R 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR W.P.NOS.30078-30079/2019 (LB RES) C/W W.P.NOS.30372-30385/2019 (LB RES), W.P.NOS.30386-30391/2019 (LB RES), W.P.NOS.30080-30101/2019 & 30184-30185/2019 (LB RES) IN W.P.NOS.30078-30079/2019 BETWEEN 1. SMT. KAMALAMMA W/O SRI DYAVAPPAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, HEMTAGERE ROAD, ARKALGUD TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT -573 102.
2. SRI ARUN KUMAR SON OF SHANTHA GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, ARKALGUDU PETE AND TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 102 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI SREEVATSA, SR. ADV. FOR SRI NAGAIAH, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001.
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573102 3. ARKALGUD TOWN PANCHAYATH ARKALGUD TOWN HASSAN DISTRICT-573201 REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/ ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ANANDEESWAR D.R, HCGP FOR R1 & R2, SRI H.T.NATARAJA, ADV. FOR R3.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE INTIMATION LETTERS DATED 1.7.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-J & J1 ETC.
IN W.P.NOS.30372-30385/2019 BETWEEN 1. SRI NAGARAJU S/O LATE SANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT HEMBIGERE ARAKALGUD TOWN HASSAN DISTRICT-573201 2. BHAVARALAL S/O PUKHARAMJI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT ARAKALGUD NARASINGARAYA KRISHNARAYA LAYOUT, KOTE, ARKALGUD TOWN HASSAN DISTRICT-573201 HASSAN 3. SRIDHARA S/O SUBBARAYASHETTY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT PETE MAIN ROAD ARKALGUD TOWN HASSAN DISTRICT-573201 HASSAN 4. M T JAYALAKSHMI W/O A P MOHANKUMAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT PETE MAIN ROAD, ARKALGUD TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT-573201 HASSAN 5. SMT. SUNITHA P.T W/O ANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT CHOLENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573201 HASSAN 6. A N SUBBANNA S/O LATE A P NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT PETE MAIN ROAD, ARKALGUD TOWN HASSAN DISTRICT-573201 HASSAN 7. VENKATESH S/O RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT HOUSING BOARD ARKALGUD HASSAN DISTRICT-573201 HASSAN 8. MAQBUL AHAMED S/O CHOTASAB AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT MUSLIM ROAD PETE ARKALGUD HASSAN DISTRICT-573201 HASSAN 9. A G BHASKAR S/O GANGADHARAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, KEB ROAD, ARKALGUD HASSAN DISTRICT-573201 HASSAN 10. POORNIMA W/O HONNARASEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 R/AT HENTEGERE KOPPALU ARKALGUD TOWN HASSAN DISTRICT-573201 HASSAN 11. B C SHEKAR S/O CHANNAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT BASAVANAGUDI ROAD ARKALGUD HASSAN DISTRICT-573201 HASSAN 12. A H RAJANNA S/O HANUMANTHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O TELAGAVE ROAD, PETE ARKALGUD HASSAN DISTRICT-573201 HASSAN 13. M R RAMESH S/O RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O KOTE ARKALGUD, HASSAN DISTRICT-573201 HASSAN 14. BASAVARAJU M A S/O ANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, LIBRARY ROAD, ARKALGUD HASSAN DISTRICT-573201 HASSAN ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, SR. ADV. FOR SRI MOHAN P S, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPT. OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DIST., HASSAN-573102 3. ARKALGUD TOWN PANCHAYATH ARKALGUD TOWN HASSAN DISTRICT-573201 REP. BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H T NATARAJA, ADV. FOR R3, NOTICE NOT ORDERED IN R/O R1 & R2.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AUCTION NOTICE DATED: 09.07.2019 AT ANNEXURE-F, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN ETC.
IN W.P.NOS.30386-30391/2019 BETWEEN 1. SRINIVAS, SINCE DEAD BY LRS SMT. SUSHEELAMMA, WIFE OF LATE SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, K.E.B. ROAD, PETE, ARKALGUD, HASSAN DISTRICT 573201.
2. SRI SYED LIYAKATH SON OF ABDUL JABBAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, K.E.B.ROAD, PETE, ARKALGUD, HASSAN DISTRICT 573102.
3. SAGEER AHAMAD SRI NOORULLA KHAN, SON OF LATE SAGEER AHMAD, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, K.E.B.ROAD, PETE, ARKALGUD, HASSAN DISTRICT 573102.
4. RASHEED SINCE DEAD LRS SRI ABDULLA KHAN, SON OF LATE RASHEED, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, K.E.B.ROAD, PETE, ARKALGUD, HASSAN DISTRICT 573102.
5. SRI DODDANNA SON OF MOTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, K.E.B.ROAD, PETE, ARKALGUD, HASSAN DISTRICT 573102.
6. SRI M R VENKATESHA SON OF RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, K.E.B.ROAD, PETE, ARKALGUD, HASSAN DISTRICT 573102. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, SR. ADV. FOR SRI MOHAN P S, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPT. OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573102.
3. ARKALGUD TOWN PANCHAYATH ARKALGUD TOWN HASSAN DISTRICT 573201, REP. BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H T NATARAJA, ADV. FOR R3, NOTICE NOT ORDERED IN R/O R1 & R2.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AUCTION NOTICE DATED: 09.07.2019 AT ANNEXURE-D ISSUED BY R-3 HEREIN ETC.
IN W.P.NOS.30080-30101/2019 & 30184-30185/2019 (LB RES) BETWEEN 1. SMT JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, W/O THIMMEGOWDA, R/O HENTAGEREKOPPALU, WARD NO.15, ARKALGUD TOWN, ARKALGUD-573201 2. SRI. NAVAB AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMED GROUSE, R/O KEB ROAD, PETE ARKALGUD, ARKALGUD-573201.
3. SRI. G.N. DHARMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O NINGEGOWDA, R/O K.S.R.T.C. DEPOT ROAD, PETE ARKALGUD, ARKALGUD-573201 4. SRI PUTTEGOWDA K M AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O MUDLIGOWDA, R/O NEAR KRISHNA SAW MILL, H.N.PURA ROAD, ARKALGUD-573201 5. SRI MANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O NINGEGOWDA, R/O SWEEPERS COLONY, ARKALGUD TOWN, ARKALGUD-573201 6. SRI. ANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O KULLEGOWDA, PETE MACHAGOWDANAHALLI, ARKALGUD-573201.
7. SRI GOWDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O KARIGOWDA, R/O P CHAKANAHALLI, DODDAMAGGE HOBLI, ARKALGUD TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573201 8. SRI L. S. NAGESH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O L SHIVANNA, R/O K.S.R.T.C. DEPOT ROAD, PETE ARKALGUD, ARKALGUD-573201 9. SRI N.T. DYAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O THIMMEGOWDA, R/O HENTAGERE ROAD, PETE ARKALGUD, ARKALGUD-573201 10. SRI NAGESH BABU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O NAGARAJASHETTY, KSRTC DEPOT ROAD, PETE ARKALGUD, ARKALGUD-573201 11. SMT. BHAGYAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O SHIVANANJAPPA, R/O AA.NA.KRU.EXTENSION FORT ARKALGUD, ARKALGUD-573201 12. SRI SWAMYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O KALEGOWDA, R/O AA.NA.KRU. EXTENSION, FORT ARKALGUD, ARKALGUD-573201 13. SRI. KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O RANGEGOWDA, R/O AA.NA.KRU.EXTENSION, FORT ARKALGUD, ARKALGUD-573201 14. SRI MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O HUCHEGOWDA, R/O HENTAGERE ROAD, PETE ARKALGUD, ARKALGUD-573201 15. SRI H.T. LOKESH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O THIMMEGOWDA R/O HENTAGERE ROAD, PETE ARKALGUD, ARKALGUD-573201 16. SRI C.P. MANJACHAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O S.R. PUTTACHAR, R/O K.H.B. QUARTERS, ARKALGUD-573201 17. SRI H.S. SATHISH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O SHIVAPPA, R/O HENTAGEREKOPPALU, PETE ARKALGUD, ARKALGUD-573201 18. SRI MUZAHID SAB AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O AMIR SAB, R/O K.E.B. ROAD, PETE ARKALGUD, ARKALGUD-573201.
19. SRI M.N. RAJU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O VENKATANARASIMHAIAH, R/O FORT ARKALGUD, ARKALGUD-573201.
20. SRI M. M. SURESH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O MALLESHAPPA, R/O SANTHEMARUR, ARKALGUD TALUK-573201 21. SRI PAPANNA @ LAKSHMEGOWDA, S/O SANNAPPA, R/O AN.NA.KRU CIRCLE, PETE ARKALGUD, ARKALGUD-573201.
22. SRI DHARMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O DEVARAJEGOWDA, R/O K.E.B ROAD, PETE ARKALGUD, ARKALGUD-573201 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI NAGAIAH, ADV.)
(BY SRI ANANDEESWAR D.R, HCGP FOR R1 & R2, SRI H.B.NATARAJ, ADV. FOR R3.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE INTIMATION LETTERS DTD:1.7.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-L TO L24.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 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- Panchayath.
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 Panchayath 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-Panchayath would attempt to justify the action of the panchayath 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 Panchayath 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-Panchayath 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-Panchayath does not appear to be above board. The omission of the respondent-Panchayath 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-Panchayath 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-Panchayath was also called upon to convey the opinion of the Court to the respondent-Panchayath. The same was with the hope that the respondent-Panchayath might adopt corrective measures.
7. Today, when the matter is called, the learned Counsel for the respondent-Panchayath 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. The quashing of the auction notification will not come in way of respondent No.3-Panchayath 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.
Sd/- JUDGE KK CT-HR