Karnataka High Court
Shri A N Ramalingegowda vs The State Of Karnataka By Its Secretary on 7 February, 2012
Equivalent citations: 2012 (2) AIR KAR R 788, AIR 2013 (NOC) (SUPP) 1042 (KAR.), (2012) 3 KANT LJ 6, (2012) 4 KCCR 3218
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar, H.S.Kempanna
6 15525 of 2006 and figuring respondents '
respectively in the other two petitions,.for.consideration a sum of ?l.68 erore as per sale deed which, of course, is a development.__subse_e1iient of the first of these three writ as subject matter in the pe.'ti.t,ioVfi'l:p_re0sent,edHonill7~<L 2007 and third writ petitio'n.__ Q-6-2008. These writ petitioi'1s"'l:1:§1ve interest petitions, as seeking for any personal relief, them, but Claim to have espoused .a for. protecting the property which belonglsfilto body--BBMP and which, :.aecordi,i:ig. togiglone Of"ltl1€...\.NTlt petitioners ~ petitioner in WP should have been retained and pres'erv'e_d 'eornmunity hall for the benefit of the ivcommunityv-._'at -large than being sold in favour of a private , , ., .,'{fi;\divid,ual or "company.
lgln WP No 15525 of 2006, writ petitioner also to espouse a public cause, has urged that 7 according of permission of the state of government order permission of the government tolithe"-..propos3.lA the BBMP to transfer the siilbjlectl of third respondent in this _p--etitlion"'ivas: 'violation of and contrary to. 176 of the Karnataka 1976 [for short, the Act] and" also1i:onti:ary'--.to----.the 'government order dated 2432003 [Annexufé 15525 of 2006]. wherein the state goverinrrilent" resolved that properties belonging'toe,puhlic..Vljloldievs should necessarily be sold by "except in the case of four categories of individruals/bodiesyin whose favour an exception was "=.«'»made such asrl "
i) H Allotment of Free Land:
Schools / Colleges / Hostels / Hospitals / Anganawadis / Public Libraries / Destitute Homes and Police Stations run by the Government.
b) Burial Ground / Graveyard / Dog Detection Centres / Registered %//l 11 and proceedings, but essentially tomHensure"' if property is restored to the BBMP andlaif a,t~azl,l a at is to be sold by BBMP it can onl§;"o.e by public if
5. Writ petitions had been respondents were notified. While no objections has been filed on in any of these writ learned governmen_t._ple_a'de'i state, submits that the then lcvhief representations had been given respendlenltl?beneficiary for allotment of the subject land, after 'taking into consideration the lllll the applicant in the filed of jou1'na.iism,Ifhadlordered allotment of the land in question dd"'dfi§'§l4l>l}lrrr«N §driE§e?oiféR%% "a l°%%€c%s%°a§yh€pr'%?c'§ uirsééofifili i.",fCqlpui.remeIi't--s of law in the matter of transfer of subject pinfavour of the applicant~beneficiary; that necessary 'requ_irements are also made and the matter having gone before competent authorities, transaction cannot be %//u 12 characterized as either irregular or ille'gal§_"th'at Zthere 7U need for interference in a mat_te--r._ of this . natuVrge--»...aVnVd therefore urges for dismissal of theiliwrit petitions; "l
6. However, learned gove:rnmen--tVi"pl.eader has placed before the court the records" of._the _st_ate'».government leading to the order .__of the' and the consequential l
7. In sozvllfarllvasthe concerned, a fairly detailed statement been filed in all three petitions and the actio.nAA'on"~i'ts part is strongly defended.
