Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 225 (KAR)

D. Gururathna v. State

2007-03-28

B.S.PATIL, CYRIAC JOSEPH

body2007
JUDGMENT Cyriac Joseph, C. , J.—The petitioners have filed this writ petition as public interest litigation challenging Annexures-G and H, orders passed by the Government of Karnataka. They have also prayed for restraining the respondents from using the public park in No. 1794 measuring 344'' x 500'' in Mandya Town for any purpose other than park. 2. As per Annexure-G, order dated 2-3-1999, the Government accorded sanction to grant an extent of 150'' x 228'' in Assessment No. 1794 to the Chairman, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Bhavan Nirmana Samiti, free of cost. As per Annexure-H order, the Government modified Annexure-G order and accorded sanction to grant the entire land measuring 344'' x 500'' free of cost in favour of the Chairman, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Bhavan Nirmana Samiti, treating it as a special case. It was also directed that the building shall be constructed at the center of the property and the surrounding vacant land shall be used as garden. 3. Under Section 72(2) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, the land belonging to the Municipal Council can be allotted to any person only by the Municipal Council and not by the Government. The Government can only grant previous sanction to allot the land free of cost. The question of Government granting previous sanction arises only when the Municipal Council resolves to allot the land free of cost and seeks previous sanction of the Government. 4. The land in question admittedly belongs to the Municipal Council, Mandya, which had not taken any decision to allot the land free of cost to the Chairman, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Bhavan Nirmana Samiti. The Municipal Council had also not sought any previous sanction of the Government for granting land to the Chairman, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Bhavan Nirmana Samiti. Thus, Annexures-G and H orders were not supported by any valid resolution or decision of the 3rd respondent-City Municipal Council, Mandya. 5. Annexure-R5 produced by the 3rd respondent shows that as per resolution No. 677(1) dated 31-3-2000, the City Municipal Council had only reiterated its earlier resolution No. 347 dated 4-4-1998. Annexure-R3, Government Order dated 2-2-1999 shows that as per resolution No. 347 dated 4-4-1998, the City Municipal Council had resolved to allot only half the extent of the land, that too, at the rate of Rs. 25/- per sq. foot. The cost of the land was shown to be Rs. 17.10 lakhs. Annexure-R3, Government Order dated 2-2-1999 shows that as per resolution No. 347 dated 4-4-1998, the City Municipal Council had resolved to allot only half the extent of the land, that too, at the rate of Rs. 25/- per sq. foot. The cost of the land was shown to be Rs. 17.10 lakhs. Hence, there was no decision by the City Municipal Council to allot any land to the 4th respondent-Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Bhavan Nirmana Samiti, free of cost. In such circumstances, Annexures-G and H are liable to be quashed. 6. Along with I.A.I./07, respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 have produced copy of the proceedings dated 19-8-2006 of the City Municipal Council, Mandya, resolving to allot an extent of 227'' x 340'' in favour of the 4th respondent. 7. Learned Govt. Advocate submits that the said proceedings dated 19-8-2006 of the City Municipal Council, Mandya, have been sent to the Government for appropriate action. Even assuming that the City Municipal Council has now taken any decision to allot the land in favour of the 4th respondent, it cannot validate the illegal action of the Government in issuing Annexures-G and H orders. 8. Hence, the writ petition is allowed in the following terms : 1) Annexures-G and H orders dated 2-3-1999 and 12-4-2000 respectively passed by the 1st respondent are quashed. 2) This judgment will not stand in the way of the Government taking any decision in accordance with law pursuant to the earlier mentioned proceedings dated 19-8-2006 of the City Municipal Council, Mandya. 9. Petition allowed.