IN THE ma:-1 comm or KARHATAKA, ~
DATED THIS THE aw DAYVOF 4
BEFORE Q
THE }~ION'BLE MR. JUs'r1¢Ei%fFj
WRIT PETITION 1786 2993 a;B;REé)
BETWEEN ;
P BHEEMANNA
S/O. OBAEAH 1.
AGED ABou:r"45.__YE.e§Rs .
PROP. OF MAHAiL£§_!(SE!&1.I «
CHITRA,MAN_B°iRA:;;:,. ~ Y '
PAVAGAD ROAEL
CHALLEKERE. " .A ' '
CHITRABURGA lZ)ISI'I'§i(3'I'--~.._ "
PETITIONER
_ (BY -A NAGA'R.qFQAP'§'A 85 1' H NARAYANA, ADV)
A15"? %=
1. " THE"sTATE'oF KARNATAKA
* , VREP,B¥_ rrs SECRETARY
DEP'r:. 012* URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M s;_BUILD11~zG, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
+. BANGALORE» 1.
Ema CHIEF OFFICER
OWN MUNICIPALITY
CI-{ALLAKERE TOWN,
CHITRABURGA DISTRICI'.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SR1. R DEVADAS, AGA FOR R1)
(BY SR}. G KRISHNA MURTHY, ADV FOR R2)D
mi
2 ._
‘I’HiS WRIT PETITIGN IS FILED UNDER ARTICLI_43S:’22€i..’4
ANE) 227 01:’ THE CONSTITUTION or INDIA PRA’f§N§2~..__*FQ__
QUASH ANNEXURIELF ISSUED BY R1 DTD. 3.1.2QG3.v
THIS PETITION, comma ONFOR C’sI§i§VEie?S, ‘TH1S M’ ‘
DAY THE comm’ MADE gig ]§<§L;,ow1:€o~:_eTj = * V
The petitioner claiming $9" 9: r.':i1;:¢.21_x1°:éUtA:'E:1_ea1:x7c?–V; at
Challakerc Town having reque;_;tLeici,V'_fi3.e 'hespogfident –
Town Municipality for 167 feet by
147 when conceded, a proposal
was sent ‘the Sfafie-. Go’vei*oment who in turn by order
V Dt(i.]f£f».’G1¢.199;7 — ‘A’ it is stated, peznfitted the
:€.’.oI’31:;<;iI to alienate the pmperty at the rate of
in favour of the petitioner, followed by
Z the AeKcCt1}.iox1;A a sale certificate dtd.28.06. 1997 Annexuxe —
and assessment of Tax coupled with the payment of
' 'toAX'h}7j'A.i'eceipts Azmexuxes — 'C1' to 'C4'.
2. It appears that a public spirited person invoked the
“”V.Vx}§k;itjuz~isc1ics;ion of this court in W.P.No.34862]97, caliing in
question the Government Order dtd. 18.01.1997 to declare
the Sale Certificate Dtd.28.()6.19’97 as null and 11/;
a mandamus directing the petitioner to vacate . ‘
possession of the property in questioii,”whe§Itce_.
Bench by Order (ltd. 28.91.1993 9- 452”
interfere.
3. It is the a]1egatieoit;A«.of the State
Government without notiee withoi’1V:i._’extending an
opportunity of ;to by Order dtci.
03.01.2603 ‘ the 2113 Iespondent –
Town the petitioner the value of
the immovable ghopertyt-io..’t1uesfion at the rate of Rs. 100/–
V. addifiofi to 20% of the said sum, together
per annum from the petitioner. Hence
mas? Ewe… –
V A. ‘_-4. The petition is opposed by filing statement of
ohieefions dtd. 22.02.2003 of the 2″‘ respondent inter alia
Vt ” ceotendmg that the petitioner obtained a sale Certificate by .
” playing fraud on the 2*” Iesmsfient and on the Govemment,
in collusion, with the then Chief Oficer MLV. Thippaiah and
M
4
another Mr.Umapafi:1y, against whom ‘4
proceedings have been initiated and eliqujry is_peegdi;1g_:i;.::’
further stated that the so called
name H.V.Na.garaja was a fricndof ii
to the same political party and pctiiCi¢e’_1ii’,e
of public interest 1itigati<j:1i~,«_wa_§.iii_1e<i:<"order ieaeeiet the
petitioner. According to Elie the order
impugned is that, the price
fixed b_\;*"ti1e index dtd. 18.01.1997
Annexuif: -? :_'A" RS.100/- per sq.ft. and not
Rs.1{)0/- records maintained by the
«_Fina1xi*;e the State of Karnataka, it is said,
price fixed by the Government was
and not Rs.100/- per sq.mtr. It is further
–V stateii ptirsuant to the Oxder dtd. 03.01.2003 Annexure
ii ‘Fa’e.of tiie State Govt. the matter was placed in the meeting
.i of ifhe:Municipal Council, whence the petitioner was absent,
it was resolved to make a demand and recover the
money fiom the petitioner, followed by a notice
dtd.13.01.20()3 Annexure— RS duly acknowledged by the
M
considered was postponed and by resolution dtd. 21.655.
Annexure – ‘R9′, the gxnund rent was enhanced. _
of the aforesaid resolutions, it is contended: V” i
Municipal Council did not pass a Ie$elu1;_iojnj;.d”td.’:
xecommending a pmposal to_.*i”h’e Stnt4eii”Govt,?V,.f4¢o V
property to the petitioner. It anegafimi of 2’13
respondent that the was
R3416/– per sq.fl:. and durixxiglfiégi tit w§s.*’.Rsi.350/ – to 400/ –
per. property at the rate of
Rs.100/ isms» away price. According to
the 211*’ reepoizdelzt, tiriepeiifiiioner having not approached the
v more appmpriately in the light of the
a fraud played upon the Municipal
cannon State Govt, the petitioner is not entitled to
[any {fie Writ pefifion.
, Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties,
the pleadings and examined the order impugned,
ii the short question for decision making is Whether the order
dtd. 03.01.2003 Annexme — ‘F’ of the State Govt. cails for
interference?
6. This petition is not opposed by film” g of of it
Objection of the State Govt. The onijfiiiother ‘i–obj;ectei’_ is ‘the
Municipal Council which seeks to sulipoft. the as: ”
Well merited, fully justified and fexsinteiffei-ence,
in adciition to the allegation of bf the petitioner
both on the Municipalii as as the State
Government.
7. .h”:o’ugh_Vt”before the court is as
to whether without notice to the
petitionef’ was issuing the order impugned,
stating the of.I:~3s.Ai{}t}]..- sq.ft., having taken a conscious
it it it~3;&ear1iiie1″‘()”ntV1er dtd. 18.01.1997 Annexuxe — ‘A’ to
from the petitioner the pxice of the land at
Rs; I -_ Admittedly, the order Annexure -‘F; is
‘knot preceded by a notice to the petitioner or an opportunity
A “it ” rm’ g. The dispute relating to the payment of a higher
i fiidce as the value of the pmperty in question, touches upon
it the civil rights of the petitioner and therefore, it was
incumbent on the part of the State Government to have
M
issued a notice and extended an opportunity to the K
before passing the order impugned.
3. If there is power to
prejudice of a person, duty to iniplicit in
the exercise of such and
order passed to the prej11.d,ice. V order is a
nullity. is common sense
justice. ‘ of decision
of that process is
= Ii apprising the affected and
appraising the “rep:eeerita.§ions is absent. The philosophy
‘~ is, in one sense, participatory justice
democraiic «rule of law. This is the law
§1e51sxe¢i”bgiee%1×1::¢§i’iiApcx Court in nlohinder Bing}: can 11:.
Thexuu Election Commissioner, New Delhi and
‘ .othega reported in AIR 1973 so 351.
9. Applying the very same principles, it is needless to
state that the order Annexure F of the State Govt. is
N
10
to the 21″‘ respondent to seek review of the 4_ ~
Division Beach in an appropriate ” ”
is not for tins” court to consider
and review the order of the {)ivi.¥Vai;’§3″:… V
In the result, Qpetiiién’ “anow¢d;%~%AThe order
dated 3.1.2003 Atmexuxé is quashed,
msciving hbefigy « ‘_-the i”3’..;Ch action as is
Permissible 19%.: * ”
sd/s
A % ~ Iuddé
_§:Sg_ ”