SHANTHA KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A victim of motor accident, who lost both his legs, is the petitioner in this case. He is a resident of Kolar and he is a merchant. The petitioner was in need of parking space for his car and, therefore, approached the City Municipal Council, Kolar, for the lease of a vacant land measuring 15' x 211/2' located near the Octroi Office. Spot inspection was conducted and, ultimately, the Municipal Council found that there was no objection from any quarters for leasing out the area to the petitioner. Thereafter, a registered lease deed came to be executed in favour of the Municipal Council, Kolar, by the petitioner on 25-5-1980 on a ground rent of Rs. 35/- per month in respect of the leased area of 15' x 211/2'. As mentioned in the agreement, the petitioner deposited one year's rent in advance. Subsequently, the petitioner made an application for grant of licence and also for a sanctioned plan from the City Municipal Council for the purpose of constructing a garage in the said area and the plan was sanctioned on 28-5-1980 to the petitioner. The petitioner spent considerable amount of money and constructed a garage which he has been using even to this day.

(2.) The monthly rental was being paid with unerring regularity to the lessor and nothing wrongful was ever committed by the petitioner in the area leased out to him.

(3.) To the surprise of the petitioner, a notice of demand was made on him calling upon him to pay an enhanced rent of Rs. 200/- per month instead of Rs. 35/-per month by virtue of a resolution of the City Municipal Council, Kolar, passed on 30-8-1986. The grievance of the petitioner is two fold. Firstly, that without a hearing, unilaterally the rent was enhanced by respondent-1 and, secondly, the enhancement grossly arbitrary was to the tune of 600%. For redressal of his grievance, the petitioner preferred a revision petition under Section 309 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act challenging the resolution dated 30-8-1986 passed by the City Municipal Council, Kolar, before the Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration, Bangalore. The Revision Petition was dismissed and the operative portion of the order dated 30-6-1987 reads thus: "The agreement between the Petitioner and Respondent is declared invalid and the City Municipal Council, Kolar should follow the procedure in allocating Municipal lands for sale, lease or grant of lands as per the provisions of the Act. The Revision Petition is dismissed." At the same time, while passing the said order, the Director aforementioned sent the file to the Government for confirmation of his order under Section 309 read with Section 306 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. Thereafter, nothing is heard from the Government or from the Director.