Karnataka High Court
Mohd. Shafeeq vs The State Of Karnataka And Others on 31 May, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3490
WP No. 226385 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 226385 OF 2020 (GM-PP)
BETWEEN:
MOHD. SHAFEEQ
S/O SOFILAL BANGI
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
OCC: PETTY BUSINESS
R/O JUMMA MASJID,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GANESH S. KALBURGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, VIKASA SOUDHA,
Digitally BENGALURU-560001.
signed by
RENUKA
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Location: VIJAYAPURA-586101.
High Court
Of Karnataka
3. CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VIJAYAPURA
REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER-586101.
4. ASSISTANT VICE PRINCIPAL
GOVERNMENT BOYS PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE,
HIGH SCHOOL DIVISION, VIJAYAPURA-586101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP
FOR R1, R2 AND R4;
SRI AMRESH S. ROJA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3490
WP No. 226385 of 2020
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED U/A 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTICE/ORDER DATED 03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 AND RESPONDENT NO.3 IN FILE NO. MA
NA PAA VI/KAM.VI/NOTISU/2020-21/766, THE ORIGINAL OF
WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A,
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged a notice dated 03.09.2020
issued by the respondent No.3 under Section 4 of the
Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1974.
2. The petitioner contended that he was a joint owner
of the property bearing CTS No.445, M.G.Road, Vijayapura.
The respondent No.3 had issued a Master Plan of 2006, which
contained a proposal for widening the M.G. road. In order to
effect the master plan, respondent No.3 had issued a notice
dated 08.09.2014 calling upon him to attend a meeting for
implementation of master plan and for proposed widening of
the road. The petitioner claims that though compensation was
offered, he was not happy and therefore, he filed objection and
rejected the offer made by the respondent No.3. The petitioner
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3490
thereafter challenged the notice issued by the respondent No.3
before this Court in W.P.Nos.205731-732/2014. The
respondent No.3 gave an undertaking that it would not take
any steps against the petitioner without following due process
of law. However, in absolute violation of the said undertaking
respondent No.3 demolished the property belonging to the
petitioner. Since the respondent No.3 had taken law into its
hands, the petitioner approached this Court in
W.P.No.201027/2015. The Deputy Commissioner, entered into
a settlement with the petitioner in terms of which, the
respondent No.3 had agreed to allot a shop to the petitioner for
a term of 60 years and which was subject to renewal from time
to time. Following that, a shop was allotted to the petitioner
and that the petitioner is carrying out the business in the said
shop. The respondent No.3 relying upon certain directions
issued by the Division Bench of this Court in CCC Nos.200235-
36/2019 caused a notice under Section 4 of the the Karnataka
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974
informing the petitioner that the perpetual lease granted to him
on 01.04.2017 was cancelled.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3490
3. Being aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner is
before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
lease granted to the petitioner was an understanding between
the respondent Nos.2 and 3 as well as the petitioner and was
outside the scope of Section 174 of the Karnataka Municipal
Corporations Act, 1976. He further contends that the petitioner
was not a party to the proceedings in CCC Nos.200235-
36/2019 and therefore, the lease granted in favour of the
petitioner cannot be terminated on the ground that it was in
violation of section 174 of Karnataka Municipal Corporations
Act, 1976.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3
contended that this Court in CCC Nos.200235-36/2019 was
considering a case of non allotment of shops by the respondent
No.3 despite a direction issued in W.P.No.200678-679/2019.
He submits that the Division Bench of this Court took
cognizance of Rule 39 of Karnataka Municipalities (Guidance of
Officers, Grant of Copies and Miscellaneous Provisions) Rules,
1966 as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3490
case of Packraft (India) Pvt. Ltd., Through its Director
V.S. Mann vs. U.P.F.C. Through its M.D. R.M. Sethi and
others [(1996) 1 SCC 304] where it was held that
"11. After having noted the contention as
advanced by both the sides, no doubt, the affidavit of
the Municipal Commissioner would make it clear that
the representation of the complainant has been
disposed off as per the communication dated 03-09-
2019 whereby the representation of the petitioner has
been referred to the School Development Monitoring
Committee to be disposed off by taking note of the
agreement dated 28-02-2006 between the Municipal
Authority and the SDMC. Technically that would
amount to the satisfaction of the grievance of non-
compliance of the consideration as made out in the
contempt petition."
6. This Court also noticed that the Deputy
Commissioner had held proceedings and had placed a report
before the Court. The Division Bench considered the direction
issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court and directed the records to be
placed before the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department to
take note of the report and take appropriate steps to ensure
interest in public property is adequately protected.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3490
7. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3
therefore, contended that the question whether the petitioner
could be leased a shop perpetually would be considered after
the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department takes a decision.
He therefore, prays that the consideration of this petition be
postponed.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for
the respondent No.3.
9. The fact that the petitioner was joint owner of
certain properties that were leased out by the respondent No.3
without following due process of law, is not much in dispute.
The fact that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 had entered into a
settlement with the petitioner and had consented to allot a
shop to the petitioner in lieu of he loosing the rights over his
property, is also not in dispute. If that be so, this was a
solemn arrangement between the petitioner and the
respondent Nos.2 and 3. The respondent No.2, who made a
statement before the Court was bound to obtain permission of
the State Government in order to enter into a settlement.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3490
However, if that was not done, that cannot be pressed into
service against the petitioner to hold that the lease granted to
the petitioner was tentative or was subject to any condition or
was in violation of any provision of law. The respondent Nos.2
and 3 having allotted the shop to the petitioner and having
made a solemn statement that allotment was part of the
settlement entered into with the petitioner, they cannot take
any course to evict the petitioner. In that view of the matter,
the impugned notice issued by the respondent No.3 is without
authority of law and hence, the same deserves to be quashed.
10. Consequently, this petition is allowed. The
impugned notice dated 03.09.2020 issued by the respondent
No.3 is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NJ,PMR
