Karnataka High Court
Smt.Sunita W/O Prashanth vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 August, 2018
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
W.P.Nos.207618-207622/2015
& 207641-649/2015 (GM-KIADB)
Between:
1. Smt. Sunita w/o Prashanth
Aged About 33 years
R/o Naubad
Tq & Dist: Bidar-585 401
2. Mohamed Zubar Ahmed
S/o Mohamed Liaq Ahamed
Aged about 40 years,
H.No. 4-2-44 (new)
Noorkhan talam
Bidar-585401
3. Smt. Surekha W/o N. Gouda
Aged about 38 years,
R/o Naubad,
Bidar-585401
4. Smt. Tanuja W/o Ravi
Aged about 40 years,
R/o Islampur village,
Tq & Dist: Bidar
5. Smt. Kamalabai W/o S.G. Kashinath
Aged about 42 years,
R/o Gurusiddha Krupa
Opp: W.T. House Air Force Road,
Shiva Nagar South,
2
Bidar-585401
6. Sri. Raghunath
S/o Shatteppa Gaikwad
Aged about 45 years,
R/o Naubad
Bidar-585401
7. Smt. Vimlavathi W/o Antappa Gubhe
Aged about 48 years,
R/o Naubad
Bidar-585401
8. Sri. Ganapathi S/o Shivraj Singepalli
Aged about 50 years,
R/o Allapur
Tq & Dist: Bidar-585403
9. Sri. Baburao S/o Veerashetty
Aged about 48 years,
R/o Naubad
Bidar-585 401
10. Sri. Shivaraj Halshetty
W/o Baswanappa Halshetty
Aged about 56 years,
R/o H.No. 19-1-116,
Banker's colony Shivanagar (south)
Bidar-585401
11. Sri. Ashok
S/o Sharanappa Bamandi
R/o Hugeri
Tq & Dist: Bidar-585403
12. Sri. Masiuzzama
S/o Md. Ilyasuzzama
Aged about 53 years,
H.No. 2-1-111 Siddhi Talim
3
Naya Kaman Road
Bidar-585402
13. Sri. Chandra Shekar S/o Mudarageri
Aged about 46 years,
R/o Mejestic Cons. No. 19-2-75
Behind Mes Quarters
Anand Nagar,
Bidar-585 403
14. Smt. Shilaja W/o Ashok Wadde
Aged about 51 years,
R/o Shashikala Nivas
Behind Shivanagar Petrol Pump
Shivnagar South
Bidar-585401
... Petitioners
(By Sri. Ravi B. Patil, Advocate)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka
Through Directorate of
Industries and Commerce,
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore-01
2. The Chief Development Officer
& Chief Engineer,
Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Board
14-3, 2nd floor R.P. Building
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore-01
3. The Deputy Development Officer
Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Board
K.I.A.D.B. Office Plot No.16-A,
4
Kolhar Industrial Area
Bidar-585403
4. The Chief Secretary
to the Government of Karnataka
Vidhan Soudha
Bangalore-01
5. The Deputy Commissioner
Bidar, D.C. Office
Bidar-585101
(Respondent Nos.4 and 5
amended as per Court order
dated 13.07.2017)
... Respondents
(By Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA for R1, R4 & R5;
Sri B.B. Patil, Advocate for R2 & R3)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227
of Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari to
quash decision of the 335th Board Meeting dated 14.08.2015
being communicated to the petitioners vide letter dated
11.11.2015 bearing No.KIADB/13/BDR/DDO/621/1/2015-
16, KIADB/13/BDR/DDO/621/2/2015-16, KIADB/13/BDR
/DDO/621/3/2015-16,KIADB/13/BDR/DDO/621/4/2015-
16,KIADB/13/BDR/DDO/621/5/2015-16, KIADB/13/BDR
/DDO/621/10/2015-16, KIADB/13/BDR/DDO/621/11
/2015-16,KIADB/13/BDR/DDO/621/11/2015-16, KIADB/
13/BDR/DDO/621/13/2015-16, KIADB/13/BDR/DDO
/621/14/2015-16, KIADB/13/BDR/DDO/621/15/2015-16,
KIADB/13/BDR/DDO/621/16/2015-16, KIADB/13/BDR
/DDO/621/17/2015-16, rejecting the regularization of plots
5
allotted to the petitioners as Annexures-K to K12 as illegal
and arbitrary and not binding on the petitioners, and etc. .
