Karnataka High Court
Town Municipal Council Represented By ... vs C K Ananthanarayana S/O Kapanipathaiah on 24 November, 2008
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
-1-
at nm men corner or
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY T T T
THE HONBLE MR.JUSTI{§E.:.RAM REDDY
WRIT PETITIQN. N<§$.99%1%3 13309,
1 1735, 1 1527 & k1%T111~2%kmr "{{.'rM-PP)
TOWN MUNICIPAL CGMCIL é
REPRESEKTED %
CHIEF' 10991033 _
HOSAKQTE 5:32;14 = _ M ~
BANGALORE RuRA;,j:31sz§R:c:*
- ~ ...PE'I'IT£ONER
(COMMON)
- z~1_NA1éJAv:a%EDDY. ADV )
-*._.a
wpno 9913. 2005
' »- L I c" KANANTHANARAYANA
AA ' SINCE DECEASED RERBY
ITS LRs
1A: c A PADMANABHA
S] O LATE C K ANANTHANARMANA
25 YRS., R/AT. #143, T G EXTENSION,
HOSKOTE 562 1 14
BANGALORE RURAL I)§STRICT
3 st
&/
-3-
& SRINIVAS, ADV )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FIL1:D"UNOER
AM) 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION =__OF,.I.h§D1P:, P.RAYIr4e___'m~
QUASH THE ORDER MADE IN 'gM.A.NO.36_/2005\_I:fl'.'<,
23.12.2005 VIDE Am:Ex.O. PASSED._BY THE"P.R4I_NCIOPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUOOE, EANC3-ALQRE 'MURAL '
DISTRICT, BANGALORE, AS THEa,SI"»ME AREuAii.LEG:AL AND
WITHOUT THE AUTHGRITY OF ..
WP NO 11527 OF' 2006 V
1 H s NAGABHUSHARA RAG" . ..
S/O LATE SUEBALRAMAIAH. _
AGED AI-3.OL:?ir**'64.yJRs;. V,
R/AT NC'a.15 if £'$__8'l'£.i«CRQSS '
NEAR wafrga TANK THAMNIEGOWDA
EX'l'E.N_Si~0N 'BANGALORE 'RLIRAL [HST
2 B N.AGARAJAPPA 'v«.._°"~
S10 3 BASAPPA.' »'
AGED A.B0EIT'64A'YR'€3'
fI"frfAMMEC~{)WDA EX'I'ENSION
114.. ..... 14 v
-P MAIDHAVA RAD
At;-EI.)_AB'Qu'r 64 YRS
; "-S/O'IJ1A'£'EO1=P SRIPADA RAO
-.._NO_..i-40]=A
THIMMANNAGOWDA EXFENSIGN
HOSKOTE, BANGALORE RURAL DIST
PUTTASWAMY
S/O KEMPEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT so was
HOUSE 140.10 (KHATA NO2993/485)
THAMMANNAGOWDA EXTENSION
HOSAKOTE, BANGALORE RURAL ms?
W
-4.
5 RGDRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 63 YRS
w/0 THIPPERUDRAPPA %
No.2 140/3 s
THAMMANNAGOWDA Exrsnszom
HOSAKOTE _V
BANGALORE RURAL DIS': ---- _
..; Rgsminosms
(By Sui : T N wsHwAN:m~!A .2; T;V%:;,"RAME:?-H. ADV ma R1)
(av M/S. s & s A/S. ADV 12:09:22 as 4_ J
(BY SR1. M v CHANDRASHEi--£AR.REDDY, FOR R3 & 5)
THIS WRIT ;?,E'rrr1:0NzS FILED' xmDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 Q59"mE...c;oNsm1:T:~oN OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDERS; MADE-AV' IN; M£A.NOS.47/05.49/05,
so/05, 51.111o€sV,AN'12:;s5/-asp*r.23:.1.2;2oo5(ANN-A, B, C, D &
E) RESPECTEEFELY i¥?A£:'-_SE.[_) BY. THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIGNS' J*JAD<3E;.T.JBANGA1,oRE RURAL msrmcrrr,
BANGALORE, Asvin:-{E ARE ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT
THE AUTHORITY OF LAW,
V WPI'§I4g;>'11.172V()i1'. 3;V(:)5(')6 V:
~ .H0%13s§;»r;o,3 MAJOR
% Trmaqmmowaa EXTENSION
2
2 RRIISI-IALAKSHI
» A w/yo' LATE V.Y.RAMAMUR'I'HY IYER
' * AGED ABOUT 69 YRS
H = R/AT 2988/480 AND HOUSE No.8
THAMMLANAGOWDA EXTENSION
HOSKOTE 1 14
3 H SESHADRI
s/0 LATE K.J.SUBRAMANYAM
AGED ABOUT 60 YRS
R/AT 2993/435 P 23L
1
(../
-5-
THAMMANNAGOWDA EXTENSIGN
HOSKOTE 114
4 N S NANDISH GOWDA
s/0 N.V.SONNAPPA V
AGED ABOUT 63 ms _
RIAT 110.2990/482
THAMMANNAGOWDA EX'T*ENS{{)N
HOSKOTE 562 11,4 _
5 BSHIVAJIRAO _ '
s/0 M BIKKOJIRAO smI3m+:
AGED ABOU'I'64YRSf'- ; AV
RIAT KATHA vNo.:;939[j4s; K §
AND HOi}SE;N(>.5'-- '
THAMM.ANNAG;0W135 "%'.x'r~Er~zs:QN
HOSI{€)TI§ 'i,.14 J A_
V V m % % % % RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. E4' j%.vEze;;AiIf;'3$H{§1=:?kg, ADV FOR R1) (By Sri ; CHALAPATHY sue.' Lgounsm. 65 SRINWAS, ADV PC-R R2'-5) WRIT r}'E'iON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 " A;ND '22'? OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING T0 L_Q¥J.ASH ORDERS MADE IN M.A.NO.AC'I' IN M.A. 2005, 35/2005, 37/2005 AND 39]2005 ALL DATED'~.?I3..i2.2G05 VIDE (ANNEXURES-F, G, H, J & K) RESPECFEVELY PASSED BY TH E PRINCIPAL E)ISTR!C'I' AND SESSIONSa JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISFRICT, ~ AS THE SAME ARE ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT ' fFH'E'A{JTHORfI'Y OF LAW. jio"i1735 OF 2006 'T HRAMAMURTHY S] O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABGUT 63 YEARS R]AT 530.2996/438 THAMMANNAGOWDA EXTENSiO'N s vrk W 4A
-6...
HOSKOTE R CHANDRAPRASAD s/0 SRLRAMAPRASAI) AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS J R/AT NQ2993/485 * THAMMANNAGOWDA EX'_f'ENS¥~0N= HOSKOTE ' % D K BIL! ANGADI s/o SRLR. KOTRA.£?PA AGED ABOUT 69 mans V' R/AT No.2994/486;
'1'!-IAMMANNAGOWDA E_}{T_EHSK)N' ; _ HOSKO'I'E = _ ; I * SMT srAsi£t:s1§A3sAMAV--J'i';-VL, " '' W10 IATE--Iéfl}NIVENKA'i'APPA.% AGED ABF;)UT'T56 YE4§:'r?.S M R;€AT_THAP:IMANNAGOW'DA EXTENSION I-¥OSK"Q'!'E_ SR: M RI§GHi}NA'£H' « Sffl LATE'-MUNIVE-NKATAPPA AGED ABOUT é '~--R/AT THAMMANNAGOWDA EX'E2NS!0N * ~ ..Ho$KQ'rE~ 7sRi''i§i.''cH£§Li}vARA.5 ' 3/ 0V.LA'F'-E' MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/'AT1-TI-IAMMANNAGOWDA Exmnsloaa A~ : ,§~1ossI<oTE am M SHOBHA D] O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT THAMMANNAGOWDA EXTENSION I-IOSKOTE .. . RESPONDENTS bi -7- (By Sri: CHALAPATHY sr.COUNsEI,§a SRIIf€fVA§,'_': . _ ADVFOR R1---3) .
