SEEBAYYA Vs. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SHIMOGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter was dismissed for non prosecution on 8-6-1989. The learned Counsel has filed an application seeking restoration of the petition to file in the circumstances stated in the affidavit in support of the prayer for recalling the order dated 8-6-1989. Accepting, the reasons given, the order is recalled and the matter is heard and disposed of by the following order, after hearing the Counsel for parties

(2.) Short question which falls for determination is, whether petitioner is also entitled to be registered as an occupant or to rcgularisation of the unauthorised construction of a premises in Savar Line in Shimoga Town in the circumstances stated by him. Unfortunately the averments in the petition are misleading in the sense it conceals more than what it reveals.

(3.) The court had to summon the record to understand the problem of the petitioner and court had to patiently go through the records and discover certain facts. Those facts may be stated and they are as follows:- On 2-3-1979 the Administrator of the Town Municipal Council passed a resolution in respect of Certain representation made by one Sanna Seebayya and 28 others for regularisation of their unauthorised construction in savar line road. The resolution which is in Kannada, freely translated will read as follows in English. "The said proceedings have been referred to the Revenue Officer for examination as well as the Revenue Surveyor, and according to the sketch prepared by them, the applicants having constructed the houses and living there for over 30 years on the said sites and the applicants belonging to the backward-classes, the constructed site may be granted at an upset price of one rupee per square meter and accordingly recommendation may be made to the Government for sanction." To that resolution there is a list attached typed in English which shows not 28 plus 1 applicants but 31 applicants, the 31st applicant's name having been inserted by hand. Soon thereafter it is seen that there has been a representation by the petitioner on more than one occasion to the Commissioner of the Shimoga Town Municipality as well as the Divisional Commissioner complaining about the omission of his name from the list though he had been residing for over 27 years having constructed a house on a site measuring 12 x28 and that his name had been deliberately omitted on account of the representation made by some Municipal Councillors at the relevant time who in this proceedings are arrayed as respondents 4 and 5. In the records the representation of the Municipal Councillors is also found. The representation is to the President of the Municipal Council stating that Sanna Seebayya whose name is mentioned by the Administrator in his resolution of 2-3-1979 and his another brother have already sites and the writ petitioner who is also known as Dodda Seebayya also has a house and therefore, one family should not be given so many sites. On one such representation, the Divisional Commissioner endorsed that the matter may be referred to the Commissioner for enquiry and suitable action. Thereafter it is seen the representations have been made by the petitioner to the Government on more than one occasion which are found in the records. On one such representation made to the Commissioner of the Shimoga Municipality, he directed proper enquiry to be made. That enquiry was directed on the representation made by the petitioner on 2-4-1980 to the Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Shimoga. He directed that the Revenue Officer should conduct suitable enquiry after spot inspection and submit a report to him. That endorsement was made apparently on 8-4-1980. On 24/25- 4-80 a mahazar was conducted by the Revenue Officer. He submitted the report to the Commissioner. It is signed by Revenue Officer, Saleem Mohiuddin. The report is partly in English and partly in Kannada. It is to be found at page 148 of the records. That mahazar-cum-spot inspection clearly establishes, on a site measuring 30'xl2' petitioner Dodda Seebayya had constructed a house and was living for the last 27 years with his family; that his mother-in-law had purchased a site in a nearby village which was at the relevant time outside the limits of the Shimoga Municipality. In that circumstance no action appears to have been taken to include the name of the petitioner along with those persons who had unauthorisedly constructed premises on municipal site in Savar Line Road. Though the spot inspection and the mahazar establish that fact, yet he has been excluded from the list. That is the real grievance of the petitioner and not what he has made out in the writ petition. In the writ petition his grievance is that as per the Government Order regularising the construction and the sale of the sites in question at an upset price, site No. 67 has been allotted to the 6th respondent which is really the site on which the petitioner has constructed his house and has been living and therefore, the allotment in favour of the 6th respondent is without the authority of law apart from being unjust