Dismissed

Mr. Shashidhar v. Karnataka Housing Board

Karnataka HC25 Feb 2019WP/104335/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses writ petitions filed by government servants seeking house allotment and sale deed execution. The court held that without accrued rights under statutory rules, a mandamus cannot lie merely based on possession. Petitioners are directed to approach competent authorities if statutory rules exist.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed; liberty reserved to approach competent authority if statutory provisions apply.

Mr. Shashidhar Vs Karnataka Housing Board — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NOS.104335/2018 & 105045-61/2018 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

MR. SHASHIDHAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, SON OF MR. SHAMANNA G, # 18, KHB COLONY, NEELAKANTESHWARA CAMP, GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶9

MR. K. ANAND, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, SON OF MR. HANUMANTHAPPA, # 01, KHB COLONY, NEELAKANTESHWARA CAMP, GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶10

MR. RAMANNA K. SINNUR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, SON OF MR. KASHAPPA SINNUR, # 03, KHB COLONY, NEELAKANTESHWARA CAMP, GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶11

: 2 :

¶12

MR. VEERAYYA SALIMATH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, SON OF MR. SALIMATH, # 04, KHB COLONY, NEELAKANTESHWARA CAMP, GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶13

MS. SUMITRA CHALAGERI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, WIFE OF MR. A CHALAGERI, # 05, KHB COLONY, NEELAKANTESHWARA CAMP, GANGAVATI,

¶14

DIST. KOPPAL.

¶15

MR. MARKANDAYYA H., AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, SON OF MR. HANUMANTHAPPA # 06, KHB COLONY, NEELAKANTESHWARA CAMP, GANGAVATI,

¶16

DIST. KOPPAL.

¶17

MS. AMENA BEGUM, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, WIFE OF MR. MD HANEEF, # 08, KHB COLONY, NEELAKANTESHWARA CAMP, GANGAVATI,

¶18

DIST. KOPPAL.

¶19

MR. MAILARAPPA S. CHALAVADI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, SON OF MR. SATYAPPA CHALAVADI, # 09, KHB COLONY,

¶20

: 3 :

¶21

NEELAKANTESHWARA CAMP, GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶22

MR. PATREPPA S. KABBINAD, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, SON OF MR. SHIVANNA KABBINAD, # 10, KHB COLONY, NEELAKANTESHWARA CAMP, GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶23

MR. JAFAR MD SOFI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, SON OF MR. MD SOFI, # 11, KHB COLONY, NEELAKANTESHWARA CAMP, GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶24

MS. FOUZIYA COUSAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, WIFE OF MR. HAMED HUSSAINI, # 12, KHB COLONY, NEELAKANTESHWARA CAMP, GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶25

MR. NAGANGOUDA B. HIREGOUDAR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, SON OF MR. BASANGOUDA HIREGOUDAR, # 13, KHB COLONY, NEELAKANTESHWARA CAMP, GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶26

: 4 :

¶27

MS. R. MALLIKA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, WIFE OF MR. PARASHURAM, # 14, KHB COLONY, NEELAKANTESHWARA CAMP, GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶28

MS. CHANDRAMMA N. KADABGERI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, WIFE OF MR. NINGAPPA KADABGERI, # 05, KHB COLONY, NEELAKANTESHWARA CAMP, GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶29

MR. SHEAK KHAJA ZAKRIYA MOHIDDIN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, SON OF MR. WAJIDULLA HUSEN, # 16, KHB COLONY, NEELAKANTESHWARA CAMP, GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶30

MR. SRIDHAR SANNA AYYANNA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, SON OF MR. SANNA AIYANNA, # 17, KHB COLONY, NEELAKANTESHWARA CAMP, GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶31

MR. MAILARAPPA B. SHAVI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, SON OF MR. BASAPPA SHAVI, # 18, KHB COLONY, NEELAKANTESHWARA CAMP, GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶32

: 5 :

¶33

MS. ASHABEGUM, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, WIFE OF MR. AMJAD KHAN, # 19, KHB COLONY, NEELAKANTESHWARA CAMP, GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶34

…PETITIONERS.

¶35

(BY SRI. P.V.GUNJAL, ADVOCATE)

¶36

AND:

¶37

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, 7^TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, MYSORE BANK CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560009.

¶38

…RESPONDENT

¶39

(SMT. SHARMILA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT)

¶40

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BOARD TO ALLOT THE RESPECTIVE HOUSES TO THE PETITIONERS BY FIXING AND COLLECTING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AND TO EXECUTE THE SALE DEEDS IN FVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS INDIVIDUALLY ; DIRECT THE RESONDENT BOARD TO CONSIDER THE JOINT REPRESENTATION DATED 07^TH MAY 2015, AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND JOINT REPRESENTATION

¶41

: 6 :

¶42

DATED 20.06.2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-G GIVEN BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ALLOTMENTS MADE TO VARIOUS SIMILARLY PLACED OCCUPANTS IN DHARWAD, KARWAR, KOPPAL AND OTHER PLACES ON THE BASIS OF THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT.

