration amount, however, the payment was not made 
within the stipulated time. The husband, however, passed away 
on 25th May, 1994, as a result of which the appellant made an 
E application for allotment of the plot in her name. This application 
was accepted on 5th March, 1998 and the plot was allotted in 
the name of the appellant. The total price of the site was fixed 
at Rs.10,000/-. The appellant deposited Rs.1157/- along with 
the application and Rs.1500/- within the stipulated fifteen days 
F of receipt of the allotment letter. She was to pay Rs. 7343/-
within ninety days from the date of the issuance of the grant 
certificate. By mistake, being illiterate, she deposited only 
Rs.5000/-, leaving a sum of Rs.2343/- unpaid. The Mysore 
Urban Development Authority issued a notice on 19th January, 
G 2005 indicating that the total price of the site is Rs.10,000/-, 
out of which the allottee had paid only Rs.7657/-, thus leaving 
a balance, to be paid, of Rs.2343/-. She was directed to give 
proof of payment within 15 days of the receipt of the show cause 
notice in case the entire consideration amount has been paid. 
It appears that the appellant made an application seeking 
H 
J. SUNDRAMMA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 
455 
extension of time through application dated 8th August, 2006. 
A 
However, by order dated 7th November, 2006, the aforesaid 
request of the appellant was rejected and the allotment made 
in her name was cancelled. Whilst rejecting the claim of the 
appellant, the respondent - Mysore Urban Development 
Authority notices that after the death of the husband. the 
B 
appellant was granted the site on 28th August, 1998. It was 
noticed that "the sale consideration of the said site is 
Rs.10,000/-, out of the sale consideration, she paid total amount 
of Rs.7657/- (Rupees seven thousand six hundred and fifty 
seven only) but she bas not paid the remaining sale c 
consideration of Rs.2343/- (Rupees two thousand three hundred 
and forty three only) till this day, therefore, now there is no 
provision to receive the sale consideration of the granted site". 
On the basis of the above, the site allotted to the appellant was 
cancelled. 
D 
4. The appellant challenged the aforesaid order dated 7th 
No

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.