SHANKARA MURTHY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though this Petition is posted for orders, it is taken up for final disposal. Respondent-4 though served has remained absent. Respondents 1 to 3 are represented by Sri Udayashankar, Learned Government Pleader.

(2.) In this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the communications dated 7-3-1983, 20-12-1982 and the Circular dated 2-4-1983 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga produced as Annexures G, H and HI respectively. The petitioner has also sought for issue of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus to respondents 3 and 4 directing them to register the certificate of sale after collecting stamp duty from the petitioner calculated on the basis of the purchase money, in respect of the site bearing No. 336 measuring 35' X 50' situated within the limits of Municipal Council, Davanagere. The said site along with several other sites was put up for auction. In that auction the petitioner was the highest bidder having offered the bid for a sum of Rs. 10,800/-. The auction took place on 26-10-1977. The auction sale has also been confirmed by the State Government on 22-8-1978, by the order bearing No. HUD 285 TMD 78 as mentioned in the endorsement dated 19-9-1978 issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Davangere, produced as Annexure-A. Further case of the petitioner is that even to this day, the Municipal Council has not issued the certificate of sale and as a result thereof, the petitioner is not able to have the certificate of sale registered. It is also further submitted that as the Municipal Commissioner insisted upon ascertaining the market value for the purpose of stamp duty, the petitioner enquired with the 3rd respondent, who by the endorsement dated 7-3-1983 produced as Annexure-G, has informed the petitioner that the same has to be calculated as per the rate determined by the notification bearing No. CBC/CR No. 11/82-83, dated 20th December, 1982.

(3.) It appears to me that the Municipal Commissioner is not justified in insisting that the petitioner must ascertain the market value for registration of the document. When once the auction sale is held, following Rule 39 of the Karnataka Municipalities (Guidance of Officers, Grant of Copies and Miscellaneous Provisions) Rules, 1966, the highest bidder, whose bid is accepted and confirmed by the State Government as per Section 72 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, is entitled to a certificate of sale which is the evidence of the fact that his bid has been accepted in respect of the site which is sold in public auction. Therefore, the 4th respondent ought to have issued the certificate of sale as soon as the State Government confirmed the auction sale. As the 4th respondent has failed to issue the sale certificate, it is necessary to issue a direction.