¶43

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

In the instant petitions, the petitioners have sought

¶46

for the following reliefs:

¶47

“(a) Directing the respondent board to allot to the petitioners, the houses in their respective occupation i.e.

¶48

*Sl.* No	*Name of the petitioners*	*House* *No.*
.
1	Mr. J. Shashidhar S/o. Mr. Shamanna G.	18
2	Mr. K. Anand S/o. M. Hanumanthappa	01
3	Mr. Ramanna Kashappa Sinnur	03
4	Mr. Veerayya Salimath	04
5	Ms. Sumitra Chalageri	05
6	Mr. Markandayya Hanumanthappa	06
7	Mr. Ameena Begum W/o. Mr. Haneef	08
8	Mr. Mailarappa Satyappa Chalavadi	09
9	Mr. Patreppa Shivanna Kabbinad	10
10	Mr. Jaffer Mohmmed Sofi	11
11	Ms. Fouziya Cousar W/o. Mr. Hamed	12

¶49

: 7 :

¶50

	Hussain
12	Mr. Nagangouda Hiregouder	13
13	Ms. R. Mallika W/o. Mr. Parashuram	14
14	Ms. Chandramma W/o. Mr. Ningappa Kadabgeri	15
15	Mr. Sheak Khaja Kakirya Mohiddin S/o. Mr. Wajidulla Husen	16
16	Mr. Sridhar S/o. Mr. Sanna Ayyanna	17
17	Mr. Mailarappa S/o. Mr. Basappa Shavi	07
18	Ms. Ashabegum w/o. Mr. Amjad Khan	19

¶51

(b) directing the respondent board to consider the joint representation dt. 7^th May 2015, as per Annexure F and joint representation dt. 20^th June 2018 as per AnnexureG, given by the Petitioners herein, in the light of the allotments made to various similarly placed occupants in Dharwad, Karwar, Koppal and other places on the basis of the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court.,

¶52

(c) Issue such other writ or pass such other order or give such other directions, as this Hon’ble Court considers proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶53

In the absence of any statutory right accrued

¶54

under any statutory rules, the petitioners are not entitled to

¶55

seek writ of mandamus to the respondent to allot a particular house, only on the basis that they were in possession as a government servants.

¶56

: 8 :

¶57

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in an identical circumstances, the government/respondent have considered and allotted

¶58

houses to such of those persons who were residing as a tenant of the government property.

¶59

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mani

¶60

Subrat Jain and others Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (1977) 1 SCC 486 at paragraph 9 held as under:

¶61

“9. The High Court rightly dismissed the petitions. It is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something. (See Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4^th Ed., Vol. I, paragraph 122 ; State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha ; Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v.

¶62

: 9 :

¶63

Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed and Ferris ; Extraordinary Legal Remedies, paragraph 198).”

¶64

In another matter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

¶65

case of Union of India and another Vs. S.B.Vohra and others reported in (2004) 2 SCC 150 at paragraphs 12 and 13 held as under:

¶66

“ 12. Mandamus literally means a command. The essence of mandamus in England was that it was a royal command issued by the King’s Bench (now Queen’s Bench) directing performance of a public legal duty.

¶67

13. A writ of mandamus is issued in favour of a person who establishes a legal right in himself. A writ of mandamus is issued against a person who has a legal duty to perform but has failed and/or neglected to do so. Such a legal duty emanates from either in discharge of a public duty or by operation of law. The writ of mandamus is of a most extensive remedial nature. The object of mandamus is to prevent disorder from a failure of justice and is required to be granted in all cases where law has established no specific remedy and whether justice despite demanded has not been granted.”

¶68

: 10 :

¶69

In the present case, the petitioners have not

¶70

shown their accrued right over the stated house numbers in the petition with reference to any statutory provision. Accordingly, the petitions stand dismissed. Reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach competent authority, if any statutory Rule or notification provides for such allotment of

¶71

houses.

¶72

Sd/JUDGE

¶73

*Svh/-

Mr. Shashidhar v. Karnataka Housing Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Shashidhar v. Karnataka Housing Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Branch Manager Vs Rasheed

Branch Manager Vs Mahesh

Maruti S/O Ramachandra Pujari Vs Smt. N. Rajati W/O Omadhu

Shekanna S/O Harijan Eranna Vs P. Madhusudhan S/O Radhakrishna

Bheemangouda S/O Basappa Vs the Secretary

Shivappa S/O. Rayappa Vannuri Vs the State of Karnataka