BARAKUR LAXMAN SETTY Vs. DIVISIONAL TRAFFIC CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was a licensee under respondents 1 and 2 to run a refreshment stall in the premises belonging to the respondent Corporation at Kerur bus stand in Belgaum Division. The licence period was for 3 years in the first instance which had been extended for a further period of two years i. e. up to 30. 9. 1997. Petitioner did not vacate the premises even after the expiry of the extended period of the licence and as such became un-authorised occupant. Efforts on the part of the respondent Corporation to grant licence in favour of another person by inviting tenders from intending bidders were thwarts by the petitioner by approaching the civil Court and seeking for a restraint order against the respondents. Ultimately all such efforts on the part of the petitioner having failed he was forced to vacate the premises with effect from 13. 2. 1999. The subject matter of this Writ Petition is the justification or otherwise of the quantum of damages that was determined by the Competent Officer payable by the petitioner for his un-authorised occupancy of the premises for the period 1. 10. 1997 to 13. 2. 1999.

(2.) AS per order dated 25. 11. 1999 the Competent Officer determined such damages to be at Rs. 86,691/- on the premise that the petitioner was liable to pay damages @ Rs. 5,111/- per month which was the rate that had been offered by the highest bidder in response to the advertisement of the Corporation inviting offers from the intending bidders. The Competent Officer also directed that the petitioner was liable to pay interest @ 20% per annum on this amount and with further cost of Rs. 2,000/- etc.

(3.) PETITIONER appealed to the Appellate Authority i. e. , the District Judge, Bagalkot under Section 10 of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Un-authorised Occupants) Act, 1974. By order dated 19th September, 2001 the learned District Judge having allowed the appeal in part and having setting aside the operation of the order of the Competent Officer with regard to the levy of costs only and the petitioners liability to pay the damages of Rs. 86,691/- and at the rate of interest as levied by the Competent Officer was left with undisturbed. Petitioners has approached this Court under Article 227 being aggrieved by these two orders. I have heard Sri S. A. Kalagi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Arun, learned Counsel or respondents 1 and 2.