Dismissed

Sri K S Iswara Goud v. the Town Panchayath

Karnataka HC10 Dec 2018WP/2079/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a Deputy Commissioner's order allowing conversion of a park area into a Town Panchayath office complex. The Court held that the order was based on application, not suo-moto, rendering Section 306 inapplicable. Finding the project served public purposes and noting the land's revenue status was legally corrected, the Court declined PIL jurisdiction and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed; PIL jurisdiction not exercised.

Sri K S Iswara Goud Vs the Town Panchayath — Environment and Pollution | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

W.P.No.2079/2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S. SUJATHA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.2079 OF 2017 (GM – RES) [PIL]

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI.K.S.ISWARA GOUD S/o K.S.SANTHAVEERA GOUD

¶11

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT BEHIND ANJANEYA TEMPLE KOTTUR-583134, KUDLIGI TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT.

¶12

SRI.K.NAGARAJA GOUD S/o K.KOTRA GOUD AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS BUSINESS – PROVISION STORES R/AT K.H.B. QUARTERS, CHIRIBI ROAD KOTTUR-583134, KUDLIGI TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT.

¶13

SRI.K.KARIBASAVANA GOUD S/o K.KOTRA GOUD AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS BUSINESS – ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC STORES R/AT NEAR VEERABHADRESHWARA TEMPLE FORT, KOTTUR-583134, KUDLIGI TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT.

¶14

SRI. C.N.PRAKASH S/o J.KOTRABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS BUSINESS – ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC STORES R/AT NEAR VEERABHADRESHWARA TEMPLE

¶15

W.P.No.2079/2017

¶16

¶17

FORT, KOTTUR-583134, KUDLIGI TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI N.SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, ADV.)

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE TOWN PANCHAYATH, KOTTUR REPRESENTED BY CHIEF OFFICER BUDDA CIRCLE, 1^ST WARD KOTTUR-583134.

¶21

THE PRESIDENT TOWN PANCHAYATH, KOTTUR BUDDA CIRCLE, 1^ST WARD KOTTUR-583134.

¶22

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER D.C. OFFICE COMPOUND BELLARY-583101.

¶23

THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL D.C. COMPOUND

¶24

BELLARY-583101. ... RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI M.V.HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R-1; SRI SUDEENDRANATH, ADV. FOR – R-2 [ABSENT]; SRI SHIVAPRABHU S.HIREMATH, AGA FOR R-3 & R-4)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS; QUASH THE MODIFIED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-4 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL, D.C. COMPOUND, BELLARY DATED 06.12.2016 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-H AND ALL CONSEQUENTIAL STEPS IN THAT DIRECTION TO CONVERT THE PARK AREA TO CONSTRUCT OFFICE BUILDING OF THE TOWN PANCHAYATH KOTTUR AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO GRANT THE PETITIONERS SUCH OTHER RELIEFS WITH A DIRECTION TO THE AUTHORITIES TO PRESERVE THE PARK AREA FOR PARK PURPOSE ONLY AND NOT TO CHANGE THE SAME FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE; AND ETC.,

¶27

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 05.12.2018, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF

¶28

W.P.No.2079/2017

¶29

¶30

ORDERS, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J ., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

In this writ petition, styled as Public Interest Litigation, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the respondent No.4 – The Project Director, District Urban Development Cell, Bellary dated 06.12.2016, marked as Annexure-H and consequential steps taken, to construct the office building of the Town Panchayath Kottur inter alia seeking for a direction to the authorities to preserve the park area [land in question] for park purpose only and not to change the same for any other purpose.

¶33

The petitioners are claiming to be the residents of Kottur Town Panchayath. It is their contention that the land in Sy.No.765/1 of Kottur Village, Kudligi Taluk is the reserve land and in the revenue records, it is specifically mentioned as park and overhead water tank. This being the position, the local Town Panchayath of Kottur is trying to convert this park area to Panchayath Office Complex.

¶34

Learned counsel Sri.N.Shankaranarayana Bhat, appearing for the petitioners placing reliance on the Record of

¶35

W.P.No.2079/2017

¶36

¶37

Rights [RTC] and Pahani in respect of the land in question for the years 2001-02, 2014-15 and 2015-16, submitted that the said land is reserved for public purpose and in the relevant column, it is specifically shown as water tank and park. Reference was made to the resolution dated 15.07.2016 at Annexure-D to the writ petition as well as resolution dated 16.09.2016 at Annexure-E to the writ petition and the order of the Deputy Commissioner, District Town Development Section, Bellary whereby administrative approval has been granted to Kottur Town Panchayath for the work of Constructing new building in the very spot where the present old office of the Town Panchayath is located and the grant is allotted for the said project [Annexure-F to the writ petition]. Inviting the attention of this Court to Section 306 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 [‘Act’ for short], it was submitted that, the Deputy Commissioner is required to follow the procedure prescribed to modify the order passed earlier. Such procedure not being complied with, the impugned order dated 06.12.2016 at Annexure-H is unsustainable.

