Karnataka High Court
Subhaschandra Goudar S/O Basalingappa ... vs State Of Karnataka Rbs Urban Devlpment ... on 22 August, 2012
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
Bench: Ajit J.Gunjal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF AUGUST, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJIT J.GUNJAL
WRIT PETITION NOs.62469-472/2009 &
62502-505/2009 C/W.
WRIT PETITION NOs.62680-681 & 62777/2009,
& 12708/2009 (LB-Res)
IN W.P.Nos.62469-472/2012 & 62502-505/2009
BETWEEN:
1. Ramesh R. Shetti,
Aged about 64 years,
S/O Raya Shetti,
Retired Second Division Clerk,
City Municipal Council, Dandeli,
R/O Quarters No 20,
J N Road Dandeli,
Uttara Kannada Dist.
2. Shri Damodhar,
Aged about 67 years,
S/O Jairam Prabhu,
Retired Second Division Clerk,
City Municipal Council, Dandeli,
R/O. Quarters No 7, J N Road,
Dandeli, Uttara Kannada Dist.
3. Shri Raghuveer Pandhari Sirsikar,
Aged about 59 years,
S/O Pandhar Sirsikar,
Retired Second Division Clerk,
City Municipal Council, Dandeli,
:2:
R/O. Quarters No 8, J N Road,
Dandeli, Uttara Kannada Dist.
4. Shri Govind Murkundi Naik,
Aged about 68 years,
S/O. Murkundi Naik,
Retired Group -D,
City Municipal Council, Dandeli,
R/O. Quarters No 16, J.N.Road,
Dandeli, Uttara Kannada Dist.
5. Shri Maruthi Parsuram Shindhe,
Aged about 67 years,
S/O. Parushram Shindhe,
Retired Tax Collector,
City Municipal Council, Dandeli,
R/O. Quarters No 10, J N Road,
Dandeli, Uttara Kannada Dist.
6. Shri Bandachar,
Aged about 76 years,
S/O. Hanumanthachar Karur,
Retired Group - D,
City Municipal Council, Dandeli,
R/O. Quarters No 14,
J.N. Road, Dandeli,
Uttara Kannada Dist.
7. Sri. Basavaraj S Bikshathimath,
S/O. Sri. Sharanaiah,
Aged about 58 years,
Working As Senior Health Inspector,
City Municipal Council Dandeli,
(On Deputation to CMC, Gadag)
R/O Quarters No 11, J.N.Road,
Dandeli, Uttara Kannada Dist.
8. Smt Devaki Vasudev Naik,
W/O. Late Sri Vasudev Naik,
Aged about 58 years,
City Municipal Council, Dandeli,
R/O Quarters No 21,
:3:
J.N.Road, Dandeli,
Uttara Kannada Dist. ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri. G.K.Hiregoudar, Adv.)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka
Rep by its Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Director of
Municipal Administration
Government of Karnataka,
V.V.Tower, Dr.Ambedkar
Veedhi Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. The Deputy Commissioner,
Uttara Kannada District,
Karwar.
4. The City Municipal Council,
Rep. by its Commissioner CMC.,
Dandeli, Uttara Kannada Dist.,
5. The Commissioner,
City Municipal Council,
Dandeli,
Uttara Kannada Dist., ... RESPONDENTS
(By Smt.Megha C.Kolekar, Govt. Pleader,
for R1-R3,
Sri.Anant R.Hegde, Adv. for R4 & R5.)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to
direct the R-1 to consider the resolution dt.8/4/94 and
12/2/97 (Ann-D & F) passed by the R-4 and pass
:4:
appropriate orders in accordance with law within a time
frame stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.
IN W.P.Nos.62680-681/2009 & 62777/2009
BETWEEN:
1. Vishnudas L.Naik,
S/o. Lakshman naik,
Aged about 59 years,
Retired Sanitary Inspector,
City Municipal Council,
Dandeli, R/o. 12, J.N.Road,
Dandeli, Uttara Kannada Dist.
2. Sushila
W/o. Late Rama B.Naik,
Aged about 63 years,
R/o #17, J.N.Road, Dandeli,
Uttara Kannada District.
3. Shri Damodhar Govind Naik,
S/o.Govind Naik,
Age: 63 years,
Retired SDC, CMC Dandeli,
R/o. # 9, J.N. Road,
Dandeli, Uttara Kannada Dist. ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri. G.K.Hiregoudar, Adv.)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka
Rep. by its Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
:5:
2. The Director of
Municipal Administration
Government of Karnataka,
V.V.Tower, Dr. Ambedkar
Veedhi Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. The Deputy Commissioner,
Uttara Kannada Dist.,
Karwar.
