Sri Jagadeesh A K vs Davanagere Harihara Urban Development ... on 18 September, 2012

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Jagadeesh A K vs Davanagere Harihara Urban Development ... on 18 September, 2012

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

1                                          W.P.21751-752/12

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

       DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012

                         BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY

     WRIT PETITION Nos.21751 - 752 OF 2012 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN

      SRI JAGADEESH A K
      AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
      S/O LATE ANDANAPPA
      R/O 1837, 3RD MAIN, 2ND B CROSS,
      VINODANAGARA, DAVANAGERE.
                                         ... PETITIONER

(By Sri. A SANATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE )

AND

      DAVANAGERE HARIHARA URBAN
      DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
      SRI. DEVARAJ URS EXTENSION,
      A BLOCK, B B ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577006
      REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
      DAVANAGERE.
                                       ... RESPONDENT

      THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION AT ANN-A
DT.29.3.12, /31.2.12 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT; AND ETC.

     THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRL.HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
 2                                              W.P.21751-752/12

                           ORDER

Petitioner's bid of Rs.16,16,000/- for property No.489 at Sl.No.8 in the public auction notification dt. 25/2/2012 - Annex.B of the respondent - Davangere- Harihara Urban Development Authority, when rejected by letter dt. 29-3-2012/31-3-2012 - Annex.A, has presented these petitions.

2. It may be that the petitioner's bid was the highest in respect of the immovable property, nevertheless the justification to decline the offer as indicated in the letter Annex.A is that the offer is less than the offer that the Authority received in the previous public auction in respect of the very same site. If that is so, then it cannot be said that there is no justification since it is not a case of acceptance of the highest bid but public properties being put to auction to ensure that the statutory authorities 3 W.P.21751-752/12 recover the highest revenue, in the light of application of Public Trust Doctrine.

3. In that view of the matter, I find no justification for the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the communication - Annex.A. Learned Counsel submits that since the cheque dated 30/3/2012 is not encashed, the respondent-Authority is directed to either issue a fresh cheque on receiving the original of the cheque issued under Annex.A or revalidate the same, if made within a fortnight from today.

Petitions are accordingly disposed of.

SD/-

JUDGE rd/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court