of tlhe--civic body that the requirement of Sect1o.n" l."g/A'€~._of are all have been met and the civic body as per the orders and directions of tlie state g-overfnment; that the civic body though had 4f'p7(1S"SCClV,ga resolution once earlier for acting in consonance vvith-..the..uendorsement made by the then chief minister for
-allotment of land and had processed the matter through standing committees and the civic body itself had we passed a resolution dated 26~lO~2005 toh__se_ekffthedl -- approval of the state governm'ent"* . in unanimously resolved to transfer the proposal made by the commissioner Ahand' elicited the approval of the__ two standing-committees.E viz., standing committee for development and the standing committee' and the government gr'a:r'ite€d._T as per the government order the civic body had a andflpassed a subsequent resolution its earlier resolution in the wake of the"reValiz.atio.nfon the part of the civic body land Apbeingfrequired for its own requirement an office building and to develop a fVW....v.commercial and had therefore passed the _:d_j._resolution~.to}retain the land in question for such purpose had, forwarded this fresh resolution to the state g.oveinment seeking review of its earlier order, but the T c_omrnissioner of the civic body had been apprised by the r/ 15 and the Validity of the transaction. It is urged allottee / beneficiary M / s Daanish Publications.is»l.a':'lim*i:te.dg company, though a closely held:
publishes an Urdu daily by narne_4_Thel'S_ilusat:
good circulation and is being published from Bangalore and is llserving a laudable public cause l and information that it has been serving Karnataka for the past in Hyderabad for the past -_ years; that the present company :--th'eff4management of this news daily onyljp-;_'/l after th'c._year l999 and has been carrying on theft that Bangalore office which was func'tion_ing"vlin..,:a vAl.ir:'e'f1ted building for the past about six Vlyc_ars prior to application seeking for allotment of the in question; that the building had been destroyed due to 'afire hazard and as the company was functioning temporary alternative office, it was in dire need of 16 a place for housing an office of appreciating the good works done housing its organization, the tllen=...chief"~ state ordered for allotment of a the allottee had identified an -..afVail2%ible.vyaca_ntyland for the purpose, the subject land was though not upto the extent' for l§.iit~.t¢o'v0'tfhevlimited extent of 10000 sqft and;though"3V1fecommen'dation'of the civic body was for allotment --iat§:50%' ofi"~t_he"'rnar:ket Value, the state governnienit" liiad. granted its sanction for transfer of th price; that the company has paid the 'p.riAc~es therefore there cannot be Va-my exception taken"'f0_r___1:he resolution allotting the land an.d~th'e_ market price. It is pleaded that all necelssary' illegal "requirements are met; that merely because' one the writ petitioners had sought for lallogtfriaent of" land for the purpose mentioned by it or for tlhefll-alnd-Aand building to be maintained as a community in no way Vitiates the government order or 17 subsequent transfer of the land by the civic body market price; that the writ petitioner in WP No 79753' 2008 was more after chief publicity than for is any worthwhile public cause and has strongly for dismissing all three petitionsd'-_lV it it
10. We have heard Ms M R counsel appearing for petitioner of 2006, petitioner in WP No 6901 'person is not before us and Sri. for the petitioner " as also Sri Vedamurtlilyf pleader for the state government, learned counsel & Sri G counsel for the respondent-
l3AB.M»P;da-nd SLri.pJ«ay'aul:umar S Patil, learned senior counsel allottee / beneficiary.
Briefzfacts leading to the present writ petitions are as und'e»r--and are not much in dispute. V54/,, 18
12. The allottee/beneficiary, it appears, made "a representation to the state government and submitted by Sri Jayakumar S Patil, learned' . counsel that simultaneously to the __r:iVi_(_:' allotment of the identified land Thimmaiah Road, adjacent to which measures in all it a Community hall, thought' state of Condition, for and press etc., of the Urdu Thelrepresentation datfiid 20'7*l2OOg.: the Commissioner. BBMP, reqlueslting extent of 20000 sq ft vacant land atiThimniaial1road, Shivajinagar. A copy of :.fhe--v.repi<ese.ntat.ion ilsproduced at Annexure«R3(d) to the statement filed by the allottee]. It appears, it l°"'V'had been up by another representation dated 2~ addressed to the then chief minister of the state, but -.,th--e..ueontents being same as in the representation/ ':req.uelst given to BBMP.
