GURUSHANTHAIAH GADIGEYYA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocates as also the learned Government Pleader for Respondent-1 on merits. The limited grievance projected on behalf of the appellant is that, whereas the Respondent-2 Corporation under the directions of the State Government sold to all the other occupants of that area the sites in question at the rate of Rs. 4/- Sq ft, that when it came to the appellants case, the government directed that the land area of 1000 sq ft should be put up for public auction and consequently, the Respondent -2 directed the appellant to pay up the arrears of rent and to vacate the premises. This order was challenged and the learned Single Judge granted a limited relief to the effect that the Respondents were precluded from evicting the petitioner appellant, save and except through due process of law. On behalf of the appellant what is canvassed before us is that the several other similarly situated persons got the benefit of the regularisation order and that there is no reason why a distinction should be drawn in the case of the appellant Mr. Jadhav, learned Counsel who represents R-2 pointed out that this is a relatively big area of land and that the government was perfectly justified in directing that it should be put up for public auction because it exceeded 1000 Sq ft we do concede that there is a considerable justification in what the Respondents proposed to do but, they seem to have overlooked the fact that in the case of several other persons who occupied the land admeasuring 875 Sq ft, 900 Sq ft, 800 Sq ft and even three cases of 1000 Sq ft, the regularisation was done and the plots were sold to them on payment of the prescribed price. In keeping with the principle of equality before law, we would have no option except to direct the Respondents to follow the same formula as far as the appellant is concerned. We notice that in the case of larger plots, the rate of Rs. 8/- Sq ft, was applied and consequently, we direct that the Respondents shall complete the transaction vis-a-vis the present appellant within an outer limit of four months from today, provided the appellant complies with the requisite formalities. It shall be open to the Respondent -2 however to confine the area to ensure that the land allotted to the appellant comes below 1000sq ft, in view of the fact that the circulars in questions, as applicable, would not permit the allotment of more land than this. In our considered view, this itself is a very generous order as far as the appellant is concerned considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Also what we need to take into account is the fact that with the tremendous pressures on land, that it is very necessary even while showing indulgence or granting regularisation that this should be done with a certain amount of circumspection because otherwise the display of sympathy is likely to be traded in. In view of the indulgence that is shown, the Respondents shall also ensure that the appellant does not take any undue advantage of the good turn that is done by seeking to trade in the land in question.

(2.) WITH these modifications to the learned Single Judges order, the appeal partially succeeds and stands disposed of. No order as to costs. At this stage, the Corporations learned Counsel brings it to our notice that in the case of the remaining seven persons to which the present appellant referred that a flexible rate was applied and in view of this, the rate applicable to the present applicant would be an average of the rates applied in the other seven cases.