Karnataka High Court
Sri S K Ramachandra Gupta vs Deputy Commissioner on 24 September, 2019
Author: H T Narendra Prasad
Bench: H. T. Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION No.19779/2018(LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI S K RAMACHANDRA GUPTA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
S/O. LATE. S.G. KRISHNAIAH SHETTY
MAIN ROAD, SHIRA
TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572137.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.N. NITHIN, ADV. FOR
SRI.K. V. NARASIMHAN, ADV.)
AND
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
TUMAKURU - 572101.
2. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHIRA
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572137.
3. M. MARIDAPPA
S/O MALLANNA
PRESIDENT OF BHAGAVAN SHREE
SATHYA SEVE SAMITHI
SIRA TOWN, SIRA TALUK
2
TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572137.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA. FOR R1,
SRI. S.RAJU, ADV. FOR R2,
SRI. B.K. MANJUNATH & SRI.NAVEEN KUMAR. M,
ADVS. FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
26.02.2018 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN
M.U.N (A) 15/2007-2008 AT ANNEXURE-K.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has assailed the order dated 26.2.2018 passed by the respondent No.1 in revision petition i.e., M.U.N.(A) 15/2007-08 vide Annexure-K filed under Section 306 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act (for short "the Act") whereby the revision petition filed by the respondent No.3 herein is allowed.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner of the property measuring East-West 3 60 feet and North-South 640 feet situated at Soppinahatti, Shira Town, Tumakuru District. Originally the property belonged to one Durga Singh who had purchased the said property in public auction conducted on 7.11.1903. The said Durga Singh had two sons, namely, Narasingh Bahn and Balaram Singh and they have succeeded to the property of the Durga Singh after his demise. Narasingh Bhan died leaving behind his son Daulathram Singh. The petitioner has purchased the said property from Daulathram Singh by registered sale deed dated 30.3.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner's name has been entered in the katha register maintained by the Municipality. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 claims that he has purchased the property bearing No.1182/1172 measuring East-West 60 feet and North-South 30 feet situated in Soppinahatti, I Division, Sira Town and pursuant to that, his name 4 has been entered in the katha register. After coming to know the fact that no such property was in existence, the respondent No.2 has passed a resolution dated 26.8.2000 vide Annexure-F, cancelled the allotment in favour of respondent No.3. Subsequently, on 12.8.2005, the Municipality has passed a resolution canceling the katha which is registered in the name of respondent No.3. Being aggrieved, the respondent No.3 has filed a petition under Section 306 of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner by order dated 26.2.2018 allowed the petition filed by the respondent No.3. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Sri.K.N.Nitin, learned counsel for Sri.K.V.Narasimhan for the petitioner submits that the petition filed by the respondent No.3 under Section 306 of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner is not 5 maintainable. Therefore, the impugned order vide Annexure-K passed by the Deputy Commissioner is without jurisdiction. He further submits that the Deputy Commissioner without authority of law and contrary to the provisions of Section 306 of the Act has allowed the petition filed by the petitioner. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.
4. Per contra, Sri.Manjunath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submits that respondent No.3 has purchased this property in public auction. Pursuant to that, the Municipality has executed the registered sale deed on 8.3.1991 and on the basis of the registered sale deed, katha has been effected in the name of respondent No.3. Thereafter, the Municipality without giving any notice to the petitioner has cancelled the katha on the ground that there is no such land available. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No.3 has filed a revision petition 6 under Section 306 of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner after obtaining report from the competent authority has held that the resolution passed by the Municipality is contrary to the provisions of law and has rightly passed the impugned order. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. The learned AGA appearing for the respondent No.1-State submitted that under Section 306 of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner can suspend the execution or prohibit any order or resolution passed by the Town Municipal Council, if found unlawful or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the public or lead to breach of peace and shall subsequently forward the order to the Government. The Government after giving notice to the parties can confirm, revise or modify the order of the Deputy Commissioner. She submits that there is no dispute 7 regarding the position of law that the Deputy Commissioner has no power to allow the petition, he can only suspend the resolution or order and forward the same to the Government for taking decision.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the writ papers.
7. Detailed narration of facts would not call for reiteration. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that under Section 306 of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner has no power to entertain any petition filed by the private parties against any execution of order or resolution passed by the Town Municipal Council and further contention is that the Deputy Commissioner has no power to allow the petition and he can only suspend or forward the order to the Government.
8
8. For better understanding, Section 306 of the Act is extracted hereunder:
"306. Deputy Commissioner's power of suspending execution of orders, etc of municipal councils:- (1) if, in the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner, the execution of any order or resolution of a town municipal council, or the doing of anything which about to be done or is being done by or on behalf of a town municipal council, is unlawful or is causing or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the public, or to lead to a breach of the peace, he may, by order in writing under his signature, suspend the execution or prohibit the doing thereof.
(2) When a Deputy Commissioner makes any order under this Section, he shall forthwith forward to Government and to the Director of Municipal Administration and to the municipal council affected thereby a copy of the order, with a statement of the reasons for making it; and 9 it shall be in the discretion of the Government to rescind the order, or to direct that it shall continue in force with or without modification, permanently or for such period as it thinks fit:
Provided that no order of the Deputy Commissioner passed under this section shall be confirmed, revised or modified by the Government without giving the Municipal council, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the said order. By reading the above provision, it is clear that the Deputy Commissioner under Section 306 of the Act can suspend the execution or prohibit the order or resolution passed by the Town Municipal Council, if found unlawful or is causing or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the public, or to lead to a breach of the peace.
9. In the case on hand, the Deputy Commissioner has passed an order allowing the 10 petition filed by the respondent No.3. He has no such power under Section 306 of the Act, he can only suspend the resolution and forward the same to the Government. Under the proviso to Section 306(2) of the Act, the State Government can confirm, revise or modify the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner after giving notice to the Municipality. Since, the impugned order Annexure-K is contrary to the provisions of Section 306 of the Act, the same is liable to be quashed. In respect of the second contention raised by the petitioner that the petition filed by the respondent No.3 is not maintainable, without expressing any opinion on the second contention raised by the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to raise this contention before the Deputy Commissioner.
10. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 26.2.2018 vide Annexure-K is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Commissioner. 11 The Deputy Commissioner is directed to consider all the contentions raised by the parties and shall pass orders in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE DM