19
13. The representation to the chief minister,it;»appve'ars.,A elicited prompt response, as we find from} the:4._re.cordrsVi..,:rif produced by the state government anda copy of "
endorsement is also placed before court__ as D in WP No 15525 of 2.006, xwhereiri»..p'the' idthepnlichief minister Sri Dharm Singhvliad the land' and this being folloxvevd the chief minister secretary to government, H idexvécelopmentr, apprising the request on beneficiary and the endorsementfiof on the same for suitable ac_tioni'"atVVhisV Tflis thereafter the concerned :d'epa.rtme'nt4i,.A'had addressed the communication dated 27' the commissioner, BBMP, enclosing ' if '-,,the if 'representation of the allottee / beneficiary, _jg]-«_endorsement;of the chief minister on the representation thegpsulbsequent note from the office of the chief V' ;r1{ms':er etc., to examine the request of the applicant in 20 accordance with law and to submit a reportjito is government at the earliest etc.
14. It is as a sequel to these dexrelopments at Télid the state government, there was in the form of a note beingput commissioner, BBMP as per his note dated .{}finriexure--E to WP No 15525 of reference to the request made to the chief minister chief minister for allotment o:1'._1an_d hallottee / beneficiary and also pointing flout tpha't._ir1._subject land, there was an old andépdilapidatedi«corporation community hall, but because of its.r-uinous state of condition, it was not in use and"furthlerf:'t*hie incite indicated that as per government iiwviorder d'a..tedV__'v2« no property of a civic body can be private sale, but should only be by public auct.ion_ Hand nevertheless the communication having "originated from the state government with the V"l"».e_i:dorsement of the chief minister, the subject land @/ 22
16. On such placing of the reports of the two standing committees, the matter was placed before the body of BBMP and it was tabled by Sri B T *' Murthy, member, and seconded by another mernberj; Rajanna and the civic body resolyed ll proposals as modified by the colmjrnitteles resolution dated 26-10-2,Q.()5 No 15525 of 2006]. It is thofioafiof'-thlo:Loi{f1lo_ forwarded l this resolution tQ..:;t:h.e with a footnote of the Out that the allotment be contrary to the earlier govelifnmentl year 2003 and also the concession at ofViI_he-._rna'rket rate cannot be extended the asl'th'e"applicant did not figure within onle._olf ls'pecilalo.:c_ategories as had been indicated in the governmentgiiidelines of the year 2003, but was covered " categoryV__l'§o 4.
communication from the civic body seeking for lthelapproval of the state government and in this regard it V, 23 is significant to notice the submission of Sri Jayakumar Patil, learned senior counsel appearing for the allott.e_e;f/l_:i'~.._ beneficiary that the state government while '7' sanction for the transfer as per its ord_er..d_ated_7 f the matter had elicited examination referred to in the footnote requirement of public aL1ction&gAv--s--alev-. and of concession and therefore only referred to the opinion of laxfv also of the finance opinions, the matter: the cabinet for its approval alndlthe cabinet was without concession oflb'O°/pf' price, but the transfer of the impediment in the earlier guidelines indicated in the government order of the }°"'year ZOQVS did niotllncome in the way etc. tilt"-is vvith all these developments, ultimately the _ came back to BBMP with the sanction of the state government for the transfer of an extent of 10000 sqft of 24 land for the market price with 20% premium"-._:o.n market price, worked out to 1' 1.68 crore.
19. It is at this stage BBMP had'Va-.seconvdl:thought.i._a.bQu.£ its move for transfer of this land_:a:t.:_market' 1l3:r:i:Ce,J7as it realized that the palike re;;g1iii'e'g'th'e subject land and also that it can be developed anlloffiice/'commercial complex by But, as noticed earlier: BBMP to the government to llrerview7'1.its_lorder having not elicited any favourable responsef-,_'frorn_ "'----the government, BBMP executed the as" noticed above, and with such facts beaiiiigl not in the only examination in these as to whether a transaction of this nature in :"aVySlprTop:erty in the ownership of a civic body, nVv's1istain's._ on' touchstone of the relevant statutory "".--:i."proV*i.sions.§-niainly under Section 176 read with Section l-7:Zilf.'of Act and on the touchstone of Article 14 of the ' Constgitution of India, as interpreted in several decisions if V of High Courts and the Supreme Court. 25
20. Appearing on behalf of the peti.t_i_o'ner' ~ W.P.NO.15525/2006 Ms.Sha1ama1a, thelearnedéucroiunselfpy has reiterated the ground as urged and has drawn our particular'V.attentio1:7V:_to _:§ea~r1.ier government order of the year the property belonging to the been sold or transferred otherwisge than sale.
