Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NO.2648 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP © No.18231 of 2011)

J. Sundramma           ….Appellant(s)   

Versus

State of Karnataka & Anr.                         .…Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Leave granted.

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 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 application for allotment of the plot in  

her name. This application was accepted on 5th March,1998 and the  

1

Page 2

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  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, 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  

extension  of  time  through  application  dated  8th August,  2006.  

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  appellant  was  granted  the  site  on  

28th August, 1998. It was noticed that “the sale consideration of the  

2

Page 3

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 has not paid the remaining sale 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.  

The  appellant  challenged  the  aforesaid  order  dated  

7th November, 2006 by filing Writ Petition No.4995 of 2010 (LB-RES).  

The Writ  Petition was, however,  dismissed on the ground that  the  

appellant had not shown due diligence in making the payments, as  

required under the allotment order. It  was also noticed that eleven  

years had elapsed since the allotment was made and, therefore, the  

appellant could not claim any equity in her favour also. The appellant  

challenged the aforesaid order of dismissal of the writ petition by filing  

a  Writ  Appeal  No.901  of  2010  (LB-RES)  which  has  also  been  

dismissed by the impugned order dated 17th January,  2011. While  

dismissing the writ appeal, the High Court observed that since the  

appellant was guilty of laches inasmuch as the order of cancellation  

dated 7th November, 2006 was challenged in the writ petition in the  

3

Page 4

year 2010, she is not entitled to any relief. The claim made by the  

appellant  that  she  belongs  to  backward  community,  was  also  

rejected. It was noticed that the original allotment had been made in  

favour of her husband as a general category applicant and not as a  

person  belonging  to  backward  community.  The  aforesaid  order  is  

challenged by the appellant by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)  

No.18231 of 2011 giving rise to the present Civil Appeal.  

Mr. M.C.Dhingra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant  

submitted  that  the  appellant  is  an  illiterate  widow with  two  minor  

children and, therefore, the High Court erred in not granting her relief  

in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the  

Constitution of India.

Mr.  P.Vishwanatha Shetty,  learned senior  counsel  appearing  

for  respondent  No.2-Mysore  Urban  Development  Authority  that  in  

matters  of  allotment  of  plots,  the  relief  cannot  be  granted  on  

compassionate grounds, as the allotment is governed by the strict  

rules  and  procedures  and,  therefore,  no  relief  could  have  been  

granted to the appellant.

According to the strict  letter  of  the law, Mr.  Shetty would be  

right  in  his  submission  that  respondent  No.2  did  not  have  any  

4

Page 5

discretion either to extend the time for payment or to regularize the  

allotment which had been initially made in favour of the husband of  

the appellant. Therefore, the decision rendered by the learned Single  

Judge,  as confirmed by the Division Bench,  cannot  be said to be  

legally erroneous. We, however, also cannot ignore the submission of  

Mr. Dhingra that the appellant is an illiterate widow and has two minor  

children. This apart, Mr. Dhingra pointed out that the site which was  

allotted to her is still available and can be given to the appellant.  

In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and,  

purely in the interest of justice on humanitarian grounds, in exercise  

of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we  

direct that the site bearing No.7119 measuring 6 meters x 9 meters in  

Vijayanagar,  4th Stage,  2nd Phase,  Mysore,  which  was  originally  

allotted to the husband of the appellant and subsequently allotted to  

her, be regularized and registered in the name of the appellant. She  

will, however, make payment of the balance amount along with 18%  

interest from the due date. Let the amount be paid within a period of  

three months from today. The possession of the site will be handed  

over to her on payment of the entire amount.

5

Page 6

It is made clear that since this order has been passed purely on  

humanitarian grounds, it shall not be treated as a precedent in any  

other  similar  matter  which  may  have  been  decided  or  is  pending  

before respondent No.2.

The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.    

  ………………………….J.     [Surinder Singh Nijjar]

  ……………………….….J.    [Pinaki Chandra Ghose]

New Delhi; March 21, 2013.

6