IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.4078 OF 2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. GANAPATHI EDUCATION SOCIETY (R) JAGALUR-577 528 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. K. RAVIKUMAR SON OF R. KONDAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDENT OF JAGALUR TOWN JAGALUR-577 528 DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577 528.
...APPELLANT (BY SRI.VIGHNESHWAR S SHASTRY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO BACKWARD AND MINORITY DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.
3. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ALI ASKER ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.
4. COMMISSIONER OF BACKWARD AND MINORITY DEPARTMENT NO.16/D, 3RD FLOOR SRI. DEVARAJA BHAVAN MILLERS TANK BED AREA BENGALURU-560 052.
5. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ALI ASKER ROAD BENGALURU -560 001.
6. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE-577 001.
7. CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AND LIQUIDATOR JAGALUR TALUK OIL INDUSTRY AND COTTON GINNING KAIGARIKA PARTIVARTHANA SAHAKARA SANGHA, JAGALUR TOWN DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577 528.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S S MAHENDRA, AGA FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 6) THIS APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 39050/2016 DATED 20.04.2017.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20.04.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.39050/2016, by which the petition was disposed off directing the petitioner to make a representation to respondent No.6, the writ petitioner is in appeal.
2. The petitioner filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare entire process to sell the land in favour of Backward Class and Minority Department as per Annexure-Z, as illegal and to direct the respondents to give permission for selling the land and building in favour of the petitioner at market price. The petitioner claims that it is an educational institution at Jagalur Town and the petitioner has put up construction on the land leased by Jagalur Taluk Oil Industry and Cotton Ginning Kaigarika Parivarthana Sahakara Sangha Limited (for short ‘Society’). It is stated that the said Society has been liquidated and the portion of the land which is in its possession be sold to the petitioner at market price. As proposed by the respondents, if the land is brought to sale by auction, it would deny the petitioner from purchasing the land. Further it is stated that as per Annexure–Z, letter addressed by the 4th respondent to the 2nd respondent, permission is sought to register the land in the name of Welfare Department. The respondents filed objection contending that the petitioner has no manner of right over the land which is about 35 guntas. The petitioner was lessee on rental basis for the period from 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2008. Since the said period is elapsed, the petitioner is liable to be evicted. The land in question is required for establishment of quarters and in that regard an amount of Rs.40 crores is being sanctioned for construction of Girls Hostel and Pre-Post Metric Students Hostel. Therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to seek for a direction to sell the land in their favour. The learned single Judge by his detailed order disposed off the writ petition observing that the petitioner may make representation to respondent No.6 who shall take decision in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is in appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 6. Perused the appeal papers.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned single Judge committed an error in disposing of the writ petition by observing that the petitioner may make representation to respondent No.6 who shall take decision in accordance with law. It is his further contention that the learned single Judge lost site of the fact that the petitioner was making correspondence seeking permission for purchase of the land and building and in fact recommendation was made in that regard, but no final decision had been taken. The appellant is ready to purchase the land in which they are running education institution at market price or the price fixed by the Government.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 6 would submit that the petitioner is only a lessee and he has no manner of right over the land. The land measuring 35 guntas was given on rental basis and the lease period has already elapsed and the petitioner is liable to be evicted. The land is required to the Government for constructing quarters and also for construction of Hostel for which Government has already sanctioned Rs.40 crores.
6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on going through the order of the learned single Judge along with appeal papers, we are of the view that the order of the learned single Judge is neither perverse nor erroneous. The learned single Judge while coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought in the writ petition has given liberty to the petitioner to make representation to respondent No.6, who after taking note of the aspect shall take decision in accordance with law. Admittedly, petitioner’s educational institution is a lessee in respect of 35 guntas of land from the erstwhile Society. The Society having been liquidated, the 4th respondent has addressed a letter (Annexure-Z) to the 2nd respondent seeking permission to register the land in the name of the Welfare Department. It is an internal correspondence between these 4th and 2nd respondents, as such, the petitioner could not have challenged the same. Be that as it may, the petitioner is only a lessee and he has no manner of right over the property. The Government has in categorical terms has stated before the learned single Judge that the land is required for the 2nd respondent–Department for establishment of Hostel and quarters. Since the land is required for public purpose, the petitioner cannot seek the same for its private purpose. The land for public purpose would yield over private purpose.
7. No ground is made out to interfere with the well reasoned order of the learned single Judge. Accordingly, writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE SMJ CT:bms