BOLEGOWDA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri M. R. Rajgopal Iyengar and Sri A. C. Palaraj for respondent 2 as well as Smt. Bharathi Nagesh, learned Government Advocate.

(2.) THE facts of the case in the nutshell are that the petitioner filed this petition for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 11-03-1997 passed by respondent 1 in M. A. G. (2) T. T. 13 of 1990-91, Annexure-K to the petition. Petitioner has also sought for issue of a writ of prohibition, prohibiting respondent 1 to proceed with the enquiry as per the proceedings in M. A. G. (2)T. T. 13 of 1990-91 as per Annexures-H and K since respondent 2 has no right to continue in possession on the expiry of the lease,

(3.) THE petitioner claims that he is the owner of the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 123/1 in Dodda Alahalli village, Kanakapura taluk, in Bangalore rural district, measuring 21 guntas. The petitioner, according to the petitioner's case, had leased out this land in favour of the present respondent 2 on 27-6-1984 for a period of 10 years. According to the petitioner the lessee had taken the land on lease for the purpose of running a touring cinema by constructing a touring theatre on the said land, and built cinema theatre thereon. The petitioner has filed the copy of the document whereunder the respondent 2 was permitted to make use of that land and to build up the cinema theatre. Respondent 2 according to the petitioner raised construction of the touring cinema theatre thereon. According to the petitioner this was granted for 10 years. Thereafter the petitioner applied for conversion and he was granted a certificate. Petitioner's case is that conversion of the land was granted. There is no dispute that there was no doubt that the petitioner was granted permission to run the cinema by name Indiraji Touring Talkies on the basis of the deed Annexure-B. The petitioner's case is that specifically the respondent 2 had applied for renewal of the licence to run and to continue the running of cinema in the name Indiraji touring Talkies. To that application the petitioner filed the objection with the allegation and ground to the effect that the 10 years lease having expired, the respondent's possession over the land is unlawful and therefore no renewal could be granted after 1994. Petitioner's case is that the application along with objection is yet pending for disposal and decision. During the pendency of that application the opposite party, the District magistrate, Bangalore rural district passed the order annexure-K dated 11-03-1997, permitting the petitioner to run the cinema show and fixed 1-4-1997 as the date for arguments. Having felt aggrieved from this order the owner of the land has filed this petition under Article 226.