Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1974 DIGILAW 174 (KAR)

G. P. BANAWALIKAB v. STATE OF MYSORE

1974-08-08

K.J.SHETTY

body1974
( 1 ) THE petitioners in these petitions are different but the order impugned is common. Therefore, these petitions are dispqsed of by the following order. ( 2 ) THE petitioners are all residents within the jurisdiction of the Notified area Committee Dandeli (hereinafter called 'the committee' ). The committee is governed by the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities act, 1964 (hereinafter called the Act' ). The Committee had same proposal to lease out certain sites on a long term basis and it approached the Govt for period sanction as required under S. 72 (2) of the Act. The State Govt, by their order d|. 6-10-1969 gave their approval for leasing the sites for a period' of 9'9 years, while asking the committee to impose some conditions on the grantees. Pursuant thereto, the Committee granted sites Nos. 32 and 33 in favour of the petitioners in WP. 3245 of 1973. It is said that the grantees did not observe the conditions of the grant; so the committee called upon them to show causa why the sites should not be resumed. On 26-4-1971 the Committee resumed the sites from the possession of the petitioners and which were again leased on 20-5-1972 in favour of the petitioners in WPs. 2253 and 2320 of 1973. ( 3 ) THE petitioners in WP. 3245 of 1973 aggrieved by the action taken by then Committee, approached the Govt in a revision petition, presumably under S. 322 of the Act. The Govt dismissed the said revision petition, but made a further order cancelling the lease granted to the petitioners in WP. 2253 and 2320 of 1973. The Govt was of the opinion that the second lease was illegal and the sites should be sold at public auction. ( 4 ) CHALLENGING the order of the Govt, the original and the subsequent lessees have all preferred these writ petitions, under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. ( 5 ) IT is admitted on all hands before me, that the petitioners in WP. 2253 and 2320 of 1973 were not parties to the proceedings before the Govt. They have also not been afforded with any opportunity, by the Govt before cancelling their grant of sites made by the Committee. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. ( 5 ) IT is admitted on all hands before me, that the petitioners in WP. 2253 and 2320 of 1973 were not parties to the proceedings before the Govt. They have also not been afforded with any opportunity, by the Govt before cancelling their grant of sites made by the Committee. S. 322 of the Act provides that the Govt shall not make any order to the prejudice of any party unless he has had an opportunity of being heard. That is a, matt datory provision which the Govt must have complied with. Any order made in contravention of that provision would be illegal and void and the impugned order of the Govt cannot be an exception to this principle. ( 6 ) IN the ordinary course, I would have remitted the matter to the govt for reconsideration after giving a reasonable opportunity to, the petitioners. But in the circumstances of the case, such an order would be wholly uncalled for. In my view, the Govt in the exercise of the revisional power could not have entertained the revision petition filed by the petitioners in WP. 3245/73, and they could not have set aside the lease of the sites granted by the Committee. S. 322 confers revisional power on the state Government. It provides : 322. Revision. (1) The Govt or the Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceedings under this Act of any subordinate officer, and after such enquiry as is deemed fit, if the Govt or the Commissioner, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of the subordinate officer is contrary to law and has resulted in mis-carriage of justice, pass such orders thereon as the Govt or the Commissioner deems just. (2) No order under sub-sec (1) shall be made to the prejudice of any party unless he has had an opportunity of beting heard. In execrise of the revisional power, the Govt may call for and examiner the records of any proceedings under the Act of any subordinate officer. The order impugned before the Govt, was an order of the Committee resuming sites from the petitioners in WP. 3245 of 1973, and leasing the same to other petitioners. In execrise of the revisional power, the Govt may call for and examiner the records of any proceedings under the Act of any subordinate officer. The order impugned before the Govt, was an order of the Committee resuming sites from the petitioners in WP. 3245 of 1973, and leasing the same to other petitioners. If the Committee could be said to be an officer subordinate to the Govt, then the Govt could have called for the records of any proceedings taken by the Committee and examined the validity there of. If it is not a subordinate officer, the Govt have no jurisdiction to exercise their revisional power in respect of the matters in question. ( 7 ) THE Notified Area Committee is a statutory body constituted under ss. 349 and 350 (2) of the Act. It is said that there are three members consituting the Committee. The Committee is a body corporate, as provided by s. 350 (2) of the Act. S. 352 provides that the Committee appointed or constituted under S. 350, shall be deemed to be a Municipal. Council under the Act. In view of these provisions, it is fallacious to contend that the committee is an officer subordinate to the Govt within the meaning of S. 322. The Govt, therefore,have no power to call for and examine the records of any proceeding of the Committee. The order made by the, Govt on the revision ' petition filed by the petitioners in WP. 3245 of 1973 must be held to be without authority of law. ( 8 ) IN the result WPs. 2253 and 2320 of 1973 arr allowed. A writ of certiorari shall issue quashing the Govt Order so far as it relates to the setting aside the lease of the sites granted to the petitioners therein. WP. 3245 of 1973 fails and is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner therein to institute a civil suit, if they so desire to challenge the action of the Committee in resuming the sites in question, from their possession. I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioners' case in WP. 3245 of 1973. In the circumstances, I make no order as to costs. --- *** --- .