High Court Karnataka High Court

Ramdeep Buildtech (India) vs State Of Karnataka By Its on 13 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Ramdeep Buildtech (India) vs State Of Karnataka By Its on 13 April, 2009
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
IN THE HIGH comm' OF KARNATAKA,   

DATED mm 13TH DAY OF»AA?RIL_'§2QQ§V..V:V*'    

BEFORE   *  % V  
THE I~ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE§'L_.NARA,YAI§A-$'£¥?AM*{:
wnrr rmrrrzozi z¢o.;9é6¢i124)o9% {I'ILR§_. 

BE'I'WEEN. %%%%    L

1 RAMDEEP EUELETECPE ,,(:NI31A)

PRIVATE L115/£I'E'.ED '    %
SANDEEPNELAYAM,  REDDY COLONY
SE:jJE'O.R-C, 'BASAVANAGAR,

?% «BMIGALQRE -- 560 037.

  :R:s:PFéESENtIfE;3 BY ITS DIRECTOR,

 _c.RA:»1A;A_I--I. REDDY  I>E'm*10NER

my SR1P;$ MANJUNATH & H.C SHWARAMU : ADV )

%  %%15" STATE 012 KARNATAKA

°-B Y"I'I'S FRINCIPAL SECREFARY T0 GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

"   "M.S.BUH4DIN(}, BANGALORE 560001

 A % W2 THE DEPUTY CQMMISSIONER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
BANGALORE _



3 THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
PREVENTION OF UNAUTHORISED
CONSTRUCTION CELL
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
BANGALORE

(By SR1 SATYANARAYAN SINGH,   " *   _   A'

THIS WRIT ?E'I'l'I'ION FELEIZ) PRA¥IN;:} ~'iI'(f)'»._II:1~IR'§;"3Ci'3.""*--.
SECOND RESPONDENT TO tREFUvNt:s, RS._I1; 6i8,?5,'000/;"_

ALQNG WITH INTEREST AT 18°_x6*~p.a. mew ores
DEPOSIT TILL THE DATE 01? pAwy:ENT A’NS’AI,SOv;’COST OF
THIS PROCEEDIGNS.

mus up c:omu-Ma an Fonz H66-°*?w§52 t3s:’:7i’:c5′:aéj4 ccamér” room, comm’
Mfifif ‘TI-IE” Fm.u0L–.hr£(v;_; !t/ 2 ‘ ‘

§’e;tti:i:::.I1er.S ‘-pxjtayver for direction to the respondent to

‘ ytRs.té:fs,i;,tooo/– aiong with interest @ 13%. The

notificaticm dated 15/ 06 /2007 as per

‘A;1nex1ire–A..’: auctioning the public. property a land

guntas in SY. No. 87 of Byatarayanapura

Yelahaxxka Hobli, Bangalore Nerth. Pursuant to the

‘T . . _ _ e%{1id’fi9tificafion the petitioner participated in the auction and

tttiefiposited the amount refezred to above. Thereafter,

according to the rzotificatien auction was held and the

V

T

petitioner was the highest bidder and he deposited

amount. It was thereafter founci efietietled T

was net available to hand over t9 the rietifiener, 3

2. Hence he to the
respondents to retmfri basis of his
representation Ceri§n; _ieevi:ef1ep.V:fegommended this
case to the 06/09/2008. The
13efifi°ner auction was notified
under sect:ie;3j”69 Revenue Act 1964. The

auctien “S£.at1’1.Vt(iZ’_VJ set attracts public duty. Aflzer the

eefi2pI3’ance of terms & conditions of auction it is

the %¢r~r1;¢;-gponaen: to hand over the property to the

fiitifioner or returning the deposited amount to the

‘4:’fiet:1ftieI¥er. Bet in this case either of the things have not been

3. Petitioner Counsel relied on judment in (2004)

3SCC 553 (ABL Internationai Ltd., and Another V/s Export

Credit {Imrarantee Cerporation ef India L1:d.,_ i

submitted that Whenever there is A ‘4

state in dischargng its public gmty fi’1o {zght it.1vis.,

in nature, High Court can by power
under Articie of 226 of ‘Vfie%%a1so relied
on another judment in (KLR -~ RES)
disposed of on has issued such
directions to the amount. Hence the
learned _’eVt;bII1itted to issue direction
to the reseomfient’ :5 deposited amount of Rs.
68,75,009/’.V1. , -_ ._

Government Advocate submitted that

vteheze ieka dieqzielfiicafion clause in the notification at Item

of A1iIi.exure-A and alse submitted that under such

been ageed by the petitioner and therefore he is

V , _ er1¥;it1ed to the reliefs prayed for in this Writ Petition.

5. I heard the arguments made by both the parties.

6. The Government pleastier _v ‘

judgment produced by the pet:it,i_or1ei*”” V

6203/2008 (KLR~–RES) wherein tne:fpe:~ee¢ncrk’§was to
pay 75% of the amount foo by the
Pfititioner. A» ‘V

7. It that the public
property to be auctioned by
issuing a notitioationiéoo’ petitioner participated
end he ifiévfieet bidder. Thereafter he made
to hand over the property to him

hue it difficult in handing over the same

T’ it beexeeonverted into public: road. Accordingly he

‘ request: to refund him the amount

While issuing notice A11nexure~–A it is out of

provision Section 64A of the Land Reforms Act. It

is a public duty on the part of the respondent to auction the

“T

property cenferring right on the is 3 Vjitize»

requirement of Annexure~A to depoeit file ”

duty was fastened to the responde,t_1 f– to ‘ever

property to him which could not”VEreTdone as praperty itself
was not available. aiscs Vemitied for
relief as prayed in the p<itit1;c')fl1-A._ ' '

e

" is aliowed. The first respondent is directed

to on Annexure -~ 13;' within a period of

T' months date of receipt of copy of this order. With

' Petition is disposed of)".

sal-

Judge

BSV