MEHABOOB M S Vs. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL CHENNAPATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the owner of site bearing No. 2035 measuring 160' x 8V situate in 'B' Division, Chennapatna Town, Bangalore District. He made an application to the first-respondent-Town Municipal Council, Chennapatna on 23rd September 1983 for grant of licence and for sanction of plan to construct a building/premises on the vacant site owned by him as aforementioned. He was informed by a letter dated 10-7-1985 that the site owned by him required for construction of a School Building and the Municipal Council had taken a decision to acquire the same. There after on 31-5-1985 the Municipal Council passed a Resolution by which it was decided that the said land (site) in question should be acquired and the building licence sought by the petitioner be refused. Some of the Councillors opposed that Resolution. This is evidenced by Annexure-C to the Writ Petition. On 2-1-1986, the Chief Officer of the Town Municipal Council informed the petitioners once again that his application for grant of licence to erect a building on the site in question had been kept in obeyance in view of the recommendation of the Town Municipal Council to acquire the property in question for purpose of erecting a building for a School.

(2.) Further by a letter dated 23-7-1987, the Chief Officer of the Town Municipal Council informed the petitioner that his application for grant of licence to construct a building had been refused and the said land was proposed to be acquired for the purpose of construction of a school building. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court, inter-alia, contending that the Resolution of the Municipal Council which is at Annexure-C must be quashed and the Town Municipal Council directed by a writ of mandamus to accord sanction to him for construction of the building in accordance with his application made in that behalf.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 - The Town Municipal Council, Chennapatna, has been served with the notice of the writ petition as far back as February 1988, but they are not represented in this case even as on today. The second-respondent-State of Karnataka has also been served with the notice, but it is unrepresented. In that position, this Court on 6-6-1988 directed by Sri Somayyaji, learned Government Pleader, to take notice for respondent - State.