DEVARAJ Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed this writ petition purporting to be in the public interest for quashing of the order dated 16-1-99 granting the site measuring 16 feet x 34 feet in front of house situated at Khata Nos. 2519 and 2519a at Bye-pass Road of Kalkuniki, Hunsur Town and K. R. Nagar in favour of Sri Ramesh and Sri Narsaiah, respondents 6 and 7 to this writ petition on the ground that sixth respondent Sri Ramesh being the President of the Town Municipal Council has misused his position in getting the said land in his favour and in favour of the seventh respondent, his brother.

(2.) THE first petitioner is the Ex-Municipal Councillor whereas the second petitioner is a sitting Councillor of Town Municipal Council, Hunsur. Their case is that property bearing No. 1199/2519 measuring 23' x 34' and 1200/25/a measuring 23' x 34' belong to the Town Municipal Council. These two vacant sites are abutting the main road at Kalkunike, Hunsur, and each of these properties are worth more than 10 lakhs. The sixth respondent who is the President of the Town Municipal Council taking advantage of his position has got sanctioned one of the properties mentioned above in his favour and the other property in favour of seventh respondent who is none other than his brother, falsely representing to the Secretary of the Urban Development Authority that the value of the property does not exceed Rs. 34. 50 per square feet. The second respondent sanctioned the above mentioned two properties in favour of 6th and 7th respondents vide the order dated 16-1-1999. It is their specific case that when the property belong to the Town Municipal Council, the second respondent without authority of law has passed the impuged order based upon a resolution alleged to have been passed by the Town Municipal Council on 30-6-1980. After a lapse of 18 years the resolution dated 30-6-1980 is sought to be acted upon and the order of allotment is passed on 16-1-99. It is their case that on coming to know of that allotment they have made petitions to the fifth respondent-the Divisional Commisioner and to other authorities who have failed to take any action. Based on the said allotment the khatas have now been entered in the name of respondents 6 and 7 and they without obtaining any plan and licence sanctioned have commenced constructions and they are hurrying through the construction with an intention to defeat the rights of the Town Municipal Council.

(3.) RESPONDENTS 1, 2 and 4 have filed a detailed statement of objections contending that the petitioners have not disclosed all the facts to prove the bona fides of the litigation and it is a case of abuse of the process of the Court and they are vindicating their private rights for wrecking vengeance against respondents 6 and 7. The land granted by the State Government is a vacant site in front of the house of respondents 6 and 7 and it has been granted in accordance with law. Elaborating their contentions it is pointed out that the third respondent Town Municipal Council on receiving representations from respondents 6 and 7 passed a resolution in its meeting held on 30-6-1980 resolving to grant the vacant site in front of their respective houses. The Deputy Commissioner had sent the above said resolution recommending the grant. Thereafter, the State Government on perusal of the records and the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner and the statistics regarding the rate to be charged by the Sub Registrar, Hunsur, has passed the order dated 16-1-99 according sanction of the said vacant sites in front of the house property of respondents 6 and 7 under Section 72 (2) of the Karnataka Municipalitis Act, 1964 which is valid, legal and in accordance with law. Thereafter, the khatha has been transferred in their names. Respondents 6 and 7 have obtained the required licence from the third respondent for construction of the shopping complex and have paid the tax to get the licence. Therefore, there is no illegality committed by any of the authorities. All these facts are within the knowledge of the petitioners who have suppressed the same and have filed the present petition on false and baseless allegations and therefore they have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.