Rs 600 paid in 2007 was registration, not an application: Karnataka HC quashes MUDA disability site order
Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities had no power under Sections 61 and 62 of the 1995 Act to order the Mandya Urban Development Authority to hand a reserved site to a man who had only registered and never applied against a notification, while fixing the reservation for persons with disabilities at 2 per cent till December 2006, 3 per cent thereafter and 5 per cent from April 2026.
A man with 80 per cent locomotor disability paid ₹600 to the Mandya Urban Development Authority in 2007 and, six years later, persuaded the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities to order the authority to give him a site. He has now lost that order in the Karnataka High Court.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj held on 28 October 2026 that the payment was a registration, not an application, and that the Commissioner cannot bypass the allotment rules.
The judge did not leave him with nothing. He kept open the man's liberty to apply whenever MUDA next notifies sites, and directed that his seniority from the 2007 registration be counted when it does. But no site, and no notification, was ordered.
A complaint, a summons and an allotment order
P. Chandrashekar, aged about 58, of Hittanahalli Koppalu in Malavalli taluk, complained to the State Commissioner on 26 June 2013. He sought a direction that MUDA allot him a site in its Vivekananda Nagar Layout of about 2,100 sites, on the ground that he is a person with disabilities.
The Commissioner issued summons on 11 July 2013 under Section 62 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. MUDA filed objections on 18 July 2013. On 8 August 2013 the Commissioner allowed the complaint.
The Commissioner held that Section 43 of the 1995 Act required MUDA to reserve not less than 3 per cent of sites for persons with disabilities, that it had not done so, and that this infringed the rights of people like the complainant. He directed MUDA to allot a site and to reserve the required percentage.
MUDA filed WP No. 43457 of 2015 under Articles 226 and 227 to quash that order and have the complaint dismissed.
Counsel clash over 2, 3 or 5 percent
T.P. Vivekananda, for MUDA, said the authority's objections had been ignored. The 2,100 sites had been allotted by lottery in 2002; 2 per cent, or 42 sites, were reserved for persons with disabilities; only 11 people applied and all 11 got sites. Chandrashekar had never applied at all.
He relied on Rule 13(2) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1991, which fixed the category share for persons with disabilities at 2 per cent. Section 43 of the 1995 Act, he said, prescribes no percentage and leaves schemes to the appropriate Government, which is the State, not MUDA.
He also disclosed that MUDA's former Commissioner and case workers had been in judicial custody since 18 July 2013 over violations of the allotment provisions, and that the matter had been handed to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Jayna Kothari, Senior Counsel for Chandrashekar, answered that a notification of 9 November 2006 under Section 73(1) of the 1995 Act had inserted Rule 28A into the Karnataka Rules of 2003 from 14 December 2006. Rule 28A(iii) requires that not less than 3 per cent of allottees of land be persons with disabilities, so 2 per cent fell short.
She added that Section 37(c) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 now requires 5 per cent reservation in allotment of land at concessional rates. Rule 13(2) itself was amended on 12 February 2021 to provide 3 per cent, or 81 sites. Even on MUDA's own figures, 31 of the 42 reserved sites still lay vacant.
Saritha Kulkarni, Additional Government Advocate, appeared for the Commissioner and the State. While the petition was pending, the court asked MUDA and the State for their position on Section 37(c). After reports were filed, a notification of 18 April 2026 amended Rule 13(2) to raise the reservation for persons with disabilities to 5 per cent.
Three dates, three different reservation figures
The judge framed two points. The first was which figure governed MUDA's allotments: 2 per cent under Rule 13(2), 3 per cent under Rule 28A(iii) read with Section 43, or 5 per cent under Section 37(c) of the 2016 Act read with the amended Rule 13(2).
He disposed of the 2021 amendment quickly. Chandrashekar paid in 2007, complained in 2013 and the impugned order was passed on 8 August 2013. An amendment of 12 February 2021 could not, without some legal basis for retrospective operation, determine obligations that arose in 2007 or 2013.
The 2016 Act met the same fate for the same reason. It was enacted after the Commissioner's order, so Section 37(c) could not decide whether that order was lawful when made. Chandrashekar accepted that the 5 per cent requirement arose later.
Point one was answered in three parts. MUDA's reservation obligation was 2 per cent until 14 December 2006. From that date it rose to 3 per cent under Rule 28A(iii), inserted by the 2006 notification.
Section 37(c) of the 2016 Act provides 5 per cent but requires the appropriate Government and local authorities to notify schemes. That notification came only on 18 April 2026, so 5 per cent applies from that date.