These petitions are coming on for orders this day, the
Court made the following:-
ORDER
The petitioners herein are allottees of 14 sites in larger plot bearing No.390 in the approved layout of KIADB dated 26.06.1998. They have come in these writ petitions impugning the order dated 14.08.2015 in 335th board meeting of KIADB which is communicated to petitioners vide No.KIADB/13/BDR/DDO/621/1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 of 2015-16 vide Annexures-K to K-13 in rejecting their request for regularization of plots allotted to petitioners which is called in question in these writ petitions as illegal, arbitrary and not binding on the petitioners. In these petitions, prayer is also sought for directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider the grievance of the petitioners to take appropriate steps for regularization of plots allotted 6 to the petitioners and to pass any other appropriate order.
2. The brief facts leading to filing these writ petitions are as under;
The petitioners herein have applied to the KIADB through its Development Officer for allotment of plots in the layout formed by KIADB in the year 2000 in its Naubad Industrial / Housing area, comprising total extent of 76.68 acres. A copy of the said plan is at Annexure-G which would indicate that several huge plots are formed in the said layout, which are earmarked for the purpose of setting up Industrial units and also to be used for residential purpose with two plots identified for the park. As could be seen from the said plan, plot No.390 is one of the plot which has a larger extent of land being divided into several small residential plots, out of which 14 sites are allotted to the petitioners between 2010-11. Subsequently, after 7 collecting the requisite value, sale deeds of said plots are executed in their favour vide Annexures-C to C13 between 2011-12. The issuance of allotment of letter by Development Officer, collection of money for and on behalf of KIADB and crediting the same to the account of KIADB and subsequently executing the sale deed by the Development Officer in favour of petitioners herein vide Annexures-C to C-13 to these writ petitions is not in dispute by the respondents even in the statement of objections filed by them. However, it is stated that the said sale deeds are executed without obtaining prior approval of the Board and therefore the same are sought to be illegal and hence they sought to be quashed by issuing notice on 27.09.2013 and 16.09.2013 which were admittedly subject matter of challenge before this Court in W.P.No.103213- 103226/2013 and W.P.No.202961/2014 which came to be allowed by order dated 02.02.2015 with following direction to KIADB which reads as under; 8
" The Board is directed to pass appropriate order and further directed to examine whether it could be ratified or cured as per provisions of the Act.
It is also made clear that Board should take decision as to whether it has power to cancel the sale deed. This exercise has to be done within eight weeks. To enable the Board to pass such cancellation orders at D Series are hereby quashed.
Petitioners are directed to treat the cancellation orders as preliminary notice and file their representations to the Board with similar within a period of two weeks. Board has to pass such orders within a period of four weeks from the date of representation or request.
Writ petitions are accordingly diposed of."
3. It is stated that pursuant to the aforesaid order, an enquiry was conducted wherein hearing was provided to the petitioners herein. As could be seen from the objection, which is filed by the Board where the proceeding of the hearing is at Annexure-R2 which is conducted on 12.06.2015. The said finding of the 9 C.E.O. in the hearing dated 12.06.2015 is placed before the 335th Board meeting dated 14.08.2015 where the matter is taken at Subject No.15 and a decision is taken to reject the request of allottees in favour of petitioners herein for regularization of allotment of 30 housing sites in plot No.390A to G(P) and 389 of Naubad Housing Area, Bidar District. While doing so, an enquiry is also called for. The petitioners being aggrieved by the same have come up in these writ petitions on the ground that a discrimination is made by the Board while considering the petitioners' case.
