THE CORPORATION OF CITY OF GULBARGA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT., ASST. DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS AND DODDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ appeals are arising from the judgment and order dated 21.1.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge whereby Writ Petitions preferred by the respondents -purchasers, have been allowed. In the writ petitions, the respondents -purchasers (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioners") had prayed for setting aside the order dated 6.8.2004 issued by the State of Karnataka (for short "the Government"), and for direction to the respondent - Gulbarga Mahanagara Palike to implement their resolution - 277 dated 30.10.1999 in view of the order of the Government dated 6.12.2000 issued under Section 98 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (for short "the Act"). In Writ Petition No. 47623/2004, the petitioners also assailed the endorsement dated 31.08.2004 made by Assistant Director of Land Records. The Government vide order dated 6.8.2004, after recording reasons in the preamble, withdrew its earlier order bearing No. 12 ACG 2000 dated 6.12.2000, and so also the Resolution -277 dated 30.10.1999 passed by the Gulbarga Mahanagar Palike (for short, "the Corporation") by which it had resolved to allow the original land owners to retain 14 sites out of the 10 acres of land in Sy. No. 70. The Government issued this order in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 98(3) of the Act.

(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and with their assistance gone through the entire record and so also the judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court to which our attention was invited in support of their contentions. Having regard to the questions raised before us and considering peculiar facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to state in detail the sequence of events/facts, which in our opinion, would support the view that we are taking in these appeals. Detail narration of facts/events would also demonstrate as to how the impugned order is wrong. The land involved in these appeals is measuring 10 acres in Sy. No. 70 situate at Brahmapura village, Taluk Gulbarga (for short "the land"). The identity of the land is not in dispute. The facts we propose to narrate hereinafter are not in dispute:

(3.) BEFORE we proceed further, we deem it appropriate to reproduce certain observations in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The following observations, in our opinion, would demonstrate that the view taken in the impugned order is based on misleading information/facts placed on record by the petitioners.