V LAKSHMIDEVI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is by the legal representatives of one Sri s. g. jayaram. The corporation had passed a resolution to lease the property measuring 30 feet x 60 feet at the junction of infantry road and cunningham road, bangalore for a period of 35 years in favour of Sri s. g. jayaram. Thereafter, after obtaining the approval from the state government, the corporation leased the said property in favour of the petitioner under the lease deed dated 10-11-1975 and put the said Sri s. g. jayaram in possession of the property. After some years, the corporation treating the possession of Sri s. g. jayaram as unauthorised initiated the proceedings for eviction under the provisions of the Karnataka public premises (eviction of un-authorised occupants) act, 1974. The competent authority ultimately had passed an Order of eviction directing Sri s. g. jayaram to vacate and handover possession of the property. This Order was challenged by Sri s. g. jayaram by way of an appeal in miscellaneous appeal No. 172 of 1990 before the 10th additional city civil'court, bangalore. The city civil court by its Order dated 17-04-1993 allowed the appeal and set-aside the Order of eviction passed by the competent authority.

(2.) AT this stage, it is relevant to mention certain facts prior to the Order passed by the district judge in the appeal referred to above. sri s. g. jayaram, immediately after the lease in his favour obtained the licence to put up a commercial complex on the said land. It is submitted that the efforts of the lessee to put up construction was prevented by the corporation for one reason or the other. On 06-03-1986 the corporation had passed the resolution resolving to cancel the licence and submitted the same to the state government for approval. On the said resolution, the government has passed an Order dated 04-03-1997 cancelling the lease made in favour of Sri s. g. jayaram in exercise of its power under Section 98 of the Karnataka municipal corporations act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'act' ). This Order is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) SRI k. s. ramadas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the government has no jurisdiction to cancel the lease executed by the corporation in favour of Sri s. g. jayaram under Section 98 of the act. In reply to the said contention, the learned government Advocate and Sri ashok harnahalli appearing for the corporation submitted that the government being the authority to accord approval for the purpose of granting lease, also have the power to cancel the lease if it is of the opinion that the said lease is likely to lead to a breach of peace or to cause injury or annoyance to the public or to any class or body of persons or is prejudicial to the interest of the corporation. On these rival contentions the question that arises for consideration is whether the state government has the power under Section 98 of the ACT to cancel the lease entered into between the corporation and Sri s. g. jayaram. In Order to consider this question, it is relevant to extract Section 98 of the act. Section 98 reads as follows. from the reading of Section 98, it is clear, if the government is of the opinion that the execution of any resolution or Order of the corporation which is abqut to be done or is being done by or on behalf of the corporation is likely to lead to a breach of the peace or to cause injury or annoyance to the public or to any class or body of persons may suspend the execution of such resolution or Order or prohibit the doing of such act. Thereafter, after notice to the corporation, the government may cancel such resolution or order. If the resolution or Order has already been executed, no power is available to the government either to suspend or cancel the resolution or order. In the case on hand the resolution of the corporation has already been executed by executing the lease deed in favour of jayaram after obtaining the approval of the government.