GRAMA SEVA PRATISHTHANA MANIPAL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the first petitioner claims to be a charitable trust registered under the Provisions of the Indian Trust Act and is represented by its trustee-sri t. Ashok pai and the second petitioner claims to be a rate payer and resident of No. 51, anantha nagar, manipal. According to them, they have filed this petition for espousing the public cause.

(2.) THE petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 3rd march, 1989, the copy of which has been produced as annexure-a, passed by the second respondent-deputy commissioner granting 48 cents of land in survey No. 411/1 (which has been renumbered as 411/1-a2) in favour of the 5th respondent-rajapura saraswatha bramhana sangha (hereinafter referred to as "the sangha") and also the building licence bearing No. 64/1990-91, dated 4th october, 1990, the copy of which has been produced as Annexure-F , and sanctioned plan, the copy of which has been produced as Annexure-F 1, issued by the 4th respondent-manipal mandal panchayat, permitting the 5th respondent to put up certain construction on the land referred to above.

(3.) SRI ashok b. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners have filed this petition for espousing a public cause and in the interest of general public. He submitted that the order Annexure-A passed by" the second respondent granting the land in question in favour of the 5th respondent-sangha is liable to be quashed on three grounds. Firstly, he contended that the grant has been made by the second respondent without obtaining the previous approval of the first respondent as contemplated under Rule 7 (3) and clause (vi) of sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 10 of the Karnataka land grant rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the rules" ). According to Sri patil, the land granted to the sangha is situated within a radius of 3 kms. , from the municipal limits of udupi municipal council and therefore the second respondent could not have made the grant without the previous approval of the state government. Secondly, he contended that the land in question is situated within the limits of udupi malpe local planning area and the planning authority had prepared a scheme for widening the road leading to manipal from udupi via, udupi-alevoor and alevoor-manipal road. In view of the said scheme envisaged by the planning authority, it was not permissible for the second respondent to have granted the land in question to the sangha for the purpose of putting up a students' hostel and a bhavan on the land in question and if the 5th respondent puts up the same, it would come in the way of expansion of alevoor-manipal road. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to the averments made in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the writ petition. He further submitted that when the planning authority has proposed a scheme for widening the alevoor-manipal road, if the 5th respondent-sangha is allowed to put up construction on the land in question as per the terms of the grant, it would result in traffic congestion resulting in lot of inconvenience to the general public. Elaborating his argument, he submitted that the road presently leading from udupi to manipal is a narrow road and there is a ferry near a place known as kalsanka and during rainy season, on account of overflowing of water from the ferry, the road will be completely blocked and as a consequence thereof, the traffic will come to a standstill and therefore the public, to reach manipal and places located beyond manipal, would go via, udupi-alevoor and alevoor-manipal road. In this connection, he also drew my attention to the rough sketch produced as Annexure-E to the writ petition. According to him, while the state granted land measuring 3 acres 62 cents in cts No. 51 of shivalli village by means of order dated 22-7-1956, the copy of which has been produced as annexure-b, to the academy of general education, a condition was imposed that the grantee should leave a minimum distance of 75 ft. , from the road margin, but such condition has not been imposed while granting the land in question to the 5th respondent-sangha. Thirdly, he contended that the land granted to the 5th respondent-sangha is situated within the residential zone of udupi-malpe planning area and hence the grant of the land in question for the purpose of auditorium as per Annexure-A is illegal. He submitted that since the land has been granted to the 5th respondent-sangha ignoring these three important aspects and if the said grant is not annulled by this court, it would result in serious public injury. According to Sri patil, a statutory authority, which is conferred with the power of assigning government land, must strictly follow the procedure prescribed and since the grant of land in question has been made in utter disregard to the rules, the same requires to be nullified by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of india. He also submitted that since the licence has been sanctioned as a consequence of the grant of land made in favour of the sangha, the licence and the sanctioned plan are also liable to be quashed. Sri patil relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in mis. Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v State of Jammu and Kashmir and Shanta v Commissioner, Corporation of the city of Bangalore , in support of his contention.