21. Appearing.' petitioner in W.P.NO.7975/ learned counsel, has drawn of Section 174 of the Karnataka' i\/Iunicgiiphai_»Corpo1"ation Act, 1976 (for short hereinafter referred .to--. as 'the Act') and has drawn our :_spe.C;ific._attention to"th.e...proVisions of Section 176 of the Act re]7a'L*ing._t:o~ disposal of property and interest therein by :'u"g.__the A By pingpointing to the provisions of Sub Section (6) 176 of the Act, it is submitted that so far as the ' .i_mmo:vab1e property is concerned, in terms of sub clause 77 A (iii)WCH1ause (b) of sub section (6) of Section 176 of the Act, 26 immovable property of the Corporation cannot be disposed either by way of sale or by any other transfer except with the previous sanction__A-of 'V' Government and submits that the... e_>'<ceg*)'tilo'41'1~:4iffivhilerj qualifies all three situations coiiteniplated clause (b) of sub section (6) submits that the role required government under this _a special significance that to see the manner in "corporation are sold or trarisf'e'i're'Cl; the"'co'f'poration itself is in thg position.' a of the properties entrustedto if'orV_"beiVr',=.gAmaintained has to be performed, red to exercise the same kind of vigil.__ 1 ciakrlevllvl'inhrespect of other properties of the IVCorporation,~a.lso;A:'that it cannot be simply sold or parted just because it can fetch a price or a market price and -subrnnits that the present developments leading to the Vi.
29 Commissioner of the Corporation is cHoncern_e'd'," it below the market price that it is evenlha1.fl'ofl"th§ market price etc.
26. Mr.Vedachala seeks tozdraw"sup_:po'i'-t.'from the Single Bench decision of this Court' rendered in W.P.NO.18294/2006 in.-thejima-tterbetvveen Sri.Alijan s/o.Syed lCommi.ss'ioner, BMP and another. para 7 of the order situation where a property isvltransferred'=.wi'th"*th'c_. previous sanction of the Government, ii:-.._sli.ouldlnecelssarily be by way of public g__11;ction»»sco as to fe't'chV___ma)dmum price in respect of the also to accord opportunity to all to"participat,e in public auction and take their chance; ' Submission is that property of the State, in it""C1'tAlielp"'instant"case of the Corporation should not be sold or C ti'ansferrled by way of private negotiation etc. 31 sanction of the State Government having been ;. G and the State Government, in fact, having sanietioiried'-l.tl'1e transfer, but with Certain Conditions having been adhered to by the Palike, 4n.o:"il.legalipt.Iyban if attributed to the transfer as the had safe--guard requirements for__the transferring a property of the Palike to therefore, no exception can 'tile.,_trar:,saetion. Mr. Muralidhar has. petition as one not warratntirig:GV*inte1fei'enCAe'exercise of the writ jurisdiction '-- G
28. Mr.l'v}ura1idr1»ar'hasfalsdo submitted that though the *l§al"1'lr.e second «thoughts about transferring the subjeetg. l'an_"c1,_pfinff' Aifavour of private person, after having VG'-~~"rea1ised__§its Qwrigiiieeds and the possibilities of putting up .._f_f:.&n'».office~eum~oommercial complex for its own use and requested the State Govt. to review the earlier _t_ransaC'tion, the State Govt. having opined that the Palike made out justifiable grounds to review its /' M 32 decision and the Palike being left with no other choice__,_ but having executed the sale deed in terms Government order, all aspects of the matter have "
examined; that no effort had been spa'red"b.y_ not only adhering to the statutory safeguarding the interest of the rate or the guidelines at L400 sq.ft. and premium rate also added and the at such enhanced rateiilt thatiéthere is any loss to the is no need for interference
