IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NO.17091/ 2012(KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
GARDEN CITY EDUCATION TRUST (R) BEING A REGISTERED TRUST HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.340, 2ND FLOOR, 5TH MAIN DOUBLE ROAD, INDIRANAGAR 1ST STAGE BANGALORE – 560 038. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SRI. NAINAN P OOMMEN GOVERNING COUNCIL MEMBER GARDEN CITY COLLEGE.
(BY SRI. G.L. VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT BANGALORE.
... PETITIONER 3. THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK K.R. PURAM BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND / OR SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER / LETTER DATED:21.01.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-M PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Though matter is listed for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group, by consent of learned Advocates appearing for parties, it is taken for final disposal.
2. Heard Sri. G.L.Vishwanath, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri. Y.D. Harsha, learned AGA appearing for respondents. Perused the records.
3. Petitioner is a registered trust engaged in Educational activities conducted through its institutions. Petitioner has established College under the name and style of “Garden City College” in the year 1996 and has been running said college in the property bearing Sy.Nos.74 and 78 in an area of 5 acres which is situated at Battarahahalli Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore, wherein various courses are being administered to its students. Said land is said to have been purchased by petitioner under a registered sale deed. Petitioner is said to have learnt that they are in possession of land to an extent of 13 guntas in Sy.No.2 of Battarahalli village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore abutting the land owned by it and on coming its notice that said land belonged to the Government, petitioner has requested the Government to grant said 13 guntas of land in Sy.No.2. At the request of petitioner a Lease deed came to be executed on 30.03.2004 by Government of Karnataka for a period of 30 years vide Annexure-F. Perusal of same would disclose that an extent of 13 guntas in Sy.No.2 has been granted on lease for a period of 30 years in favour of petitioner. Boundaries as described in the schedule to sale deed indicated that on western side of land leased to the petitioner is the Garden City College, wherein petitioner has constructed college building for purposes of running its educational institutions. Said 13 guntas of leased land granted in favour of the petitioner has been kept as buffer zone which is abutting the road on the eastern side. In order to ensure that there is no security breach or trespassing into the property belonging to petitioner a compound wall has been constructed by petitioner as is evident from the photographs produced at Annexure-B1 and B2 and also filed along with its rejoinder which is at Annexures- N and P.
4. In this factual scenario, respondent has issued impugned communication dated 21.01.2012- Annexure-M whereunder land granted by way of lease in favour of petitioner has been cancelled and second respondent has directed third respondent to take steps to recover the leased lands. Hence, petitioner is before this Court.
5. At the outset it requires to be noticed that impugned communication is liable to be quashed on the sole ground that it is violation of principle of natural justice. In other words, it is not the case of respondents that there has been violation of terms of the lease deed by petitioner for canceling the lease deed. In fact, it is the respondent who having executed lease deed in favour of petitioner has stipulated terms and conditions which is required to be followed by petitioner. In fact respondents are fully aware of nature of the land as well as status of the land and yet, with their eyes wide open have executed the lease deed in favour of the petitioner.
6. In the Official Memorandum dated 23.01.2004- Annexure-E the condition for grant of lease of land in question has also been stipulated, whereunder it is specifically stated that petitioner shall maintain the leased area as buffer area and garden can be established so as to maintain the clean environment. This document when read with conjunction with lease deed would not take this Court too long to quash the impugned communication, inasmuch as it is nowhere stated by the respondents that either there has been violation of terms of lease deed or petitioner having acted contrary to the terms of the lease deed. As such, impugned communication would not stand in the test of law. Hence, it is liable to be quashed.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (1) writ petition is allowed.
Communication dated 23.01.2004 (Annexure-M) issued by second respondent is hereby quashed.
(2) However, respondent would be at liberty to proceed against petitioner if they so desire and find there has been any violation of the terms of lease which would necessarily be after issuing notice to petitioner and consideration of objections filed to such notice if any by petitioner.
(3) All contention of both parties are left open in that regard.
Ordered accordingly.
SD/- JUDGE RU