Karnataka High Court

Nataraja Kala Vijaya Sangha(R) vs State Of Karnataka on 2 September, 2024

Author: H.P.Sandesh

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                                              -1-
                                                          NC: 2024:KHC-D:12570
                                                       WP No. 111623 of 2015




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
                         DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
                                            BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
                         WRIT PETITION NO. 111623 OF 2015 (GM-RES)
                 BETWEEN:
                 NATARAJA KALA VIJAYA SANGHA (R)
                 GANGAVATHI ROAD, WARD NO.16,
                 NEAR OLD BUS STAND, KAMPLI, TQ: HOSPET,
                 DIST: BALLARI,
                 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
                 P. VENKANAGOUDAR S/O. ADIVEPPA,
                 AGE: 64 YEARS, R/O: KAMPLI.
                                                                  ...PETITIONER
                 (BY SRI. VINAY S. KOUJALAGI, ADVOCATE)
                 AND:
                 1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                      REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
                      DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
                      VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU.

                 2.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
                      BALLARI DISTRICT, BALLARI.

GIRIJA A         3.   ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BYAHATTI              VIJAY NAGAR KALUVE SUB-DIVISION,
Location: HIGH
                      KAMALAPURA, DIST: BALLARI.
COURT OF
KARANTAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH            4.   [TOWN MUNICIPALITY
                      KAMPLI, REPRESENTED BY ITS
                      CHIEF OFFICER, DIST: BALLARI] DELETED
                                                                ...RESPONDENTS
                 (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
                     SRI. S.M. KALWAD, ADV. FOR R3)

                      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
                 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
                 NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT,
                 ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE ORDER BEARING
                 NO.AEE/VNC/SOMP. TANK/101/15-16 DATED:11.06.2015, PASSED
                 BY RESPONDENT NO.3, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-P AND ETC.
                             -2-
                                         NC: 2024:KHC-D:12570
                                     WP No. 111623 of 2015




      THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

                           ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

Heard the petitioner's counsel and also the counsel

appearing for the respondents.

2. The writ petition is filed praying this Court to

quash the order dated 11.06.2015 passed by respondent

No.3 by issuing issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or

order or any appropriate writ and grant such other relief

as this Court deems fit in the facts and circumstance of the

case.

3. The case of the petitioner before this Court is that

the property in question is granted by the then Mysore

Government in the proceedings bearing No.RD.95.GN.64

dated 13.08.1965 Shravana S.E. 1887 with certain

conditions. The counsel submits that Annexure-B is the

sketch pertaining to the particular survey number and

Annexure-C is the proceedings of particular Sy.No.1115

and grant is also made in favour of the petitioner in

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12570

respect of Sy.No.1115 to the extent of 0-31 cents wherein

directed the Tahasildar shall issue title deed after

collection of market value, LST fees, etc. Accordingly, the

amount was also paid in terms of Annexure-E, i.e., an

amount of Rs.373/- and possession was also handed over

to the petitioner in terms of Annexure-F on 18.07.1966.

The petitioner also sought for construction of the building

on 30.07.1969 and permission was also granted to

complete the construction from the date of issuance of the

license in terms of Annexure-H. The counsel for the

petitioner also produced the document of at Annexure-G1

for having shown the name of the petitioner in the RTC.

4. The counsel also referred the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No.1132/2011

which is produced as Annexure-J. The counsel also

brought to notice of this Court the direction given by the

Hon'ble Apex Court. He would contend that notice was

issued against this petitioner and this petitioner had

approached this Court by filing W.P.Nos.84352-

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12570

84366/2013 connected with W.P.Nos.84351/2013 and this

Court disposed of the Writ Petitions having observed that

that therebeing no dispute that the petitioners were not

granted with any kind of opportunity of hearing, prior to

issuance of the improved notices and as they submit that

they have documents in proof of their lawful occupation

and construction made and direction also given upon

consideration of the objections shall take decision afresh in

the matter and pass orders with expedition and before the

7th March 2015. Till then, interim order passed in these

Writ Petitions shall continue to operate.

5. The counsel has also produced objections to the

notice dated 31.01.2015 and thereafter the interim order

Annexure-P is passed. The counsel would vehemently

contend that the order impugned at Annexure-P is

erroneous and an observation is made that alleged patta

granted by the Kampli Town Panchayat is not a proper

Gram Panchayat. Town Municipal Council, Kampli has no

power to grant the land as it is a revenue land comes

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12570

under the Deputy Commissioner who has authority to

grant land. The counsel would contend that the in spite of

the Government of Mysore proceedings order

No.RD.95.GNA.64 dated 13.08.1965 was produced, the

same has not been considered. The said observation is

erroneous. Further that Kampli Town Municipality has no

power to sanction the land belongs to the Government and

revenue department. The counsel would vehemently

contend that this property is not granted by Kampli Town

Municipality and the same is granted by the then State of

Mysore and proceedings also produced and the same has

not been discussed. Hence, it requires interference.