Registration and application are two separate steps
The second point was whether a person with disabilities can claim a site simply for being one, without applying under the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 and the 1991 Rules. The judge framed it this way:
“Whether a person with disabilities can claim for allotment of site on the ground that they qualify as person with disabilities without having applied for such allotment under the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 read with Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1991?” (para 7)
Chandrashekar's status was not in doubt. With 80 per cent locomotor disability backed by a certificate MUDA did not contest, he met the 40 per cent threshold in Section 2(t) of the 1995 Act and the benchmark-disability definition in Section 2(r) of the 2016 Act. The question was what that status entitled him to.
Rule 3 of the 1991 Rules says that when the authority offers sites in a layout, it must give due publicity, including the last date for applications, on its notice board and in English and Kannada newspapers. The offer and the publicity come first, the judge said, and applications come in answer to them.
Rule 10 then requires a registered person to apply in Form II with an initial deposit of 10 per cent of the notified cost, and to deliver the application before the date and time fixed. Late or faulty applications are rejected. Four things followed from that text.
First, the words that a registered person shall apply show that registration and application are different steps; if registration were an application, those words would have nothing to do. Second, an application has a set form and a deposit tied to a cost notified under Rule 3.
Third, a date can be fixed only by a Rule 3(2) notice, so no notice means no last date and no application.
Fourth, a rule this strict about form and timing, under which an incorrect application shall be rejected, cannot be read to treat an earlier payment on registration as an application. The ₹600 paid on 22 August 2007 answered no notice, because there was none, was not shown to be on Form II, and was not the Rule 10 deposit.
Rule 4(2), which lets the authority decide the procedure for allotting reserved sites, did not help either. A reservation does not do away with procedure, and the 2 per cent category share in Rule 13(2) fixes how many sites go to persons with disabilities but still expects them to apply.
Thirty-one vacant sites and a CBI embargo
The strongest point for Chandrashekar was that 31 reserved sites lay unallotted. The judge rejected it for three reasons. Vacant sites show that sites are available, not that this particular man is entitled to one; under Rule 10 it is the application that determines a claimant's rights.
Second, several persons with disabilities may have wanted a site. Rule 3(2) requires public notice precisely so that every eligible person gets the same chance. Handing a site, without notice, to one person who had registered would shut out others who never had the chance to apply, something neither the Commissioner nor a court should do on one complaint.
Third, on MUDA's account only 11 people applied for 42 sites in 2002, and all 11 got them. The rest stayed vacant because nobody else applied, not because anyone was turned away. Chandrashekar was not turned away either; nothing had been offered for him to apply for.
Kothari's answer was that MUDA could not rely on its own failure to issue a notification after 2002. The judge said there was real force in that concern and that he had weighed it with care. But the record showed that the CBI investigation had interdicted MUDA from issuing any notification, with many of its officers in custody.
The judge accepted that the investigation concerned lottery allotments rather than disability sites. The embargo, though, falls on MUDA's power to notify and allot at all, regardless of who the allottee would be. A direction to allot would ask MUDA to do what it cannot lawfully do now.
The court made no finding on the investigation itself or against any person, leaving all of that to the investigating agency and the competent court.
The limits of the Commissioner's powers
The Commissioner had acted under Sections 61 and 62 of the 1995 Act. Section 61 makes him co-ordinate, monitor, safeguard rights and report. Section 62 lets him look into complaints about deprivation of rights or non-implementation of laws and take the matter up with the appropriate authorities.
Those words, the judge held, do not say the Commissioner may himself allot property or order a statutory authority to give a particular site to a particular person. A right to be considered for a site arises only when a person applies against a notification; until then there is no right to safeguard.
An order to allot a site outside the Rules would not protect a right; “It would create one the law does not provide for” (para 10.30.2). Kothari's submission that the Commissioner may pass necessary orders was accepted only as a power to look into a complaint and take it up, not to override the KUDA Act and Rules.
MUDA's complaint that its objections were ignored, and Chandrashekar's reply that the Commissioner had found them unsatisfactory, did not need deciding. The objections raised a point of law, that no application had been made and the Rules require one, which could not be answered in his favour. Whether or not they were examined closely, the order could not stand.
Dismissing the complaint, the judge still thought it harsh to treat the 2007 payment as if it had never happened. Chandrashekar has a substantial disability and came forward in 2007. He answered the second point by holding that status alone gives no claim to a site, and that “Registration on payment of Rs.600/- is not an application” (para 10.36).
Order
The writ petition was allowed. The Commissioner's order of 8 August 2013 in Case No. 02/2013-14/481 was quashed, including both the direction to allot a site to Chandrashekar and the direction to reserve the required percentage. His complaint of 26 June 2013 was dismissed.
Liberty was reserved to Chandrashekar to apply for allotment as and when MUDA issues a notification, and MUDA must then take into account his seniority from the registration of 22 August 2007. The court did not direct MUDA to issue a notification or to allot any site.
The order was reserved on 15 September 2026 and pronounced on 28 October 2026. The judge recorded the assistance of law clerk Sourav in its formulation.