Karnataka High Court
Manipal Academy Of Higher Education vs Udupi City Municipality on 5 February, 2016
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
Bench: S. Abdul Nazeer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER
WRIT PETITION NO.24859/2015 (LB-RES)
Between:
Manipal Academy of Higher Education,
Manipal, Udupi 576 101,
Reptd. by its Registrar
Sri Gopalakrishna Prabhu.K. .... Petitioner.
(By Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, Sr. Adv. for Sri Vishwajith Shetty, Adv.)
And:
1 Udupi City Municipality,
Udupi,
Reptd. by its Commissioner 576 101.
2. The Executive Engineer,
MESCOM, Manipal,
Udupi Taluk 576 101. .... Respondents.
(By Hegde A/S, Advs. for R1
Sri B.Rduragowda, Adv. for R2)
---
2
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order dated
27.5.2015 passed by the first respondent, etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Further Hearing this day, the
Court passed the following:
ORDER
vc The subject matter of this writ petition is land bearing Sy.No.57/1C measuring 14.95 acres situated at Shivalli Village and Herga Village of Udupi Taluk. This land along with certain other adjacent land was granted in favour of the petitioner as per the order at Annexure 'B' dated 7.8.1969. Out of this land, petitioner had put up construction in 2½ acres of land. The balance of the land measuring 12.45 acres was utilized by the petitioner for construction of hostel building and an academic block of the medical college. The first respondent has passed an order as per Annexure 'A' dated 27.5.2015 suspending the licence granted for construction of the buildings. The petitioner is also restrained from putting up further construction in the said land. The 3 petitioner has called in question the validity of the said order in this writ petition.
2. Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that initially this land was granted for playground. The buildings have been put up in the said land after taking permission from the competent authorities. During the pendency of this writ petition, the State Government by order dated 10.7.2015 has granted approval for construction of the hostel complex and academic block in the said land retrospectively. In view of the above, the endorsement at Annexure 'A' requires to be quashed.
3. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that the grant of the aforesaid land was for the purpose of playground. Contrary to the grant order, the petitioner has put up hostel building and an 4 academic block. It is further submitted that the construction put up by the petitioner is also contrary to the CDP wherein the property is reserved for public and semi-public purpose. In the circumstances, the petitioner is not justified in putting up hostel building and academic block in the said land.
4. Perusal of the order at Annexure 'A' would indicate that licence issued for construction of the building in the land in question was suspended on the ground that petitioner has utilised the land for a different purpose. The order passed by the Government dated 10.7.2015 makes it clear that the State Government has retrospectively changed the purpose of grant of land. Though the grant was originally made for playground, it has been changed for construction of hostel and academic block for the medical college. In view of the aforesaid order of the State Government, the endorsement at Annexure 'A' cannot be sustained.
5
5. The contention of the learned Counsel for the first respondent that in the CDP, the land has been reserved for public and semi-public use and that it cannot be put to use for different purpose has not been made a ground in the impugned order. It is settled that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. (See MOHINDER SINGH GILL AND ANOTHER VS. THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS -
AIR 1978 SC 851). Therefore, the writ petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. The order at Annexure 'A' dated 27.5.2015 is hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the competent authorities to take fresh action against the petitioner in accordance with law in case there are any other violations in respect of the construction of the buildings in the land in question.
6
6. In view of the above, I.A.No.1/2016 does not survive for consideration. It is accordingly disposed of. .No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
BMM/-