29. Onghehalf of theStvate government Mr.Vedamurthy, had defended the action of the State govt. has a role in the Municipal Corporationlgpg that while it is true that the then Chief Min.ister_has made an endorsement on the representation the third respondent to allot land to the person representing, that was done only with the intention of 33 encouraging an organisation like a publication publishing vernacular news daily; that the State Government fact, acted in favour of such deserving persons r.- occasions also; that land had been... allotted" ll purpose of the English news daily--lli.ndu news daily-Sanjevani and the request for allotment of. it? was restricted to 10,000 sq. ft. had been issued by the State': of properties belorigfng cannot be said that the of the guidelines as the allotment as a allotment in favour of _a private' individual, but an allotment in favour clailyl. andllltlherelfore. virtually one which can be cove_red_ in:t'errn'sa.of..category 111 (b) as the allotment is in l*""favour a but the allotment being only at the
-.,.jfjm_arket price' and even an organisation of the nature of a be fitted into either category 3 or 4 and therefore, the allotment cannot be characterised as purely 34 in favour of a residuary category allotment other__th..an 3 and 4 of the guidelines and thereforetttnot' procedure category cannot initiate or the transactions. 3 VA 3 _ it 0' l
30. Sri.Vedamurthy has :also s.u'bmt_i'tte'd..'with'reference to the records of the the subject sanction of the proposal of the Palike to of the third respondent__had"'~..Vhce1n:__ the cabinet and elicited the--.__ itself and therefore, assuming that it is not fully in consonance _ the lvguidelines indicated in the of year 2003, that in no way detracts of the order as the Government l""'V'order of! 2003, cannot over-ride the present '<.V,(._:':v'S'r:_t.IVI'<'»:tlO1'1 ofthe government with the full approval of the the government order dated 2.6.2003, cannot 2' put on a higher pedestal than present Government 35 order. Therefore, Mr Veda Murthy submits :_. no scope for interference in the order of the gO_\7€'I'I1_I.:l1V€I'it:. .
31. Mr.Jayakumar S.Patil, learneid appearing for respondent No.3V§..:_ail_ottee/purchaser"has very vehemently urged thatztherpe-*ic:..neither .any~--illev:g§ality nor irregularity in the mattierilhcoif o:r'~»C;overnment sanction and that just because the chief Statelllciadvlresponded to a representation manner and that too taking that was being done by the third respondentenevvsi"publication concerned, if had directed 4al1,;Atmen1~-.Qf'1andV; was a laudable thing can be gfa"Ltlti;,qith:.p_that not as though any charity was respondent. The allotment was at 20% premium; that, even as pointed tl1ev_(A3overnment Pleader, counsel for the Palike, tliej also having adhered to all requirements of law, exception can be taken to the transaction for interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction; that there 36 is no need for finding fault with the orders of nor the State government and therefore, '' there is no need for interference; that thief}xvritdp-et'ition».:.:i.l deserves to be dismissed.
32. It is also submitted ,.that 'policy the State government itself publications:
that it was nothing 'new to the alone, nor any exception respondent it had happened, Indian Express and The as there was ambiguity as to who wasjthev precise property wherein the dilap;id'ated of the community was located, «reVspondent._._has made representations both to the Palike tl1.el*' State Govt. That, in fact, earlier V""representation:had been given to the Palike in 2.7.2005 "--3§jits_el»fAand representation given to the Chief Minister wg3"sli_A'(;nply",.'on 2.8.2008 and if the Chief Minister had acted 'ir1usu6:h circumstance in making the endorsement and if Palike has undergone all procedures, no exception 37 can be taken and urges for dismissal of the petition _ also submits that in W.P.No.7975/ is T public cause, but more out of presented the petition. No nee-.<i.'_to elntelrtain petitions and urged for dismissal petition'?
