Dismissed

M/S.Drivers Colony and Nagarika v. Urban Development Authority

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2020WA/100486/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an intra-Court appeal filed by a registered Society challenging the single judge's order that refused to quash an agreement for leasing a civic amenity site to run a students' hostel. The court upheld the lower court's finding that the allotment was valid.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal stands dismissed and the impugned order is upheld.

M/S.Drivers Colony and Nagarika Vs Urban Development… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 06^{T H} DAY OF MARCH, 2020

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO.100486/2019 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S.DRIVERS COLONY AND NAGARIKA ITARAKSHANA SANGA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT & SECRETARY,

¶10

PRAKASH S/O NARAYANA RAO KALGHATGI, AGED: 67 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT & RETIRED GOVERNMENT SERVANT, R/O: SADANKERI, HUBLIKAR PLOT, DHARWAD.

¶11

MANOHAR S/O VEERAPPA CHACHADI AGED: 68 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED GOVERNMENT SERVANT AND SECRETARY, R/O: MRUTYUNJAY NAGAR, DYAMAVANAGUDI ONI, DHARWAD.

¶12

... APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI. V.S. KOUJALAGI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND

¶15

URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ROOM NO.435, VIKASASOUDHA, 4^TH FLOOR, BENGALURU. REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR-560001

¶16

HUBALI-DHARWAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER-580001.

¶17

DISTRICT OFFICER BACKWARD CLASS WELFARE DEPARTMENT, DHARWAD-580001.

¶18

... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADV. FOR R1 & R3)

¶20

(BY SRI. B. SHARANABASAWA, ADV. FOR R2)

¶21

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.04.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.105854/2018 AND THEREBY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶23

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, S.SUJATHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order of the writ Court, dated 24.04.2019 passed in WP No.105854/2018 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.

¶26

The appellant claiming to be a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 sought for allotment of Civic Amenity site to construct Samudaya Bhavan in Plot No.45, Sy.No.81, Lakamanahalli, Dharwad by submitting necessary application and following required procedure for allotment. The said application was rejected on 20.12.2016 vide paper publication. The very same Civic Amenity site was notified for the purpose of Child

¶27

¶28

Care Center on 12.04.2016 i.e., prior to paper

¶29

publication.

¶30

Subsequently, an agreement has been executed by the respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.3 for running a students’ hostel. Being aggrieved, the appellant had preferred the writ petition seeking for the following reliefs:

¶31

1. Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, or any other writ, order or direction and quash the Lease Agreement dated 06.04.2018, Registered as DWR-1-0-0391-2018-19, CD No.DWRD394, entered between respondents, produced at Annexure-N, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶32

2. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to maintain plot No.81 in Sy.No.45/A situated in Lakamanahalli, Dharwad should be maintained for civic amenity purpose only in the interest of justice and equity.

¶33

3. Grant such other reliefs as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶34

¶35

The learned Single Judge after noticing Section 2(h) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (for short, ‘Act’) vis-à-vis Rule 3(1) & (2) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites) Rules, 1991 (for short, ‘Rules’) as well as provision of Sections 37 and 38 of the Act, held that the respondent No.3 being a Governmental Body implementing the social objectives of the Government and Boys’/Students’ hostel is for the purpose of development scheme; it is always open for the Authority to appropriate for itself such property for the purpose of any Development Scheme. Thus, establishment of a students’ hostel can by no stretch of imagination be classified as an activity which cannot be a part of Development Scheme. Accordingly, dismissed the writ petition.

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellant inviting

¶37

the attention of this Court to Section 2(h) of the Act submitted that the students’ hostel would not come within the ambit of Civic Amenity as defined therein. It

¶38

¶39

was argued that the purpose of reserving Civic Amenity site is to facilitate the local residents in private layout to enjoy the benefit of such Civic Amenity sites. The conduct of the respondents in allotting Civic Amenity sites to the outsiders would infringe the rights of the localites. The appellant indeed had applied for the construction of Samudhaya Bhavan which is necessary center for social, religious or cultural activities. The respondents ignoring the purpose of reserving the Civic Amenity sites have leased the same in favour of the students’ hostel which is not properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. Hence, seeks for setting aside the order of the writ Court.

¶40

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that respondent No.3 being another wing of the government in terms of Rule 3(2) of the Rules, civic amenity sites could be reserved and after such reservation, same can be allotted to any institutions. In terms of the said Rules, civic amenity site in question has been allotted on lease basis to run the

¶41

¶42

students’ hostel. This aspect being rightly considered by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition, no interference is warranted by this Court.

¶43

Learned Government Advocate appearing for

¶44

respondents 1 and 3 supports the argument advanced by the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶45

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, we have no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge in view of the provisions of Section 2(h) read with Rule 3 (1) & (2) of the Rules as discussed above.

¶46

Rule 3(2) of the Rules reads thus:

¶47

“3.Offer of Civic Amenity Site for allotment:

¶48

(1) xxx xxx xxx

¶49

(2) After making reservation under subrule(1), the authority may, subject to Section 39 and general or special orders of the Government, and having regard to the particular type of Civic Amenity required to

¶50

¶51

be provided in any locality offer such of the remaining Civic Amenity sites for the purpose of allotment on lease basis to any institutions:

¶52

Provided that the authority shall while so offering remaining Civic Amenity sites reserve eighteen percent of such sites for being allotted to an institution established exclusively for the benefit of Scheduled Castes the majority of members of which consists of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and three percent of such sites to an institution established exclusively for the benefit of Scheduled Tribes the majority of members of which consists of persons belonging to Scheduled Tribes, and if at the time of making allotment sufficient number of such institutions are not available the remaining sites so reserve may be allotted to other institutions.”

¶53

In terms of Rule 3(2), civic amenity site in question has been reserved and allotted to the respondent No.3 on lease basis and the purpose of the said allotment to the respondent for running the students’ hostel cannot be construed as not part of

¶54

¶55

development scheme as observed by the learned Single Judge.

¶56

No ground made out to interfere with the impugned order. We do not find any jurisdictional error in the order impugned. The writ appeal stands dismissed.

¶57

In view of dismissal of the main appeal, pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration, hence, they are also disposed of.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

JTR

M/S.Drivers Colony and Nagarika v. Urban Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Drivers Colony and Nagarika v. Urban Development Authority

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

Dr.Prema Kumara.K. Vs Sri.Chandrashekhar, Registrar

Srinivas D Shiggavi Vs Smt. Shweta W/O Srinivas Shiggavi

G.v.Srinivasa Gowda Vs Sri.Ramchandra

The Commissioner Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Parashuram S/O Yellappa Koti @ Kyoti Vs the Karnataka Institute of

Shivayogappa Nimbanna Anaji, Vs Karnataka Public Service Commission