CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BIJAPUR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The City Municipal Council, Bijapur, represented by its Commissioner, has presented this writ petition questioning the legality of the order of the State Government by which it directed the petitioner to extend the lease of the land specified in the impugned order in favour of respondent-3 for a period of five years from 31.7.1982 on a revised rent of Rs. 1000 per month.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The City Municipal Council, Bijapur is the owner of land bearing No. 409/2 situated in Ward No. 9 in the City of Bijapur. The area of the land is 10,036 sq.ft. It is a vacant land and had been leased by the City Municipal council in favour of respondent-3 for a period of 20 years on 31.7,1962. A copy of the agreement of lease is produced as Annexure-A. In terms of the said agreement, the lease came to an end on 31-7-1982. Even long before the aforesaid lease period had come to an end, the Municipal Council passed a resolution dated 30.12.1980 that the lease in favour of respondent-3 should not be extended after 31.7.1982. Questioning the legality of the said resolution, respondent-3 preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner under section 322 of the KARNATAKA MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1964, 1964 ('the Act' for short). Simultaneously respondent-3 also made a representation before the State Government as the period of lease had already come to an end, action had been taken by the petitioner Council for evicting respondent-3 from the land. On 31-8-1982, the Government made an order directing the Municipal Council not to evict respondent-3 from the Sand (vide Annexure-C) Thereafter on 6.9.1982 the Divisional Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the respondent-3 by his order dated 1-9-1982and the same was communicated as per endorsement dated 6-9-1982 (Annexure-D). After the above order was received, the Municipal Commissioner addressed a letter to the State Government requesting the State Government to vacate the stay order given by the Government, and not to prevent the municipal council from evicting respondent-3. The municipal council also passed a resolution to the same effect on 31.1.1983 (Annexure-F). The State "Government made the impugned order on 2.3.1984 (Annexure-H). It reads

(3.) Section 72(1)(2) and (c) of the Act, which is relevant for this case reads :