4. According to the petitioners, the conversion of larger plots into smaller plots is exercised by Development Officer not only in respect of plot No.390 but several other plots, which are not objected to and the petitioners are singled out to suffer wrath of the Board in not regularizing the allotment of sites made in their favour. To substantiate the same, they would 10 bring to the notice of this Court the information received from them under RTI Act which is at Annexure-F to the writ petitions where it is seen that they have sought clarification regarding the decision taken with reference to bifurcation of plot No.7, 311, 310 and also with reference to Sy.No.159 and 160 open place, where the plots are made in No.388-A to 388-J. The answer provided by the Board in its communication No.KIADB:
13/DDO/BDR/599/2015-16 dated 04.11.2015 would clarify that bifurcation of plot No.7 is not pursuant to proceeding of the Board by passing appropriate resolution in giving approval for such act. Similar is the situation in plot No.311 and 310 and also in converting Sy.No.159 and 160 open sites. Plot No.388-A to 388-J in the layout which is approved on 26.06.1998 thereby highlighting the discrimination shown by the Board in not adopting same yardstick with reference to formation of smaller residential sites in the bigger Industrial plot by the very same Development Officer. Per contra, the 11 formation and allotment of sites in other bigger plots are allowed to continue and stand on record.
5. While 14 middleclass citizens who with an intention to secure roof over their head have secured allotment of small sites formed in the bigger plot are singled out to the harsh treatment of not recognizing the allotment made in their names. The other similarity placed allotment of small sites curved out from other bigger plots as stated supra remains undisturbed. When the same is pointed to learned counsel Sri. B.B. Patil, appearing on behalf of KIADB he was speechless and he has no explanation and he has no other option but to concede that there are proceedings available as stated in the letter dated 04.11.2015 by KIADB. When it is pointed out to him as to why such discriminatory order is passed with reference to the petitioners who are 13 out of 14 beneficiaries of smaller residential plots created from larger industrial plot No.390, again he is 12 speechless. When he was called upon to show how a larger plot could be divided into smaller plots whether such provisions are available, again he has no specific answer for that. Thereby conceding that the permission which is accorded by the Deputy Development Officer and Development Officer of KIADB in granting approval for dividing plot No.7, 311 and 310 into different smaller size and permitting sale which is approved by KIADB and which is regularized is also illegal. In such an event, how the 13 persons who are allottees of 13 sites formed in plot No.390 are found to be illegal allottees of said sites when the learned counsel was specifically asked whether any enquiry was conducted against those of the officers who has permitted division of plot No.7 to regularize sub numbers and plot No.311, 310 in granting sub numbers and executing sale deeds to several hundred persons in these three sub numbers are concerned, he would say that he is unaware of the decision of the Board. 13
6. When serious objections are raised with reference to formulation of 30 plots in larger plot No.390 of the approved layout dated 26.06.1998, the similar illegality which is committed with various other plots are ignored on the contrary the said allotments are regularized by the Board thereby discriminating one section of the general public from others, who are not aware that their allotment is by the Officers of KIADB in not following procedure that is required to be followed. In any event there is no role of the petitioners in motivating the said persons to commit said irregularity and there is nothing on record to show that they are also the part of process of irregularity in such allotment.
7. In any event, it is seen that while implementing the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the earlier round of litigation resulted in the writ petitions being allowed by order dated 14 02.02.2015. The direction, which was given by learned Single Judge of this Court is not looked into and given effect either in spirit or letter. It is wrongly interpreted in the hearing which was conducted by the CEO on 12.06.2015 where he has not answered any one of these and semblance of enquiry is said to have conducted by him without application of mind, which is approved by the Board in its 335th meeting at Subject No.15 with equal callousness, which is are required to be quashed.
8. While doing so as it is accepted by the Board in sub dividing plot No.7, 311 and 310 in Sy.No.159 and 160 in forming plot No.388-A to 388-J, a similar view is required to be taken in the division of plot No.390 into 30 plots and consequently the allotment which is made to the petitioners shall be considered by the Board as in the case of other, while doing so, it shall not pursue the decision of locating septic tank in the said survey number. In fact, while answering the questions raised 15 under right to information Act, in that aspect it is stated that a view is taken that technically it cannot be installed in that place. When that being the position, the same is required to be looked into from that angle also.
With such observation, these writ petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms.
In view of the resolution of the Board at its 335th meeting dated 14.08.2015 vide Subject No.15 being set aside, the sale deeds which are executed in favour of petitioners vide Annexures-C to C31 are hereby declared to be restored.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sdu/BL