33. Mr.Chandrashekar, in W.P.No.15525/O8 for the sifipported and reiterated the Muralidhar, counsel for ____ reference to the statement already'lvfilVed.:._ -. ll
34. It is in petition pleadings and the submissionsldinade at .th_e_ba1', we are required to examine tliiigs Writ _gpe.tition:.l "~ . __ Wh__ilev_i~t~ true that this petition has been filed in .._l.l'.fjV»pub~lic intergelst and should elicit more attention and it should_ be given more importance and should be H edxamligned with a little more depth and scrutiny etc., we it like to make it very clear at this stage that, whether 38 a writ petition should be treated as a public litigation or otherwise, the nature of eXaminat;ion it Court in exercise of the jurisdiction administration again is the same and an ordinary petition vis a vis the public interestl"litiga'-'ziion.
36. Insofar as the PIL ¥is"'--c'en'cerned, at the best the concept ofv.regulawtioris and the petition is enterta_.ine'dll_eve:i1 of a person who is not any administrative functions, forllexamination of the action of public authorities and even the Stateflovernmeiit. hremailnls the same. 37, » vln»s_Vofa_1f'«.as.V:th_e writ jurisdiction is concerned, the examination alvvays about the actions of a public body, a. statuto1y'"lunctionary or sometimes even a :'d.c4o'r1jst*it1i_tion'al functionary only on the touchstone of the provision and the constitution. Right of the ipeti.t.ioner does not assume importance in such 39 examination, but the question if such rights__:' " H statutory or constitutional rights of a petitioner tli-es Court is affected by any action or to of a public authority that will belezcalrnined. V
38. In the instant case,' A.thjere absolutely no dispute about the facts as we have gt fact that the third respondent 'jhasi;_to€ of a Urdu daily by of some circular also. It is also.rnade:iEl§ear tl1g»..Stcfte Government may have a policy of such as organisations bringing out'fp--u:bli_c'ations offaénature of news daily news weekly etc." should ..disserr;.inate news and information to virtually educate the general public and» therefoixfifv may deserve encouragement in any x""'V'manner-..4as fit by the State Government depending '«--«..j'jV»onV'~its policies and programmes. These are also not in writ jurisdiction. The Civil body like the f" may pass resolutions if it elicits all the support of requisite number of members of the body and Validity 40 of such relations are not per se examined by while exercising writ jurisdiction, butmthe.co.nset1u:e.1;ces:? and the impact of the resolution.
action can always be exa1nined--.o'11_ppthe"touch such governing statutory provisions
39. In the instantycase to the execution of the tlgiie l3alVil§evin:V.f«respect of the property favour of the third respondentgasVpeirvfitsli:?§ale:'deed ¢i5t'e§i 22.2.2007 without any doubt slrenpresentations made by the third respondents more particularly, the v€:1'.C'l'vC)l'S€_l'1';i:.€I:1i[T. made'wb__v_,then Chief Minister on the representatio'ny the third respondent directing allotment of per"_Anii.exure--R2 to the statement of objections filed on"."beh.alf'vo;f the Palike. It is thereafter, the matter it"':'3h'a.s"'movedfrom the State Government to thePalike as e.1ié:ited_,flbestows response from the Palike as gone V" through the committees, the body of Palike and the V'"~._s"uVbsequent sanction of the State government to the 41 resolution of the civic body for transfer of -1- T favour of the third respondent. The regulating these entire transaction are! of X, c Section 174 of the Act giving a hint érf' the manner a civic body should slafeygiiardl"the"pi'operties of the civic body or properties itslciarevl and supervision for the benefit
40. The Civic organisation providing to the citizens of the city and in --Athe'--"procepssiiiof.__maintaining its properties owned by itforlthel of all members of the city. The thefnature of the bias obligation a't'timesivaWpiroperty may stand in the name of The civic body always has act in the larger interest of the .4_lpi'-«community than confining to an individual interest of a i person.
