N.S. PADNIT JAWAHAR S/O. LATE N.S. HALAPPA 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

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER claims a legal right to an allotment of a shop bearing No. 9 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 petitioner the 2nd respondent -Deputy Commissioner acting as the President of the Integrated Development of Small and Medium Town, for short 'IDSMT', prevailed upon the petitioner to handover possession of the premises in a dilapidated condition for construction of the new complex with a promise to let out shop No. 9 on the making of a deposit of 25% as "goodwill amount" within the period from 2/5/2006 to 12/5/2006. Petitioner long 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. 28/12/2006 disclosing the name of the petitioner as one of the persons in the list prepared on 8/12/2006. The 3rd respondent is said to have communicated the same to the petitioner vide letter dt. 14/2/2007 - Annex. F. On the allegation of failure to implement the resolution, this petition is presented for a writ of mandamus. Petition is 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 intrust for the public and answerable to the public. To a question of this court as to, whether the petitioner 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 furnishes for inspection of the court, a Photostat copy of a tenancy agreement (baadige karaaru patra) with a condition that the petitioner is entitled to use and occupy the premises No. 9 for a period of five years commencing from 1/10/1995 to 30/9/2000, on payment of Rs. 1,000/ - p.m. and a security deposit of Rs. 5,000/ -. To a further question of this court as to, whether the period under the rental agreement was extended, learned Counsel, on instructions from the petitioner, submits that there is no such agreement. According to the learned Counsel, petitioner handed over possession of the premises in the month of March 2006 until which date and till date he had paid the monthly dues to the 3rd respondent - Municipality.

(3.) REGARD being had to the fact that Public Trust Doctrine applies to the 3rd respondent -. Municipality in respect of the properties belonging to it, the disposal of the properties or the right to use the properties necessarily requires to be compliant with the mandate of Sec. 72 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act 1964, for short the 'Act', r/w Rule 39 of the Karnataka Municipalities (Guidance of Officers, Grant of Copies and Miscellaneous Provisions) Rules, 1966, as held by a Division Bench of this court in Mohan P. Sonu Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (1992) 2 KLJ 245. The Division Bench further observed in that decision, that the Act and Rules, act as a safeguard in the matter of disposal of municipal properties by holding a public auction so as to attract funds from members interested in acquiring such rights as mandated by the rule in order to protect public revenue and enable the State Government to decide whether sanction of the State Government contemplated under Sec. 72 should or should not be extended. This opinion of the Division Bench was followed by another coordinate Division Bench in Sri. A.S. Parameshwaraiah and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Department of Urban Development and Municipal Administration and Others, ILR (2010) KAR 997 .