IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION Nos.29168-29171/2019 (LB-RES) BETWEEN 1. THIMMAIAH S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.743 PATANJALINAARA, KUNIGAL TOWN KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 130.
2. PUTTAMMA W/O LATE VENKTARAMA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.232-1, JODI KRISHNARAJASAGARA AGRAHARA KUNIGAL TOWN AND TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572130 3. ANUSUYAMMA W/O LAKSHMANA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT KARIYAPPANA COMPOUND, MAHAVEERANAGARA, KUNIGAL TOWN, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572130.
4. ABDUL BASHEER S/O ABDUL PEER SAB AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.31 SING BEEDI, FORT, KUNIGAL TOWN AND TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572130.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI LOKESH S G, ADV.) AND 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TOWN DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE-01.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT, D.C. OFFICE, TUMKUR -572 101 3. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR KUNIGAL TOWN MUNICIPALITY, D.C. OFFICE, TUMKUR-572101.
4. THE CHIEF OFFICER, KUNIGAL TOWN MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPALITY OFFICE, KUNIGAL TOWN AND TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-57213.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.A.SUBRAMANI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 31.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ‘ORDERS’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned HCGP accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are carrying on fruits and vegetables business in the Commercial Complex, Kunigal Taluk constructed by respondent No.4, the Chief Officer of the Kunigal Town Municipality. That in all 78 shops had been constructed on 15.06.2016 and shops were allotted pursuant to the auction and prior to the auction, the bidders were required to deposit of Rs.5,000/- and thereafter, the rent was fixed at Rs.700/- with an advance amount of Rs.15,000/-. Even as per the petition pleadings, the said amount of Rs.15,000/- was not deposited. It is submitted that a demand was made on 30.07.2018 for payment of the remaining Rs.10,000/-. That the amount demanded has been paid thereafter.
4. It is the further case of the petitioners that they have been paying rents regularly and under the original auction, they were entitled to a lease period of 22 years but no lease deed was executed or registered and only a proforma of the lease deed was issued to the parties and that as per the proforma, the lease expires in the year 2028. That respondent No.4 by publication dated 14.06.2019 has called for auctioning the shops in the Commercial Complex. That the auction called for on 14.06.2010 inviting the bids is illegal as it contravenes the lease conditions and abridges the leasehold rights as set out in the proforma lease deed. To state the least, the argument is not only illogical but cannot be appreciated in view of the bar under the Registration Act and the Stamp Act.
5. It is settled law that any lease in excess of 11 months is required to be registered. In the instant case, though the petitioners claim that the property has been leased out for a period of 22 years, the copy of the Government order according sanction or approving the lease for a period of 22 years is not forthcoming. The petitioners do not claim of the Government having approved the lease for a period of 22 years.
6. Sub-Section (2) of Section 72 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 Reads as under:
“No free grant of immovable property whatever may be its value, no grant for an upset price and lo lease for a term exceeding five years, and no sale or other transfer of immovable property exceeding (twenty-five thousand) rupees in value, shall be valid unless the previous sanction of the Government is obtained.”
7. From a bare reading of the above, it is apparent that in respect of lease, the term which is in excess of 5 years, the previous sanction of Government is mandatory.
8. In the instant case, the petitioners are unable to demonstrate such sanction validating the lease for a period of 22 years. In that view of the matter also, the claim of the petitioners of having the benefit of lease for a period of 22 years is hollow and lacks merits and the same is not supported by any legal proceedings or govt. order. It is the further admitted case of the petitioners that they have already handed over the keys, though it is sought to be explained away, by stating that the same was handed over to enable respondent No.4 to carry out the repair and providing amenities.
9. In that view of the matter, and the conduct of the petitioners not inspiring confidence in the Court, this Court sees no illegality in the action of the respondent in auctioning the lease rights. Even though, they were benefited with the property of respondent No.4-Municipality by way of lease, they have omitted to deposit the amount within the time stipulated.
10. That apart, the auction is said to have been held on 11.07.2019. The auction having already been held, the petitioners are not entitle to any relief.
Hence, the petitions being bereft of merits stand dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE VM CT:HR