(BY M13. 3 & S A/S. FOR R4 TO R4.(:) .. THIS WRIT PE'I'I'I'ION {SF-ILED UNDER ARr1'c1,£;s..:226 . * AND 227 05' THE c0NsTrrUT1Q:~s» OF mDIA_'i?RAY1NG TO QUASH THE ORDERS MADE'=._II€ M.A.Nos. 41/2005, 49/2005, 43/2005 AND.44/2.065. w_r:3r, ANNEX;A;B,C AND D RESPECTIVELY PASSED av PRENCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE;'%BAN(}31LORE_'*RURAL DISTRICT', BANGALORE, AS THE SAME_ARE.VILLEGAL-- AND WITHOUT THE AUTHORITTOF LAW. ' ' - THEs§3:1vv;i»*RI*:'f}i.§:%32'.'I':frIucLm.s Somme ON FOR HEARING, Tms DAY, 1'HE,;c:oURT»M'A13n§ THE FOLLOWING:
Common 'questj(>£is[éf"and that of law arise' for decision the consent of the learned * thug pari the petitions, are clubbed "' Vc:>mmon.__orc£er;_ A » 'Facts in brief are:
t V Agiéfiihioner, made available a. certain extent of land to the Housing Board, for shert 'KHB', to construct t0gA(i?tl:1V@}'.-',u and are disposed of by this %*::h¢A Town Municipal Council, Hoskote- the M -9- the petitioner-Town Municipal Council. u filed W.P.No.10841/ 1986 Government Order cit. 3. If}.
27.11.1985/11.4.1986 of the lease-cuzn--saIe 1971, whom this Court by order git. 11.%1V2,eo%1%9_95k quashed the Government that the oovemmexig Section 87-A of the Acfv .toWissue directions to the KI-IE the order dated 27.115.19§35}11 .g=§o'1o9s6 the KHB ' ' the reserving liberty to the KHB acooxigizxo accordance with law over the alleged < of and conditions of the lease--~cum-wle In addition, this Court observed that the are relegated to the position as existed prior to date of termination of the lease~cuzn-sale ageement.
M .32.
and therefore the petitioner is not the £:h_e --« properties in question. In the orders of the Appe11ate'Aj1the1i,tv5}; > fully justified and does not
5. The definmon pnder Section 2(6) of the the-longing to or allotted to orgzaken on lease or 1"3q11isiti<:nc_t.i;ii;:.3 " 'Orr of the State Govenfiaent 'premises belonging _t_g__gg:
taken on of (1) local authority. The . 2(e) defines a local authority to eeemja ..T0!1fr1 of Municipal Council. The _petitioner Municipal Councxl' is a local authority % _ mm mam:
6. The petitioner having been put in possession of Lethe premises in question under a lmsc--~cmn-sale agreement dtd.29.07. 1971, the premises mils the M .13.
definition of the term "public premises" ., This is net disputed by the ' respondent-occupants. In fact, {be Sri.S.K.V.Cha1apathy submite-jjfihat the :sespog;g1é;§t7s' "wanna %% have no objection to ".g:getitiQoi1sv,.,.1'e:e;to1e the appeals befoxe the a. direction to consider and of without mquirmg the 4.
._ win "occupawn of the premises in quesfien« ef the allotments made by the are the tenants of the said premism, pefitioner, and it is the petitiozzer alone who is possession of the premises fiom .:es;A)(;1r,1de;_1t.*.~:, accordance: with law. The Appeliatc "«._'VI&a;t};oriiy'v...§irithout applym.g' its mind to the afim said' has erroneously concluded that the KHB was a proper necessary party and accordingly passed the orders W '~ A .14.
8. Be that as it may, recording the of .. learned senior counsel, these aikrwed. The orders of o quashed. The proceedings V Authority for oonsiderafzon reasonable opportunity "of 5 concerned and to pass ozxjorg Iaw!in any event the date of neccipt of a.
present bcfioze the Appellate Authority oi} {irithout any further notice. All the contention that the KHB is a party before the Estate Oficer, are left Sd/fl Judge Ln.