Malakappa S/O Amagond Biradar vs State Of Karnataka on 13 April, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Malakappa S/O Amagond Biradar vs State Of Karnataka on 13 April, 2010

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA   

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF   

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE 

WRIT PETITION No.3apoo 200 A
BETWEEN  %%    i V

MALAKAPPA,     ~
S/O AMAGOND EIRADAR,  
AGED ABOUT 55  Q 

OCC. SECRETARY,    A 
SRI GIRIMALLE_S'HWARA'V"  
HOUSINO'SOc_:E*r;Y~,I 4 _   V
DR. MELAGAN. C'OM_PLEX;'   _

I FLOOR, IvIEEN.AKSII~I VCHOWK;

BIJAPUR. . _ A _. . . PETITIONER

[BY SRI  ADV., FOR
SR1 VEERESH 'B"PA'E'IL, ADV. ,}

   KARNATAKA,

REP; BY HES SECRETARY,
HO'USI,NG»,& URBAN DEVELOPMENT

 DEPT.,, M S BUILDING. BANGALORE.

 _  THE BIJAPUR URBAN
"  DEvEI.ORMENI' AUTHORITY.

  " EAGALROT ROAD, BIJAPUR,
AA A' "BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

'\I:ﬂ

-,-sm~wRwmm



IO

3. THE RAJIV GANIJHI SOCIAL
WELFARE ASSOCIATION.

BIJAPUR, [A SOCIETY REGISTERED
UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES
REGISTRATION ACT) HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT
SAIIDAGAR BUILDING,   
JORAPUR PET, BIJAPUR,   n
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT,  
SHRI JYOTIRAM BABU RAO.__PAW;L'.R.

4. ST. JOSERI-I~S EDUCATIdN.V'S»OVCII§?I"I'.VV:  
DELETED.   »  

5. BIJAPUR DISTRICT KSHA'f'f?{IYA"'«  
MARATHA EMP_LOYEES.WELE'ARE'v_  
ASSOCIATION.IE-IJAI§>UR (A SO'C.I~ETY.i'
REGISTERED LINDER.  
SOCIETIES f%.EG'ISTVFRA5E-I.CI1\IACT) 
HAVING ITS REGD. OEEIr:E__AT 
MANDADEEPT BEE}-¥JDI,NGS  

SIIASTRI NAG;A_.R,".SAINIK SCHOOL,
GATE;EI;.IAI>IIR;«fREI:>._  SUDIIIR
EIIAGWAN SANKPA1.,. MEMBER OF THE
SOCIETY. -»      ' ...RESPONDENTS

 I§;{i13I1Vi}xDAP[VJV§.AADV., FOR
SRI_VAASRO.I<»R"I<AI,YANSIIE'ITY. ADI/., FOR R2;
SRI S SV..I<:UI»II\j/IAI~*,.'.C*GA FOR R1; R4 IS DELETED;

  SANJAY A RATIL. ADv., FOR R3 81 R5]

=i==I<=l~'=II==!4*=i=*

   petition IS filed under Articles 226 and

'AI:' '.::22'7"'Of._th't:":COI1Sti"£uUOl'1 Of India. praying to quash the
  I?IGtiﬁCation dated 12.9.2001 by R2 vide Armexture K and

4
I/'



respondent. The petitioner has also approached the

first respondent that the second respondent?'authority

having granted lands to institutioris wri'ieh.:theyR had"

acquired. The petitioner is pla,-Ce'd"'at'_a.pdisadvantage to

be refused the property as ciaiInae.d.»7__A.

3. It is the furtiier ..the"petitioners that
the respondents  vAA.'riot.ification dated
12.9.2001   loeen acquired at
the instance  be soid by auction and
that   their applications.
Being ag§r'ie\}ed.Vv'h;{'this.:i:n'o't'ification that the petitioner is
before.tthis"uCo:urt;h"' A V i

  for the petitioner while reiterating

the"-««._abﬁjveei'circumstance would contend that the

Tpetiitioner has handed over lands free of cost to the

 e._respondent and the respondent now seeking to sell the

  "property or to convert it for any other purpose wouid be

/2"





 ..

acting in violation of the iaw laid down. by the Supreme Court in the case of Pi. Chet" Ram L.Rs., .Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi 1995 SC 430. Since the peti_t:ion'e"r's--«require Al for public purposes, namely to such as bank, educational'=..1ﬁgtitution_s"randllpolst office and since the lands used only for such purpose the respondlent alienate the same in favfourgc-f Purpose other than. that the civic amenity sites would.' it Urban Development Authorities "Civic Amenity Sites] Rules, 1991,, as and therefore seeks interference of this

5.y___"'I'heArespondent No.1 has ﬁled statement of :"obj'ecti.o'ns denying that the second respondent is giving to the instjitititions or having allowed the institutions to occupy the same though it is true that a iiigm 6 notiﬁcation dated 12.9.2001 has been issued calling for applications from public institutions for allotn°ije:n.t"p:'-:)y:f"the civic amenity cites. This is in accordance '"1 ij_l_es'» and it is incorrect. on the part"-of the_..pet.itionerinto contend that it is not so. As base__e:i1_lV =4"

said Rules it is perInissibiev..for, the Urban.'_=I)V'eitelVopmentV Authority to alienate.._i:het»it1'ands,'VV:'soA reserved' as civic amenity cites, on leased not exceeding 30 years an§d"therefore or infirmity in the of the respondents.

Respotndlenti _ it statement of ob} ections to reiterate irespondent No. l.

Inﬁthe aboye facts and circumstances, from a readiiig.f'0f'tiic,Vrules it is clear that the civic amenity site rnea._nsV___the site earmarked in a private layout approved 'byep_the'*-'authority. It is not in dispute that the civic 'arrieiiity sites concerned having been relinquished by

-the petitioner in favour of the authority in so far as the am was to be formed and with the condition that the area earmarked as Civic amenity sites ought to be"'hfa.1ie¥ed over free of cost to the Corporation. It is ih t}3jat:

that the Supreme Court has heIEi"tha_t"-.Athe rhe T author1'ty was illegal. In so fart'«__1s".t_he preisetﬁ' castevrong hand is concerned, since the*autho;'i_tiee.V-ares' acting in accordance with the~r171les" fI9;eL-Isard..g;1ecisior1 Vcannot be applied to the facts and of the Case.

Accorclingly, ~vti'1e petirio12 disrr1i:s'sed.;ié

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court