ANJANA MURTHY S/O. NARASAIAH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE BY ITS SECRETARY, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND THE PRESIDENT ISDMT DIST CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR AND THE T

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS claim a legal right to allotment of shops in the new commercial complex in the private bus stand in Tumkur constructed by the 3rd respondent - Tumkur Municipality (though described as Tumkur Mahanagara Palike). According to the petitioners, the 2nd respondent -Deputy Commissioner acting as the President of the Integrated Development of Small and Medium Town, for short 'IDSMT', prevailed upon the petitioners to handover possession of the premises in a dilapidated condition for construction of the new complex with a promise to let out the shops on the making of a deposit of 25% as "goodwill amount" within the period from 2/5/2006 to 12/5/2006. Petitioners along with others claim to have deposited a total sum of Rs. 9,74,01,599/ - from out of which Rs. 55,00,000/ - is said to be allotted to the Public Works Department, Tumkur, to construct the private bus stand and commercial complex, which in fact when completed during the year 2008 was handed over to the 3rd respondent - Municipality during October 2010. The 2nd respondent - Committee is said to have held meetings on 8/12/2006 and 20/7/2007 and prepared a list of 54 and 10 allottees respectively in terms of the resolution passed on 27/4/2006 as also the list dt. 8/12/2006 disclosing the name of the petitioners as well as some other persons. The 3rd respondent is said to have communicated the same to the petitioners vide letters dt. 14/2/2007 - Annex. F1 to F9. On the allegation of failure to implement the resolution, these petitions are presented for a writ of mandamus. Petitions are not opposed by filing statement of objections.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings, what is evident is the fact that the immovable property in question belongs to the 3rd respondent - Tumkur Municipality which holds it in trust for the public and answerable to the public. To a question of this court as to, whether the petitioners had a subsisting lease or license as on the date the premises was handed over to the Municipality for demolition and construction of a new complex, learned Counsel submits that there was no lease agreement. In the absence of relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of the fact of a subsisting lease/rental agreements extending the period of permission to use and occupy the premises as on the date of handing over of possession of the building in a dilapidated condition for construction of a new complex, the petitioners cannot claim to have a legal right to re -possess the property after its construction.

(3.) THE Apex Court in Saroj Screens Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ghanshyam and Ors. reported in AIR 2012 SC 1649, having considered all its earlier decisions on the issue as to whether the State and or its agency/instrumentality can transfer the public property or interest in public property in favour of a private person by negotiation or in a like manner and answered in negative, culled out the following propositions: