Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1783 (KAR)

Kamalamma v. State of Karnataka

2019-07-25

G.NARENDRA

body2019
ORDER : G. Narendra, J. 1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri Jayakumar S. Patil and the learned Senior Counsel Sri Sreevatsa along with the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned HCGP and the learned Counsel Sri H.T. Nataraja appearing on behalf of the respondent-Panchayat. 2. Learned HCGP has placed on record two Government Notifications, respectively dated 14.08.2015, whereby the Government has formulated certain guidelines pertaining to allotment of shops belonging to the local authorities and the manner in which the allotments are to be made. The said guidelines have been framed pursuant to the law laid down by this Court in the case of MOHAN P. SONU VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA - ILR 1992 KAR 1219, wherein this Court interpreting the provisions of Section 72(2) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, and the provisions of Rule 39 of the Karnataka Municipalities (Guidance of Officers, Grant of Copies and Miscellaneous Provisions) Rules, 1966, had conclusively held that allotment of property belonging to the local authorities has to be only by wide publication, in other words by public auction. The Government by Circular dated 14.08.2015 has categorically held that wherever leases have expired or tenancy has come to an end, such premises ought to be allotted by way of public auction. The State Government by another Order bearing No. UDD 509 GEL 2014, dated 09.10.2015, has been pleased to invest the authority to hold the auction, in the Deputy Commissioners of the respective Districts. 3. In the instant case on hand, the auction notification is issued by the local authority. Prima facie, the said auction notification is contrary to the Government Order dated 09.10.2015. That apart, the action of the Panchayat in auctioning 61 shops and attempting to defend the non-auction of the remaining 51 shops appears to be contrary to the Circular dated 14.08.2015 and the law laid down by this Court in Mohan P. Sonu's case. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Panchayat would attempt to justify the action of the panchayat in conducting the partial auction by placing reliance on the proceedings of the District Urban Development Authority, Hassan, dated 19.06.2018. He would contend that the occupants of other shops had entered into an arrangement/agreement with the Panchayat and having accepted to pay higher rents and deposits, the leases have been executed in their favour. 5. He would contend that the occupants of other shops had entered into an arrangement/agreement with the Panchayat and having accepted to pay higher rents and deposits, the leases have been executed in their favour. 5. Prima facie, there could be no two opinions with regard to the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court. In fact, the Circular dated 14.08.2015 clearly recognizes the fact that the stipulations are as a consequence to the law laid down by this Court by the Division Bench as noted supra. The proceedings further demonstrate that the Government deemed it fit by Government Order dated 09.10.2015, to invest the authority of holding the auction in the Deputy Commissioners of the respective Districts. If that be the admitted position, then the auction notification issued by respondent-Panchayat has no legs to stand being contrary to the Government Order dated 09.10.2015. That apart, in the opinion of this Court, the partial auction of the premises owned by the respondent-Panchayat does not appear to be above board. The omission of the respondent-Panchayat to conduct the auction in respect of all the shops is unjustifiable and unsustainable. 6. These petitions were moved before the Court and was listed on 22.07.2019. The Nodal Officer was directed to intimate the respondent-Panchayat regarding the pendency of the petition. Pursuant to which, learned Counsel Sri H.T. Nataraja has put in appearance. After hearing the learned Counsel, this Court was of the prima facie opinion that the partial auction is unsustainable and the learned Counsel for respondent-Panchayat was also called upon to convey the opinion of the Court to the respondent-Panchayat. The same was with the hope that the respondent-Panchayat might adopt corrective measures. 7. Today, when the matter is called, the learned Counsel for the respondent-Panchayat submits that the writ petition has been rendered infructuous as the authorities have proceeded ahead with the auction. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioners and other similarly placed persons remain in possession of the premises. No notice of eviction has been issued. 8. Be that as it may, the impugned auction notification requires to be set aside on the short ground that the same is contrary to the Government Order dated 09.10.2015 and also as being violative of the Government Circular dated 14.08.2015. 9. Accordingly, writ petitions are allowed. The auction notification and all the consequential actions are quashed. 8. Be that as it may, the impugned auction notification requires to be set aside on the short ground that the same is contrary to the Government Order dated 09.10.2015 and also as being violative of the Government Circular dated 14.08.2015. 9. Accordingly, writ petitions are allowed. The auction notification and all the consequential actions are quashed. The quashing of the auction notification will not come in way of respondent No. 3-Panchayat to conduct the auction strictly in compliance with the Government Orders dated 14.08.2015 and 09.10.2015. There shall be no order as to costs.