4. The City Municipal Council,
Rep. by its Commissioner CMC.,
Dandeli, Uttara Kannada Dist.,
5. The Commissioner,
City Municipal Council,
Dandeli,
Uttara Kannada Dist., ... RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. Megha C.Kolekar, Govt. Pleader,
for R1-R3,
Sri. Anant R.Hegde, Adv. for R4 & R5.)
....
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to
direct the R-1 to consider the resolution dt.08.04.1994
and 12.02.1997 (Ann-C & E) passed by the R-4 and
pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a
time frame stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.
In W.P.No.12708/2009
BETWEEN:
Shri.Subhaschandra Goudar,
S/o.Basalingappa Goudar,
Aged about 52 years,
Assistant Executive Engineer,
On deputation to Karnataka
:6:
Urban Infrastructure
Development Corporation,
No.19, J.N.Road, Dandeli,
Uttara Kannada Dist. ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri. G.K.Hiregoudar, Adv.)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka
Rep by its Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Director of
Municipal Administration
Government of Karnataka,
V.V.Tower, Dr.Ambedkar
Veedhi Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. The Deputy Commissioner,
Uttara Kannada District,
Karwar.
4. The City Municipal Council,
Rep. by its Commissioner CMC.,
Dandeli, Uttara Kannada Dist.,
5. The Commissioner,
City Municipal Council,
Dandeli,
Uttara Kannada Dist., ... RESPONDENTS
(By Smt.Megha C.Kolekar, Govt. Pleader,
for R1-R3,
Sri.Anant R.Hegde, Adv. for R4 & R5.)
....
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to direct
:7:
the respondent No.1 to consider the resolution dated
08.04.1994 and 12.02.1997 vide Annexures `C' and `E'
passed by the R4 and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law within a time frame stipulated by
this Hon'ble Court.
These writ petitions coming on for orders, this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
All the petitioners in these writ petitions are seeking writ of mandamus to the 1st respondent to consider the Resolution No.204 dated 12.02.1997 passed by respondent No.4 seeking approval under Section 72(2) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 and for sale of 19 residential houses to the petitioners and also to quash the notice of the 5th respondent issued to the petitioners for eviction from the quarters under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act.
2. The back drop of the case is that all the petitioners are the ex-employees of the City Municipal Council, Dhandeli. They are working in various capacities. They were allotted quarters by the City Municipal Council, which, all the petitioners occupied. :8: All the petitioners have attained superannuation and retired from service on various dates, commencing from 2000 onwards. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have been occupying the allotted quarters since 1974 onwards and some of them from the year 1963. It appears a resolution was passed in the year 1980 by the City Municipal Council to allot the quarters to the occupants. The said resolution, it appears was ratified by the Government and permission was accorded to the City Municipal Council to sell the quarters to the occupants.
3. The petitioners, who were similarly placed, it appears made a request. Pursuant to a resolution of the year 1997 the Divisional Commissioner acceded to the request of the petitioners. Thereafter, it was sent to the Government for ratification. The said resolution was shot down by the Government. All this has happened during the pendency of the writ petitions.
4. Apparently, it is in the year 2010, the resolution was not approved by the Government. I am of the view :9: that the question of directing respondent No.4 to consider the request of the petitioners, in the circumstances does not arise moreso having regard to the fact that the Government has already taken a decision not to extend the benefit of retention or sale in favour of the petitioners. Nevertheless, since the petitioners are in occupation of the premises, some of them since 1963 and identical benefit having been extended to the other occupants in the year 1980, there is no reason as to why the request of the petitioners for retention cannot be considered. The petitioners' challenge to the notice issued under the Public Premises Act is rejected. The petitioners' request can be considered by the 4th respondent afresh, if all things are equal. It is also open for the 4th respondent to take into its fold, the paucity of land, having regard to the fact that the entire area is surrounded by reserve forest and no revenue land is available to put up construction to accommodate the existing and future employees of the City Municipality.
: 10 :
5. Mr.Anant Hegde, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 submits that three of the petitioners have already been evicted and they have found out a new abode for themselves namely petitioners 2 and 3 in W.P.Nos. 62680/2009 and sole petitioner in W.P.No.12708/2009
6. In case, the 4th respondent takes a favourable decision, the same is required to be sent to Government for ratification under Section 72 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964.
Writ Petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
7. Smt.Megha C.Kolekar, learned HCGP appearing for respondents 1 to 3 is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.
Sd/-
JUDGE SPS/-