AMEER JAN Vs. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ Petition, petitioners, who are 10 in number, have questioned the legality of the carder of the Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore Division, Bangalore, dismissing their petitions presented under Section 303 of the Karnataka Town Municipalities Act, 1964 (the 'Act' for short).

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are as follows Land in Sy.No. 51 of Siddlaghatta Town was acquired by the Government for the benefit of Municipality for the purpose of converting the land into house sites. On 26-8-1964 the Town Municipal Council resolved to dispose of the sites at upset price of Re. One per square yard in favour of number of persons. A report about the resolution was also sent to the Deputy Commissioner on 6-12-1984. A petition was presented to the Divisional Commissioner by some of the residents of the Town stating that the sites had been disposed of in favour of the relatives of the Municipal Councillors and also to persons belonging to the party of the Councillors. The said petition was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner on 304-1965. The Deputy Commissioner, Kolar in turn by his letter dated 24th March, 1965 called upon the Assistant Commissioner, Chickballapur, to submit a report after making enquiry. The Assistant Commissioner after enquiry reported that according to the complainants, six of the allotees were deserving but the rest were cither relatives or members of the party, of the Municipal Councillors concerned. Relying on the said report, the Deputy Commissioner made an order (Ex.N), setting aside the allotment of 10 sites in favour of the petitioners and directing the Municipal Council to sell the said sites in public auction. The petitioners were not parties to the said proceedings.

(3.) After the above order was made, a public notice dated 23-12-1974 was issued by the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council (Ex.O) proposing to dispose of the sites by public auction on 9-1-1975. Immediately thereafter, the petitioners presented a petition before the Divisional Commissioner against the holding of auction under Section 303 of the Act. That application was rejected by the Divisional Commissioner stating that the petition was not maintainable (vide Annexure-Q). Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have presented this Writ Petition.