42
41. Insofar as the property belonging to the concerned, the scheme of the Act is."'th'at; theft property can be transacted in terms of. Act, it has to observe certain safe guardsdetc. V
42. The State Govt. Whilie"':1o :«aet'*as supervisory role and also can issue direc'tio11s_AAé=§ndi~%fgu«iIdel.'ines to the civic bodies in te'r'1'n;.s_:y'.'*of :z_Chgap~ter'« Act which denotes the povversofgjyhthe~State_GQvernment, such powers cannot be treated. the Chief Minister of the State p_asfsefs'_orv:'in 'th'e..._forrn of an endorsement a representation like the third respondent for allotment of lanvdldirecting allotment. ' doubt true that the Chief Minister, of the properties of the State Grgvernrrientg hirnself may take decisions, but insofar as Ml"f.th'e_flproperti'es of a civic body is concerned, a different p1=oce_dure is contemplated under the Act and therefore 'the...endorsement made by the then Chief Minister on the 43 representation of the third respondent, in our 4 opinion, cannot be supported by the "kAind.of".i&po\vfe'rs_ the} State Govt. can exercise under Chapter .94 102 of the Act.
44. In fact, the Governmentl-*'**is_:*--given 4 of supervisory or over--ridingH'p'o.weiranéjuflth:e,gp'ower can be exercised to put lines if it is found to going motu power exercised by ~ it
45. But, insofar of the civic body is concerned, it isiuily:Vr.egi--ilat--eVd by Chapter XII of the Act asV_':°a1ready been..___noticed, Section 174, the more significant is 176 regarding disposal of the prop'erty.ithere.i_n_ insofar as the immovable property is concerned, there are certain limitations and transactions. Gorporation Property -
'('1.)..5 All property of the nature herein __ "specified, and not being specially reserved by 4' = ..--fGovernment, shall be vested in and belong to the Corporation and shall, together with all 44 other property of whatsoever nature or kind not being specially reserved by Government, may become vested in the Corporation, under its direction, management and c_ontr'olV and shall be held and applied by 'it»a.s trT_uste'e,f." subject to the provisions and foi: tl1e,.purposes--. ' of this Act, that is to say:- A' C --
i) All public parks! . _p'laygrounds,VV ' ' open spaces "preserved-. for ventilation; -- .. "
ii) All public "laamps, iafripjpg5st,s and apparatus co~nnected _therew_i_th or appertaini: ig" 'th.ereto_{'. ._ C
iii) _A:rll . 'U_q'ates,_, "mllmarkets, slauyghlterhoziiises, 'manure and "refusev depots * and public buildings " eof5t.eve'r7y' d_esc"riptionI" V (2) ._ Corpo"ratio_nl'--._n.:ay accept trusts relating =.,exclusive'ly . to the jurtherance of purposes to which the'~~C'orporation funds may begycippieied. "
of property and interest '(1}*--.? Suhiectifto the provisions of section 182, the Commigssioner may dispose of by sale or V exchange of any Corporation movable property __ grantfor any term not exceeding ( two years) a lease of any Corporation immovable ' property or a lease or concession of any right of fishing or grazing or of gathering and taking ff fruit and the like:
46
prescribed shall be sold otherwise than by public auction;»A~»» '
b) i) No property whether rrzouable4Aor__ " u immovable of whatever t?ClIlL€ snazzy A "
be transferred free of cost' or focr7an_' ' upset price;
it) No lease of_...a'rzy*..immooable,_,:§ property exc«eed_ing__ftv.e shall b69ranted;"' l V
iii) _No_ be disposed "Of sale--§*of.___,by other Except__r_"wi'th the _-sarctction of the Goverrtrr1e'n--t,5'. _ l _
46. We find in the".pr_e'sent_cavse, the initial endorsement made by thellthen of the State having an over beargingyy effect. on '1a1l.l'suzbsequent actions whether of the°coni'misEsiion'er or ofwthe standing committees or even of theibo'dy:"'co1'pora.te, as a resolution is passed in the i""-«civic body more "depending on political considerations
-.l_l.l'_j:h.aV*i.ng regard to the allegations of the members of the to political parties and therefore, passing of a ' T-r_esolu}tion in committees cannot be a criteria for transfer ofliirvrlirnovable property belonging to the civic body. In perceptidpi. V 47 fact, three situations which compels a previous of the Government for the transfer oi'-iirit--e.restl,H full, to three persons in respect of the civic bodies is in the nature of aV_s--ate«gu'ard imposed on the civic body and the State Government. The the State is not only toAV_safe--g1.J.a?r_d.V the civic body while to keep in mind the overall of the State also as the civic litswexamination in the context of the of the city, whereas, U16 StE1'E€ GO'/t..-ll llh:aVe:_".."to examine from a larger 47: Vl'.ii-t,'-rmay, the role assigned to the State l"""Govt. lAIl-.4"l[€I';I7fiS:i('§.i(Alh€ exception to clauses (l), (2) and (3) "-l«l..1'j;-of__S»11b Sect.i_on (6) of Section 176 is by way of a guardian to the properties of the civic body. It is also to G" .b_lelnolticed that this is a statutory role to be performed by V State government and it is not open to the State Govt. 48 to exercise all its powers, some of which incorporated in Chapter IX of the Act?» 'Theyrole the State govt. even as a statutory Chapter IX is totally different it u/s.l76 of the Act. There is noAy_oth'e.r'role l--thegAv,State Govt. except to act in the ..j._n:tercl:V_st body and also in the larger .v.interest-vfoif [itself while according sanctiorr the civic body for fully in respect of the civic body.
