LALITHABAI Vs. CITY CORPORATION OF GULBARGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) executed in favour of the fourth respondent with registration No.3843 of 1995-96, dated 30-11-1995 at Annexure-C as void and (b)a direction to the respondents not to change the nature of the land and consequential reliefs.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that she is the tenant of survey number 21, measuring 12 acres 10 guntas in Badepur village and has been cultivating the same with possession. According to the petitioner, her petition for occupancy rights was dismissed by the Land Tribunal and the dispute is pending before this Court in Civil Petition No. 3340 of 1991. Petitioner has alleged that the portion measuring 200' x 100' from this land has been illegally and arbitrarily sold by the first respondent in favour of the fourth respondent at an upset price and that the first respondent is not competent to dispose of any portion of the said land and it has no rights over the same. The sale is contended to be contrary to the provisions of Section 176 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 ('the Act of 1976' for short). The second contention taken up is that the land sold being an open space, sale thereof being contrary to Section 8(2) of the Karnataka Parks, Play-fields and Open Space (Preservation and Regulations) Act, 1985 is null and void. In the statements filed on behalf of the first and the fourth respondent, it is contended that the petitioner has no right over the property and she was never the tenant and her claim has been rightly turned down by the Land Tribunal. According to them, the land bearing Survey No. 21 was acquired long back in the year 1964 by the first respondent and a layout has been formed and sites have been allotted to various persons and the open site in question has been sold at concessional price to the fourth respondent with prior sanction of the Government permissible under Section 176 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. It is also contended that the provisions of the Karnataka Parks, Play-fields and Open Space (Preservation and Regulations) Act, 1985 are not attracted and the open space in question is not declared as such as required under the Act.

(3.) Subsequently an application to raise the additional grounds was filed and was allowed. Under this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of sanction issued by the Government-respondent 3 for sale of the open site at concessional rate by the first respondent in favour of the fourth respondent. The ground raised in that behalf is that the sanction order is illegal and arbitrary and violative of Section 176 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act.