Karnataka High Court
Mr T Nagaraja vs Secretary on 7 February, 2013
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S.Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA
W.P. No.30465/2012 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN :
MR T NAGARAJA S/O THAMMANNA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
RESIDING AT 6TH CROSS
JCR EXTENSION
CHITRADURGA ...PETITIONER
( BY MS. SHWETHA P, ADV. FOR
SRI H M MARIYAPPA)
AND :
1. SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-01
2. THE COMMISSIONER
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
CHITRADURGA-577501 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, HCGP FOR R1
SRI S MAHESH, ADV. FOR R2 )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO DIRECT
THE R2 TO REMOVE THE LOCK IN RESPECT OF SHOP PREMISES
BEARING NO.41 MEASURING 12 X 15 SITUATED AT SANTEPET
PLAYGROUND NEAR NEW PRIVATE BUS STAND CHITRADURGA
AND THEREBY PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO DO HIS RETAIL
BUSINESS AS PER ANNX-C DATED 13.7.12.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING :
2
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the second respondent to remove the lock in respect of the shop premises bearing No.41 measuring 12' X 15' situate at Santhepet Playground, near private Bus Stand, Chitradurga and permit the petitioner to carry on retail business of flower vending.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was an occupant of the shop bearing No.81/28 situate at Gandhi Market, Chitradurga owned by the second respondent. In that regard, the rentals were being paid. The said building was sought to be demolished and a new construction was to be put up by the second respondent. In that circumstance, all the occupants of the old building were assured that they would be provided alternate shops in the new building that would be constructed. It is in that context, the petitioner contends that on construction of the new complex, like all other occupants of the old building, the petitioner has also sought for such accommodation and the second respondent by their order dated 13.07.2012 allotted shop No.41 in favour of the 3 petitioner. The petitioner contends that though higher amount has been demanded in the said notice, the deposit made by the petitioner is in the same manner as has been done by all other shop owners and accordingly the sum of Rs.7,700/- was deposited as per Annexure-D. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner claims that he was put in possession of the property. The petitioner being aggrieved by the action of the respondents in locking the premises without affording any opportunity, he is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus.
3. The respondents have entered appearance and filed their objection statement. They seek to sustain their action and contend that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief. On the other hand, it is contended that the petitioner is not the son of Sri Thimmappa whose son was originally occupant in the old building. In that circumstance, since there were certain complaints and one Sri T.Nagaraju S/o G. Thimmaiah made representation that he is the rightful person who is entitled to the premises, the said request has been considered and therefore, the present action has been initiated. 4
4. Having noticed the rival contentions, what is seen at the outset is that neither the petitioner nor the person who has approached the second respondent subsequently are indicated to be the son of Thimmaiah. The petitioner claims to be the son of Thammanna and the person who had made an application subsequently seeking shop for his sister is the son of G.Thimmaiah. Therefore, on the face of it, in my opinion, the name of the father of the person who was in occupation is not relevant. However, the second respondent would have to inquire into the matter as to the actual occupant who was in occupation of shop No.81 in the old complex and thereafter grant the premises No.41 in the new complex to the said person who is entitled to the same.
5. In the said process, the second respondent would have to provide opportunity to both the parties to place all the materials on record to indicate their right claimed in respect of occupation of Shop No.81 in the old complex and based on the said documents, a considered order would have to be passed by the second respondent. Needless to mention that if in such enquiry, it is found 5 that the petitioner is the person who is entitled to, possession of the premises, it would be granted to the petitioner or otherwise the reasons for the impediment to grant be intimated. Considering that the shop is under lock and the rights of the parties are to be decided, the same shall be done in an expeditious manner.
6. Therefore, the petitioner shall now file the relevant documents along with a certified copy of this order before the second respondent within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter the second respondent or the Officer to whom the power is delegated by the second respondent shall provide opportunity to the petitioner as well as the rival claimants and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date on which the rival claimant files documents before the second respondent or the delegated authority.
With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE akc/bms