PARAMESHWARAIAH Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIMOGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case has assailed the correctness of an order dated 7-7-1994 passed by the respondent 1-Deputy Commissioner of Shimoga. A few facts require to be stated.

(2.) The petitioner is a resident of that town and claims to be in possession of a small plot of land which admittedly measures approximately 20 ft. x 40 ft., on which, according to him, he has been residing and running a canteen since about the years 1965-1966. It is his case that pursuant to certain requests made by him, that the Municipal Council passed a resolution on 4-10-1990 being Subject No. 144 granting the property in question to the petitioner provided he pays the prevailing market rate. It is essential to record here that this decision was preceded by the petitioner filing a suit before the Civil Court whereby he had prayed that he should not be dispossessed from the premises. The petitioner failed in that effort as also in the subsequent proceedings right upto the High Court. In any event, as indicated earlier, on 4-10-1990 the resolution in question came to be passed. In the subsequent meeting of the Municipal Council on 15-11-1990 the resolution dated 4-10-1990 whereby the land had been granted to the petitioner came to be revoked by another resolution. The petitioner challenged this decision before the respondent 1 and the respondent 3 who is also a Councillor and who had objected to the resolution on certain grounds, also preferred an appeal to the Commissioner. There is some controversy with regard to the hearing of the two appeals which is not of much significance and the Commissioner, by the two impunged orders, allowed the appeal filed by respondent 3 and dismissed the petitioner's appeal. In sum and substance, the action of revocation of the resolution dated 4-10-1990 was upheld by the Commissioner. It is against these orders that the present writ petition has been directed.

(3.) Mr. Patil, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the reasoning of the learned Commissioner is unsustainable in law. He places reliance on the provisions of Section 57 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, and he contends that a resolution passed by a Municipal Council cannot be either rescinded or set aside, except under the procedure prescribed by Section 57. He submitted that admittedly the resolution for revocation of the earlier one which ought to have been formally placed on the agenda, taken up, discussed and passed by the House, was never even put on notice and therefore, in the absence of following these procedural requirements that the subsequent resolution dated 15-11-1990 is bad in law and ought to have been struck down. Mr. Patil's submission is that the procedure prescribed by Section 57 is mandatory and that the reasoning of the Commissioner that it was permissible to vary this resolution at the very next meeting is impermissible in law.