Karnataka High Court
Ramaiah Reddy vs State Of Karnataka on 17 February, 2016
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No.2061 OF 2016 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
Ramaiah Reddy,
Son of Late Chinappa Reddy,
Aged about 59 years,
Residing at Ramaiah Reddy Colony,
Sector-C, Basavanagar,
Marathahalli Post,
Bengaluru 560 037.
Represented by his
G.P.A.Holder
Sri. D. Babu @ Yusuf Sheriff,
Son of Sri. Dastagir Sheriff,
Aged about 50 years,
Residing at No.22/1,
Kaveriappa Layout,
Miller Tank Bund Road,
Bengaluru 560 052.
...PETITIONER
(By Shri Reuben Jacob, Advocate)
2
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Department of Revenue,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bengaluru 560 001,
Represented by Principal Secretary.
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore District,
Bengaluru 560 009.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri H. Venkatesh Dodderi, Additional Government
Advocate)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the endorsement dated
1.1.2016 vide Annexure-G in so far as the rejection of the
petitioner's request for payment of interest at the rate of 24%
per annum on the 25% bid amount of Rs.76,25,000/- and to
direct the respondents to forthwith refund 25% of the bid
amount of Rs.76,25,000/- to the petitioner through his GPA
Holder along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in
'B' Group this day, the court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate.
3
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the second respondent had notified the auction as on 16.5.2005 bringing several lands belonging to the Government to sale by public auction. There were 18 items of land notified for auction and the petitioner participated in auction in respect of three items at Serial Nos.16,17 and 18 of the said notification and he was declared as the highest bidder in respect of the said three lands, namely, survey No.148/2B measuring 1 acre 20 guntas, Survey No.151/1 measuring 4 acres 20 guntas and survey No.151/3 measuring 14 cents of Kengeri village, Bangalore South Taluk.
It is stated that the bid amount was Rs.3,05,00,000/-. The petitioner was required to deposit 25% of the bid amount in a sum of Rs.76,25,000/- with the Deputy Commissioner, which was deposited by the petitioner. Thereafter, after waiting for a long time, the petitioner had made two representations dated 26.10.2010 and 11.11.2010 requesting issuance of a sale confirmation letter in order to enable the petitioner to pay the 4 balance amount. No action was taken. The petitioner's repeated approach to the Deputy Commissioner yielded no progress. He had again renewed his representations in the year 2015 requesting refund of 25% of the bid amount along with interest at 24% per annum or for allotment of alternative land in lieu of the lands referred to hereinabove.
3. The Deputy Commissioner having woken up, had issued an endorsement dated 1.1.2016 to indicate that as per the terms of auction, neither alternate land nor interest could be paid on the 25% bid amount. It is in this background that the present writ petition is filed.
The reason for the State Government resiling from the transaction is that the land which was said to have been forfeited for violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'KLR Act', for brevity), namely, Section 79A of the KLR Act was found to have been set at naught by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal 5 and therefore, the rigour of the violation was removed and hence the forfeiture also was said to have been dissolved.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised several grounds questioning the action of the State Government in denying the benefit of the auction sale and pointing out that though a substantial amount of Rs.76,25,000/- was deposited as early as in the year 2005, the petitioner is yet to see the benefit of the same.
In this background, the Government Advocate was called upon to obtain instructions as to the options available to the State Government insofar as the petitioner is concerned and as to whether he could expect grant of alternative land.
5. The learned Government Advocate on instructions would submit that there are no alternative lands available corresponding to the extent of land which was proposed to be sold in the auction in favour of the petitioner and that he would require further time to consider other option to refund the amount to the petitioner with or without interest, as the case 6 may be. It is also to be placed on record that the petitioner, in order to further establish his bona fides, was called upon to deposit 75% of the bid amount, which has been deposited before this court.
The learned Government Advocate would seek further time to examine if any alternative land is available at all though at present, his instructions are that there is no such land available.
6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the petitioner on instructions from his client, would submit that if time is granted to the petitioner, he would be in a position to obtain information regarding the availability of such government land by recourse to the Right to Information Act, 2005 and point out the availability of such government land which could be conveyed in the alternative. Therefore, the State is at liberty to withdraw the money in deposit before this court and to identify such alternative land of similar dimensions as was proposed to be sold in the auction and convey the same 7 to the petitioner. This process should be completed within the next eight weeks, if not earlier from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With that observation, the petition stands disposed of.
7. The learned Government Advocate would, at this stage, point out that it was not his instructions that the advance amounts would be refunded with interest and it can be refunded only without interest. And further, since no land is available, the question of withdrawing the amount in deposit before this court would not arise and therefore, he would submit that the order to that extent should be modified.
However, this court is of the opinion that the State Government has acted with want of responsibility in holding such actions without being sure of its position as to whether the land was capable of being conveyed without encumbrance. It is brought to the attention of this court that an appeal had been preferred against the order of forfeiture under the provisions of the KLR Act and notwithstanding the same, the auction sale 8 had been conducted by the State. This is an act of total irresponsibility on the part of the State. The petitioner having been made to deposit a substantial amount of more than Rs.76,00,000/- has been denied the benefit of this amount while the State Government was also not in a position to convey the land and after all these years, for the State Government to take a position that it will merely refund the amount without interest it would lead to gross injustice. Therefore, it would be incumbent on the State to receive the entire amount of the auction price and atleast pursuant to this order, the State Government should convey alternative land, if it is available. For otherwise it would certainly be bound to pay interest on the amount that is received by the State in the year 2005 and which being refunded after 10 years.
It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that this is not the only instance and there have been other instances where such bidders have been denied the benefit of the land and further, even without the said bidders having taken 9 recourse to proceedings before this court, the State Government has thought it fit to convey alternative land and therefore, this is one other instance, which would indicate that the State Government is acting arbitrarily insofar as the sale transactions are concerned. Hence, the petitioner would have to be given his due. Therefore, the stand of the learned Government Advocate that the State is not bound to pay interest or not bound to consider grant of alternative land cannot be accepted.
The petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv