Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. These two writ petitions are in the nature of public interest litigation said to be by the public spirited citizens and residents of Haveri Town. The subject matter of the litigation is open space abutting N.H.4 (Bangalore Poona Highway) in the heart of Haveri Town bearing CTS No.752 measuring to an extent of 337.79 Sq. Metres. It is stated that the said property is situated in front of KSRTC Main Bus stand, Haveri and it is conveniently located for vehicle parking for general public. The first of the writ petition in W.P.No.22811/2012 is by one Shivananda Channabasappa Ballary, a merchant and resident of Haveri City, wherein he has impugned the order dated 30.04.2012 passed by the fourth respondent, Deputy Commissioner, Haveri District, in handing over land bearing CTS No.752 measuring 337.79 Sq. Metres to sixth respondent, City Municipal Council, Haveri, for utilising the same for any development activity in the interest of general public without any inconvenience to the public and users of the road, i.e., National Highway passing in front of the said property.

2. Whereas the second petition in W.P.No.5633/2013 is by a group of petitioners seeking writ of certiorari to quash the resolution No.33 dated 27.06.2012 passed by the Municipal Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Haveri, fifth respondent in the said writ petition and also for a direction to fifth respondent to maintain the said property for the use and enjoyment of general public of Haveri without putting up any form of construction thereon. The resolution No.33 dated 27.06.2012 which is sought to be quashed in the said proceedings is in respect of a decision taken by the Council in its meeting dated 27.06.2012 to grant 6.5 feet x 10 feet open space to 14 persons referred to in the said resolution on a monthly ground rent of Rs.1,500/- and to reserve the remaining open space for the purpose of parking and other developmental activities for the benefit of general public. The persons in whose favour leasehold right was granted are also arrayed as respondent Nos.6 to 19 in the said petition.

4. In the very same petition, sixth respondent, City Municipal Council and also respondent Nos.10 to 23 filed their Statement of Objections to demonstrate that the petition in W.P.No.22811/2012 is not a public interest litigation, but a motivated petition by persons enemically disposed towards respondent Nos.10 to 23, who have secured allotment of plots measuring to an extent of 6.5 feet x 10 feet in CTS No.752 of Haveri Town, pursuant to resolution No.33 dated 27.06.2012. It is the specific case of the respondent Nos.6 and 10 to 23 that the petitioner Shivanand Channabasappa Ballary is a person, who is set up by the owners of land bearing Nos.751, 750/B and 750, who having failed in their attempt to dispossess respondent Nos.10 to 23 from CTS No.752 with an intention to usurp the aforesaid vacant space to develop lodging facility thereon.

6. It is further seen that the very same set of owners of land adjoining CTS No.752 have set up the petitioners in W.P.No.5633/2013 in challenging the resolution No.33 dated 27.06.2012 wherein a portion of CTS No.752 is allotted in favour of 14 persons referred to therein to ensure that their earlier petition challenging transfer of land in favour of Municipal Council will be strengthened by this litigation.

7. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and respondents. On going through the materials available on record, it is clearly seen that the entire exercise by the petitioners in both the writ petitions is not with an intention to espouse the cause of any public interest. It is in other words to support the personal interest of the persons who are already litigating against the beneficiaries of leasehold rights by filing suits in O.S.Nos.13/2007 and 104/2007 which are pending on the file of Court of Civil Judge, Haveri. Therefore, it is clearly seen that in the guise of public interest, petitioners are trying to strengthen the activities of the owners of neighbouring plots. Such act of initiating false and frivolous litigation for extraneous reason cannot be encouraged. Further, such act should also not be viewed lightly as held by the Apex Court in the matter of Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in [(2005) 1 SCC 590], wherein it is observed as under: