A S PARAMESHWARAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. The challenge in the writ petition was to the Notification dated 02.06.2003 issued by the 1st respondent, laying down the guidelines with regard to the disposal of the properties held by the local bodies and also to a communication of the 2nd respondent dated 31.07.2004.

(2.) In a nutshell, the facts of the case as stated by the appellants is as follows:

(3.) 3rd respondent filed statement of objections. It contended that, the writ petitioners have not approached the Court with clean hands and the statements made in the writ petition are distortion of facts, misleading & incorrect and such a course of action has been adopted with malafide intentions and oblique motives. Appellants had made an application for grant of the plot No. 2776. On 08.06.1983, the issue came up before the Finance Committee which passed a resolution to grant the property to the appellants. On the date of passing the resolution, the 1st appellant happened to be the sitting Municipal Councilor and also the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the 3rd respondent. The meeting was presided over by the 1st appellant. The 3rd respondent did not had any standing committee as on 08.06.1983. It was stated that, the appellants have deliberately kept silent about the resolution dated 08.06.1993 of the Finance Committee, which was chaired by none other than the 1st appellant, who by virtue of his position as the Chairman of the Finance Committee, has wielded influence on the other members, in getting the resolution passed. The resolution is opposed to the principle "that no person can be a judge in his own cause". In view of the suppression of material facts, withholding of material information and the documents, the petitioners are guilty of "suppressio veri and suggestio falsi". On the very same day, Municipal Council passed a resolution i.e., after the Finance Committee passed its resolution, approving the grant of the property to the appellants. The market value of the land was fixed at Rs. 16/- per Sq.mtr. By a notice dated 23.08.1985, appellants were called upon to tender Rs. 7,040/- being the cost of the said property, i.e., subject to approval/sanction by the Government. The amount was tendered on 08.10.1985. The Chief Officer by a letter dated 12.04.1988, forwarded the resolution to the Deputy Commissioner and also submitted that, on the basis of the information provided by 1 the office of the Sub-Registrar as regards to the prevailing market value of the property in the locality, the market price of the property works out to be Rs. 47.84ps per Sq.mtr and the total value of the property would work out to Rs. 19,130/-. Since the value of the transaction exceeded Rs. 10,000/-, the concurrence/approval of the Government being necessary, requested the Deputy Commissioner that the proposal be recommended to the Government for its approval. A notice dated 06.01.1989, was published in the newspaper on 18.01.1989, bringing to the knowledge of the General public regarding the resolution passed to grant the property to the appellants. Objections were raised by the general public for the grant of property, contending that, if the property is sold by public auction, it would fetch a much higher value. In view of the objections from the members of the public, the Deputy Commissioner conducted a spot inspection of the property on 24.05.1989. The objectors were present and opposed the allotment. The Deputy Commissioner directed the 3rd respondent to submit a report on the existing market value of the property. The Town Municipal Council in its meeting held on 28.12.1989 discussed the issue and by taking into consideration the previous resolution dated 08.06.1983 and also the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, resolved that the upset price for the property be fixed at Rs. 48/- per Sq.mtr and to submit the same for approval of the Government. The resolution was forwarded along with a letter dated 16.01.1990 requesting the Deputy Commissioner to recommend to the Government to grant approval for allotment of the property to the appellants. The President of Hassan District Congress (I) party, by a letter dated 05.11.1990 objected to the allotment. The Deputy Commissioner forwarded the proposal to the Director of Municipal Administration for approval, who after examining the entire matter, conveyed to the Deputy Commissioner that, the area of the property being vast and a comer plot, it should be sold by public auction only. It was also informed by 2nd respondent that the proposed grant of property to the appellants has been rejected and the file is closed. The Government thus rejected the proposal in toto and closed the file. The appellants were informed by the 3rd respondent on 08/09.09.1992 that the proposal sent to the Government seeking its approval to allot the property has been rejected. The appellants submitted a representation to the Minister seeking grant of said property and their representation was forwarded to the 2nd respondent, who after examining the same, outrightly rejected the request. In the meantime, the appellants had managed to get the katha of the property in their name, for which the 2nd respondent took serious objection and directed in terms of a communication dated 05.11.1992, to take suitable action against those who were responsible for making out the katha of the property in the name of the appellants. When the matter stood thus, the Deputy Commissioner by a letter dated 11.01.1995 directed the 3rd respondent to resubmit the file pertaining to the allotment of property to the appellants, in pursuance of which, the file was resubmitted. Deputy Commissioner forwarded the file to the 2nd respondent on 17.08.1995 and the 2nd respondent having re-examined the matter, once again rejected the proposal and it was also observed that, the proposed grant is in violation of Sections 72(2), 100 & 112 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act. In view of the said proceedings, 2nd respondent proceeded to pass an order dated 29.07.2002, suspending with immediate effect, the registration of the katha and the allotment of the property and further, restrained the appellants from putting up any construction or carrying out any activities in the property. 3rd respondent was directed to take action in that regard. Appellants having pressurized the Deputy Commissioner, who by a communication dated 22.10.2002, directed the 3rd respondent to resubmit the file and hence the file was forwarded on 15.11.2002. The Deputy Commissioner, forwarded the same to the 2nd respondent with his recommendation to grant the property in favour of the appellants at an upset price of Rs. 3,25,875/-. However, the Deputy Commissioner by making a reference to a letter dated 31.7.2003 of the 2nd respondent, informed the 3rd respondent under a letter dated 12.08.2003 that in view of Government Notification dated 12.6.2003, there is no provision to grant the land to private parties and as the 2nd respondent has rejected the proposal, the property be disposed of as per the directions issued by the Government. The appellants were notified on 23.07.2004 about the rejection of the proposal by the Government. 1st respondent by its order dated 02.06.2003 stipulated the norms that are required to be followed in the matter of disposal of the lands belonging to the Local Bodies. In pursuance of the said Government Order, the Deputy Commissioner was requested to initiate further action for the sale of the property. In the meanwhile, the Project Director, Hassan District, under a letter dated 05.11.2004 directed the 3rd respondent to sell the property through public auction in accordance with the norms stipulated in the Government Order. The appellants were called upon under a letter dated 04.04.2005 to vacate the property and handover the same within a week, for being sold in public auction. The project Director, again under a letter dated 06.05.2005, directed the 3rd respondent to take steps to auction the property within 20 days, in pursuance of which, the 3rd respondent published notice both in the notice board and newspapers, proposing to sell the property in public auction on 30.06.2005.