The Chairman vs Jayaram Niloba Parwan on 4 March, 2011

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

The Chairman vs Jayaram Niloba Parwan on 4 March, 2011

Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar

I

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUA*ITﬂ:'~V--,,A

BENCHJMFDHARWAD ;"g.

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MAR('1H.',_u2'*OVV1N1f'  3

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE D'.V___. SH'Y.pENDRA-

R.S.A. No.5331/2o1b~~_(DE_C/"I'NII:)_'  
BETWEEN:  

I. THE CHAIRMAN,   
KARNATAKA H_OU.SIN_G B:OARD',.: _  
CAUVERYBHAVA1~g;.-t{,G.'RO'AD,   * 

BANGALORE';'56QQ1.;-5:;  

   
KARNATAKA 'H.QUSING BOARD, _
CAUVERY ._E--HAvAN,_I<.G.ROAD,-- .

I3ANGAL.ORE--sc30o'I..f.V r.

[J

SECRETARY, - _ . -~
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,

.~ I.' CAU3/EVRI' BHAvA--I~»I,_R_._G..ROAD,

" - I3ANGA'I;ORE_REP BY LAXMINARAYAN
'_ » v'INAYAK«HEvGDE,
  AS_S1STANT~EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KHB «KA1?WAR.,}'58 130 I .

D.)

V  THE AS_SISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

 I  '4'{:}~33'V"'Sri. S.V.Yaji, Adv.)

. KARN.ATAI<A HOUSING BOARD
..  NEW KHI3 COLONY, KARWAR.
V. B'Y"'1,AXMINARAYAN VINAYAK HEGDE
'  AGE; 40 YEARS, R/O I<:ARwAR,
*PIN--581301.
1 -- Appellants



I' J

AND

JAYARAM NILOBA PARWAR,
AGED 65 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER, MIG 28,
R/O VIVEKANAND NAGAR, PO: KODIBAG,
TQ: KARWAR, DIST: KARWAR--581301.   _  ,_  _
    E'.eSpo1j1d_erit_ '
(By Sri. V H Nayak for C/R.) ' '  * A' '  "

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED U,/'E3-~....'.'OO
OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDOME"NuT'T»AND "AW"AF:D 'DATED
12.01.2010

, PASSED IN R.A. No.29/-200.3 ON' THE FFLE OP THE DISTRICT JUDGEV:"LIVTTAI}{-A",.K1AN>N:ADA, "KARWAR, DISMISSINO THE APPEAL, «PAOAII-IST;VTH~--E»..JU1DOEMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.O1.2OOI8,;_PASS.E:D I_N-.O,.S--..NO.70/2006, ON THE FILE OPS THE_...PR.L.C_IV:IL*"~JU~DG'E (SRDN), KARWAR, DECREEIN'o.._TH;E SUIT _F'ILE_D -FOR THE RELIEF OF DEcLARATION;"AI-ID.'INJ.UNcT1o'N: -

THIS APF'EA_L"'_>.CO"MIN'G':xFQR 'ADMISSION ON THIS DAY, COURT pDE'L.Iv*E'R:ED T'HE*EOL_Lo.\fVING:

by the dissatisfied defendant who-. h'asVjSuf_fie'red a decree for declaration :.a'1"Id ir1j'ié.1rI_;otion "Wit.h._..vthe appeal before the first a.pp'e;].i1iat.e *Court°haVing been dismissed, happens to t'h.e'V Housing Board, a Statutory _H.._p.Board, trying to get out of the judgment and premise that the Board though had _a'1i«i1'otgedi a house in Kodibag village of Karwar town 45/ Lu and had received full payment from the allottee and it had also executed a Sale Deed on nevertheless given cause of action to the come up with the suit as the Board interfere with the peaceful _ enjoyment of the subject plVa'i'r1tjiff by causing a cornmunipcatiofi' lplaintiiff on

02.06.2006 calling uponVthei'vpVlainltiiV:ff';:for;deliver the vacant it appears had5 not to allot or create such of those house/sitvvesplofVtl1VVe':.iE§*oia'r_d"~:vv*hich had been given on lease or.provi"dipVng.facicornmodation for Government as quarters, etc. But nevertheless having decree before the trial Court and Vvibeing"-uns__u'c.c.essful in the first appellate Court as l"l":v'.vli'1"~l:thepsecond appeal to get over the same. 0/ 4 .

2. Submission of Sri S.V. Yaji, learne_d"--«copun"sei*----.r * appearing for the appellants.

Government being the superior.' fact even in terms of the oif the Karnataka Housing State Government having l4"sii;.pervisory and controlling D0w&r'i'O,'Ver:.-t'l'1ie the Board and that evenv gjel.ll,.lii:'t'r"lansfer of the property, to approval by the Governrnleji<1Vt.J=.lltilﬁi'-..,_tla.ej instant case the Government " havir1A:gv.iii"e.it'pr*essly disapproved the allotment, ..:acti'onil'-tlaiken by the Board is fully in law andwthere was no justification for the-__ decreeing the suit in favour of "the pila_intiffla,nid therefore the judgment and decree ~app€a_

-the] Court below be set aside in this second Q©/

3. It is also submitted that though the V. had taken up a contention that the S Government having not been f."rnp'ie.ad.ed;« defendant to the suit, the if suff.er~s «. misjoinder of party, the havingi necessary steps for im--pfevad'i.ng "the State Government as party,' __the Courts_.be--].ow should not have entertained the suit the suit should have beer'i'«g:.d1'isrri=issed a'tTtih"euthfreshold.

4. Assurningfvf'<.:r.._»aairguirnent-is sake that the State Governmentahtas ove'ra11f"s.upervisory' and controlling powerggindv respeﬂc-tnof the functioning of the Board C1ause--A of Section 87 of the Act, tha"t._d".oes"any way detract from the normal 't'unctio--nir1g the Board in allotting the sites in ovftdeserving applicants and the further ot_)1i'gSa'tion to execute a Sale Deed in favour of the

--«aI1'otStee after receiving the full sale consideration. ﬁg/S

5. Such a course of action performed by the appe11ant:Boar'd_ correspondence and even ass-n:fi1,ing.V.thei<Ve interim direction from the GV~o've.yf.:iitri"€nt to'"theVEBoard that having not been cannot override the provi'si_on aVs.::.;¢;1:drnitted1y the Board had withstanding an undert_a_kirig::"said' up or obtained from the'-peffect that the sale is subject the Government, the Courts jbelpowéhadino chance but to decree the suit.

"e'ri'orAi'--much less an error in law of subs~ta-ritialA7_n.a'tiJre which arises out of the orders HVp_assed*-- byHt'h':e trial Court and the first appellate A'A"ﬁrCoiirtaiforveiiarnination within the scope of a Section appeal. 23/

7. No merit in this appeal is dismissed.

bvv 7 V "<-_.V:iA'a.p}«)Le2ipi5. ""'*.V;'A:'Cc,»ordmgly the

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court