¶38

Learned counsel Sri.M.V.Hiremath, appearing for

¶39

the respondent No.1 has filed statement of objections, refuting

¶40

W.P.No.2079/2017

¶41

¶42

the contentions of the petitioners that the land in question is reserved for the park. In contrast, it was contended that the land in question was purchased by the respondent No.1 through a registered sale deed dated 22.04.1968 for the purpose of construction of the Town Panchayath Office and water tank. The name of the vendor of the respondent No.1 continued in the revenue records from 1968 till 1997-98. Subsequently, the name of the respondent No.1 came to be inserted by the order of the Tahasildar, Kudligi dated 07.01.1998. By virtue of which, the name of the vendor of the respondent No.1 came to be deleted. However, the RTC of the said lands reflected the tank and park for some years. On application filed by the petitioner No.1 seeking correction of the same, the name of the President, Town Panchayath was incorporated from 2001 to 2015-16 in the revenue records, making necessary corrections in accordance with law. The learned counsel has referred to the proceedings of the Tahasildar dated 24.06.2016, to emphasize that the name of the respondent No.1 was substituted by correcting the Pahani Column No.12/2 in the place of Water Tank and park and the consequential order dated 24.04.2016, making necessary

¶43

W.P.No.2079/2017

¶44

¶45

correction in the Pahani records. Copies of such documents referred to, are placed on record as Annexures-R1 to R4.

¶46

Learned Additional Government Advocate

¶47

appearing for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 by filing the statement of objections, has supported the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.

¶48

There was no representation on behalf of the respondent No.2.

¶49

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties as aforesaid and perused the material placed on record.

¶50

It is significant to note that neither any rejoinder is filed by the petitioners to the statement of objections filed by respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 controverting the factual aspects placed on record nor the same is disputed at the time of the arguments. Indisputably, the land bearing Sy.765/1 measuring 2 acres 45 cents was purchased by respondent No.1 under registered sale deed dated 22.04.1968 for a valuable consideration for the purpose of building water tank and the

¶51

W.P.No.2079/2017

¶52

¶53

official buildings related to Town Panchayath, Kottur. It appears in the year 2001-02, 2014-15 and 2015-16, in addition to water tank in column No.12, a mistake had crept in and RTC extracts depicted water tank and park also. Noticing the said mistake reflected in the RTC extracts, considering the application filed by the respondent No.1 for necessary correction, concerned authorities rectified the said mistake and passed an order as per Annexure-R3 dated 24.06.2016. Surprisingly, this order has not been challenged and the same having reached finality, the petitioners cannot be acceded liberty to challenge Annexure-H, the modified order of the Deputy Commissioner and to seek a direction to the authorities to maintain the land in question as a park dehors the corrections carried out by the competent authorities in the Pahani records relating to the land in question.

¶54

We are of the considered view that Section 306

¶55

of the Act would be applicable only in the event, the Deputy Commissioner is of the opinion that, the execution of any order or resolution of a town municipal council, or the doing of anything which is about to be done or is being done by or on behalf of a town municipal council, is unlawful or is causing or

¶56

W.P.No.2079/2017

¶57

¶58

is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the public, or to lead to a breach of the peace. In the present case, no such circumstances existed for the Deputy Commissioner to invoke Section 306 of the Act. It is not based on the suo-moto opinion of the Deputy Commissioner attracting Section 306 of the Act, the impugned order at Annexure-H is passed but on the request/application of the respondent No.1 – Town Panchayath, Kottur.

¶59

As aforesaid, spot inspection was conducted by the Deputy Commissioner on 25.11.2016, after issuing notice to the public at large and considering the suitability of the place for construction of office of the Town Panchayath qua the suggestions/objections made by the public and the resolution passed by the respondent No.1 on 16.09.2016 as well as the application of the respondent No.1 dated 25.10.2016, a decision was taken by the Deputy Commissioner and as such Section 306 is not applicable in the present case. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners on this ground is wholly misconceived.

¶60

W.P.No.2079/2017

¶61

¶62

The land in question is proposed to be used for construction of the office building of Town Panchayath and for overhead water tank and such use is of public purposes and it cannot be said that the respondents are acting against the public interest.

¶63

In the aforesaid view of the matter, we are not inclined to exercise PIL jurisdiction in the matter.

¶64

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶65

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

¶67

Sri K S Iswara Goud v. the Town Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K S Iswara Goud v. the Town Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Pruthvi Stone Crushers Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Ashokbhai Hirjibhai Kansagara Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Vijaya Stone Crushers Vs the State of Karnataka

M Satish Vs the Union of India

Amruthesh N P Vs State of Karnataka

B S Nataraj Vs State of Karnataka