B N RAMESH Vs. TOWN MUNICIPALITY ARSIKERE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be a citizen of Arsikere Town in Hassan District. He has challenged the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Director, Municipal Administration, Government of Karnataka on the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan, in an appeal filed under Section 306 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Arsikere Town Muslim Jamath Committee inter alia on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass an order suspending the resolution of the Town Municipal Council by which the licence earlier granted to construct a building on certain site which the Municipal Council had admitted to be wakf property belonging to the Jamath Committee had been cancelled on re-examination of the matter. The Deputy Commissioner came to the conclusion that the Jamath Committee had not established its title, therefore, the licence should be kept in abeyance. From the narration of facts by the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan, in his order as at Annexure-G, it is clear that the contending parties have pleaded before him that they were using the land in dispute for their respective religious purposes. It was contended that the place was used by some residents for Ganapathi Seva while the Jamath Committee contended that for the last 50 years it had been using the place in connection with the observance of Muharram. Incidentally, it should be mentioned that the Jamath Committee has already filed O.S. No. 36/1988 in the Court of the Munsiff, Arsikere, seeking permanent injunction restraining the Municipal Authorities as well as one V.S. Gajendra, another citizen of Arsikere, interfering with the construction work and activities of the Jamath Committee.

(2.) It is in the background that the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan, came to suspend the resolution and forward a report to the State Government as required under sub-section (1) of Section 306 of the Act and thereafter the impugned order has been passed by the Government confirming the order of suspension leaving it to the civil Court to decide the question in dispute. Though expressly it has not been stated, it is obvious to this Court that if the action of the Municipality in suspending the licence granted which itself is without affording an opportunity to the Wakf Committee is likely to cause tension between the communities and lead to breach of peace and other consequences which should be avoided. Mr. G.N. Seshagiri Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that Section 306 of the Act does not empower the Deputy Commissioner to exercise the power of suspension of the resolution of the Municipal Council unless it be an illegal resolution and not in other cases. I do not think this Court should read down the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 306 of the Act to limit it to the illegality of a resolution. It provides for not only the cases of illegal resolutions but also the resolution or work which if carried out by the Municipal Council or on its behalf by someone else is likely to cause breach or injury to the public. Therefore, the power given is not only to remedy an injury done but also to prevent untoward incidents in the area. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Deputy Commissioner acted without jurisdiction in suspending the resolution suspending the licence granted. That there is obstruction to construct is evidenced by the suit filed to which the Municipality is a party. Therefore, whether the Jamath Committee should proceed with the construction or not will depend upon the injunction granted or refused by the civil Court. To that extent, the public interests is already safeguarded.

(3.) However, Mr. Seshagiri Rao strenuously contended that the frame of the suit is limited to a bare injunction and title to the property is not in issue and therefore this Court should in larger interest interfere with the impugned order and prevent construction by the Jamath Committee. Undoubtedly, the property does not belong to any member of the public or to any group of public." It is specifically contended by the Municipality that the property is municipal property whether the Wakf Board has the title or the Municipality has the title or prima facie possession and control of the property will necessarily by implication will be in issue in the suit and any decision rendered will bear on the question of title.