48. In the present we find that in the first i_nst_ance~'irhleiengtiref 'tr£u_1__s_action is vitiated due to the fact having been initiated and influenced by the*f'enAd'orsen1Aent made by the then chief minister virtually in the nature of a direction to the "".':iofficialsg below whether of the State Government or of the the land which order/endorsement has scrupulously followed by the State govt. upto the V"-._cornmunication addressed to the Commissioner, copy of V 49 which is at page 29 of the original records the Commissioner, Bangalore Mahanag-aria t therefore, has fully guided all s,ub__sequent"
which virtually has also defeatedllvthjejob j:pti:rpo:seHVof having several standing body like the Palike passing the on its own on the merits ofithe one member and seconded by_Vano1::he.r m'e1nber,_ ,th-e matter gets further eroded because tlieidfitate virtually abdicated its role as envisagedhi subsection (6) of Section 176 which ivzsA'i,V)!f1'e-,V()l" Vtogsaieguard the interest of the Palike in the matter of of immovable properties of ,th'e«--.civici__b*od--y. H A **** " 'V
49. Wetare :o_f».tl1le"clear opinion that the sanction or the p1'evious""-sa;--:ictio'Ln of the Govt. proceeding, the actual sale :vt4ransaction"bv the Palike is vitiated for these two reasons. The --..initi.al action of the State govt. and the proposal oriiginating from the end of the State govt. and later the 50 state govt. Virtually abdicating its assigned role of Section 176 of the Act.
50. In the instant case, there are Violations. In the first instance.,._rtl1ye state which was required to act as a protect--or"-and guardian of the properties of civic bodies Vigil and proper control over the prop0_se.d 'transfer o-fyland by the civic body to otheiizsl abdicated its statutory role :und;_e'1;[ the Act and has initiated a end. The second statutory violation a civic body which has to take proper care,' contriclfl conserve its properties for «.publ':ici~gotodaandhforthe benefit of the citizens, has, on the"A..s:urrendered this responsibility to the dictatesof the chief minister and therefore has failed its statutory duty under Section 176 of the Act. I_ri"i:l*ie result the sanction of the State government in if Annexure--A stands quashed by issue of a writ of 51 certiorari and consequent actions ahlsopfall 1:t'o~ if However, insofar as by way of declaration' of the sale deed is concerned, it"is'<l.e.ft the l'-'alike, we direct the Palike to up followiéujp action by seeking suitable relief for cancellation of the sale to go into this aspect, on the ground of the viiolation' of Section 176 of the Act. .t 4. ._ 'A l
52. Rule fmade' "petitions are allowed. Annexure--A P». lA5V52f3i/O8 stands quashed. been informed at the Bar that the subject land rerna1n.s'=Avac'ant as of now. In terms of the interim 'f"~v"order this Court as on 14.7.2008 in
-.l_ff'_j:,W'.P,,NO.797'5./08, we hereby direct the Mahanagara Palifkep to*«_take possession of the land and to protect it for V" benefit of the civic body and have it retained in the of the civic body and for the benefit of the