6. The learned AGA would submit that the petitioner

relying upon the document of Annexure-A wherein the

grant is subject to certain conditions and in terms of the

conditions, the construction was not taken within a

stipulated period of time and admittedly the land was

granted in year 1965 itself and possession was delivered in

the year 1966-67 and immediately after the delivery of

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12570

possession, the petitioner ought to have constructed the

building within one year and the same has not been done

and no such pleadings before the Court that on what date

they constructed the building and hence there is a clear

violation.

7. The counsel appearing to the respondent No.3

also reiterates the very same grounds and also contend

that when there is a clear violation of conditions of grant it

amounts to enforcement of the property of the

Government and consequent upon the judgment of the

Apex Court, notice was also issued. Subsequent to

remanding the matter, objections were filed vide

Annexure-N and passed the order impugned and the said

order is sustained in the eye of law.

8. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and

also counsel for respondent, it is noticed that respondents

also not dispute the fact that property was granted in

favour of the petitioner in the year 1965 in terms of

Annexure-A. However, the counsel appearing for the

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12570

respondent No.3 brought to the notice of this Court the

very preamble of the order and so also the conditions,

particularly the condition No.1 that building should be

constructed within one year from the date of handing over

the possession of the site and the same has not been

constructed within one year and nothing is pleaded and

produced any document before the Court regarding

construction.

9. The counsel appearing for the petitioner would

contend that possession was delivered in the year 1967,

and amount also paid as per the order and subsequently

the permission is sought and permission is also given and

accordingly the construction is made and there is no any

violation.

10. Having perused the said contentions of both the

petitioner's counsel and also the respondents' counsel and

particularly the reasoning assigned by the respondent

No.3 in the order nowhere discussed with regard to any

violation of the condition and also nothing is placed on

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12570

record regarding violation. Even the order granting the

land in favour of the petitioner was questioned and the

same is challenged and cancelled but only observation

made in paragraph Nos.2, 3, 4 of second page of

Annexure-P the discussion was made that the alleged

patta granted by Kampli Town Panchayat is not a proper

Town Municipal Council completely has no power to grant

the land as it is revenue land comes under the Deputy

Commissioner who is having authority to grant the land.

11. The other discussion made that the documents

before the office for the proof of their case, occupation of

property in question, but the said documents are not

genuine documents and they will not create any right, title

of the petition over the enclosed portions of the properties

and Kampli Town Municipality has no power to sanction

the land belongs to the Government and revenue

department. Having perused this reasoning, the

respondent No.3 proceeded in a wrong notion that

property was granted by Kampli Town Municipality and as

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12570

against the document produced before the Court as per

Annexure-A proceedings of the then State of Mysore which

was taken place in the year 1960. Though the said

document is also produced before the authority, that

document is concerned nothing is discussed in the

impugned order and if any violation or any action is taken

with regard to the violation also nothing is placed on

record. When such being the case, when the right is

claimed, based on Annexure-A ought to have been

considered by the respondent No.3 and respondent No.3

nowhere discussed with regard to the proceedings as for

Annexure-A as claimed by the petitioner. I have already

pointed out that in a wrong notion, the respondent No.3

proceeded that the property was granted by Kampli Town

Municipality and not by the State of Mysore in a

proceeding. When such being the case, there is a factual

error on the part of the respondent No.3 in not considering

the document which has been relied upon by the petitioner

and Annexure-P is required to be quashed with a direction

to consider the claim made by the petitioner as this Court

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12570

already directed in the earlier petitions in W.P.Nos.84352-

84366/2013 connected with W.P.Nos.84351/2013. When

the claim was made, objections were also filed in terms of

Annexure-N and regarding right of the petitioner had to

have been considered by the respondent No.3 and hence,

matter is requires to be remitted back to the respondent

No.3 to consider the matter of afresh.

12. In view of the observations made by this Court in

the earlier writ petitions and in view of the discussions

made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) Writ Petition is allowed.

(ii) The order dated 11.06.2015 passed by respondent

No.3 vide Annexure-P is hereby quashed.

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the respondent

No.3 to consider the matter afresh in view of the

observations within a period of two months from

the date of receipt of copy of this order