MOHAN P SONU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the appellant had purchased property admeasuring 14' x 50' at the junction of middle school road and the then telephone exchange road in shikaripur town. There was, adjacent to the property so purchased, vacant land (now called the 'said land') admeasuring 5'x 50'. The said land belonged to the town municipal council, shikaripur. On 9th March 1983 the appellant applied to the town municipal council for allotment to him of the said land. Upon the application a resolution was passed on 17th may, 1983. It was resolved that the said land lacked public demand since it was not an independent site but was useful only to the property belonging to the appellant. Hence, to enable the municipal council to obtain income therefor, it was recommended that the said land be granted to the appellant. The recommendation was forwarded to the state government. The state government, on 15th march, 1984, accorded sanction under Section 72(2) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 to the allotment of the said land to the appellant "at the market price of Rs. 1.425/-".

(2.) the writ petition was filed by a resident of the town to call in question the correctnessof the government order dated 15th march, 1984. It was contended that the sale was at an under-valuation. The learned single judge allowed the writ petition. He held that the alienation of the said land could not validly have been effected without compliance with the procedure prescribed by Rule 39 of the Karnataka municipalities (guidance of officers, grant of copies and miscellaneous Provisions) rules, 1966. The sale in favour of the appellant was, therefore, set aside. Liberty, however, was reserved to the municipal council to alienate the said land in accordance with law. The appellant was bound to demolish the building which he had erected on the said land in accordance with the undertaking that he had given to court. He was, however, given six months' time to persuade the municipal council to grant him the said land in accordance with the rules and the law which was applicable and till then he was permitted to retain the building as then erected.

(3.) it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the said Rule 39 had noapplication when the said Section 72 applied and that, therefore, the grant of the said land to the appellant following the procedure prescribed by Section 72 was valid.