Disposed

Shri Shankar Kashyappa Salunke v. the Commissioner City Corporation of Belgaum

Karnataka HC8 Sept 2020WP/772/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On final hearing of two writ petitions, the Court disposed of the petitions allowing petitioners to seek allotment of non-corner/non-commercial sites in an alternative layout. The Commissioner is directed to consider the requests within six months, adhering to extant price rules.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners given liberty to make representation to Commissioner for allotment of non-corner/non-commercial sites in alternative layout.

Shri Shankar Kashyappa Salunke Vs the… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.772/2006 C/W WRIT PETITION 5873/2006 (LB-RES)

¶7

IN WRIT PETITION NO.772/2006:

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

SHRI SHANKAR KASHYAPPA SALUNKE AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCC RETIRED R/O EWS 26 HUDCO, ASHOK NAGAR BELGAUM

¶10

SHRI SUKUMAR S/O PARISAPPA UPADHYA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS OCC PRIEST R/O H.NO.444 SHERI GALLI BELGAUM

¶11

... PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, ADV.)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER, CITY CORPORATION OF BELGAUM, BELGAUM

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU 560001.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. HEMALEKHA K.S., ADV. FOR R1, SRI.V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R2)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE STATEMENT OF THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-F IN NO.NIL DATED NIL I.E., SERIAL NO.15[PETITIONER-1] IN ALLOTMENT OF SITES IN OPEN SPACE NO.& SERIAL

¶19

¶20

NO.3[PETITIONER NO.2] IN ALLOTMENT OF SITES IN COMMERCIAL AREA AND INTIMATION LETTER DATED 07.05.2005 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.

¶21

IN WRIT PETITION NO.5873/2006:

¶22

BETWEEN

¶23

MAHADEV SHANKARAPPA BALEKUNDRI AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC:PENSIONER R/O FLAT NO.851, SECTOR NO. 6 VANTMUNI, BELGAUM 590 016

¶24

SRI S NANJUNDA SHETTY AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE R/O 4017/C, GANACHARI GALLI BELGAUM 590 002

¶25

SRI NARAYANA MAHADEV PRABHU AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE R/O MEENAKSHI LODGE, STATION ROAD BELGAUM 590 016

¶26

SHIVAPRASAD MAHABAL NAYAK SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

¶27

4A. SMT.KAVITA W/O. SHIVAPRASAD NAYAK, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. LIG-9, MAHANTESH NAGAR, BELAGAVI 590016.

¶28

4B. KUMAR KARTIK S/O. SHIVAPRASAD NAYAK, AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. LIG-9, MAHANTESH NAGAR, BELAGAVI 590016.

¶29

4C. KUMAR SHREYAS S/O. SHIVAPRASAD NAYAK, AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. LIG-9, MAHANTESH NAGAR, BELAGAVI 590016.

¶30

4D. KUMAR ABHAY S/O. SHIVAPRASAD NAYAK, AGE: 7 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. LIG-9, MAHANTESH NAGAR, BELAGAVI 590016.

¶31

¶32

4E. SMT.SULOCHANA W/O. MAHABALA NAYAK, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. LIG-9, MAHANTESH NAGAR, BELAGAVI 590016.

¶33

MAMTAZ BEGUM ABDUL RAHEEM NAYAK AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER R/O HOUSE NO.76, RAMNAGAR BELGAUM 590 016

¶34

SMT JAITUNBI RAJASAB BALEKUNDRI AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE R/O DARBARGALLI, BELGAUM 590 016 ... PETITIONERS

¶35

(BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, ADV.)

¶36

AND

¶37

THE COMMISSIONER, CITY CORPORATION OF BELGAUM BELGAUM 590 016.

¶38

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU 560001.

¶39

... RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SMT. HEMALEKHA K.S., ADV. FOR R1, SRI.V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R2)

¶41

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE STATEMENT OF THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE K DATED NIL I.E. SERIAL NO.6 (PETITIONER 1) IN ALLOTMENT OF SITES IN OPEN SPACE NO. AND SERIAL NO.13 (PETITIONER 3) IN ALLOTMENT OF SITES IN OPEN SPACE, SL.NO.5 OF (PETITIONER 4) OF OPEN SPACE AND SL.NO.4 OF (PETITIONER 6) IN LAND RESERVED FOR ROAD AND ETC.

¶42

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

¶43

¶44

ORDER

¶45

The petitioners in these two writ petitions are similarly situate and their grievance are also the same. The petitioners submitted their applications for allotment of sites in response to a notification dated 25.10.1980 issued by the common first respondent were rejected. Therefore, they approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos.11831-19847/1999 connected with Writ Petition No.5174/1999. This Court by order dated 18.06.1999 allowed the writ petitions and the relevant part of the order reads as follows:

¶46

“Accordingly, the impugned orders are stayed. The respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioners along with other applications on merits. The respondents are also directed to issue orders of allotment to those persons who are eligible for allotment of sites. There will also be a direction directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners whether they would be entitled to pay the consideration cost as on the date of the application or as on the date when the allotment is made. This

¶47

¶48

will be entirely the discretion of the respondents. It will also be open to the respondents to give priority to the petitioners, if their application have been made much earlier than those persons who have made subsequently.”

¶49

After this order dated 18.06.1999, the petitioners were allotted different sites. But subsequently by the impugned respective endorsements, such allotment are cancelled.

¶50

Though the petitioners contest that the cancellation of the allotment of sites is bad in law and they are entitled for such sites, the learned counsel for the petitioners is not able to meet the submission by the learned counsel for the first respondent – the City Corporation of Belagavi and the learned HCGP that the cancellation is because the Government has refused to accord permission for allotment of such sites and such permission is not accorded because the respective sites claimed by the petitioners are either corner or

¶51

¶52

commercial sites. The learned counsel is also unable to meet the submission that such sites cannot be allotted and will have to be disposed of in accordance with the relevant rules which govern the disposal of such sites. The learned counsel for the first respondent emphasizes that a corner/commercial site could only be disposed of by auction under Section 176 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 and each of the petitioners are claiming such sites. If the statue prescribes a particular method for disposal of corner/commercial sites, the provisions of the statute cannot be bypassed and allotment be made.

¶53

But, the learned counsel for the first respondent is unable to persuade this Court to accept that the first respondent is not required to consider the petitioners claim for allotment of sites ( which are not corner/commercial sites ) as directed by this Court in the earlier order dated 18.06.1999. In the light of the fact that the petitioners have been agitating for all these

¶54

¶55

years for allotment of sites pursuant to the notification dated 25.10.1980 issued for allotment of sites ( other than corner/commercial sites ) and there is a direction by this Court to the first respondent to consider allotment of sites to the petitioners, and if permissible to give priority to the petitioners, the petitioners would be entitled for consideration of their applications. Insofar as the price payable for sites, the petitioners will have to pay the price that would be payable according to the extant rules. The delay in the finalization of the petitioners’ claim, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot inure to the petitioners’ advantage. Further, the allotment of site to the petitioners, in the event the first respondent considers the petitioners’ application for sites, which could be neither corner nor commercial, will have to be in an alternative layout and not in the same layout for which the notification dated 25.10.1980 is issued. Therefore, the following order:

¶56

¶57

ORDER

¶58

a) The petitions are disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to make a representation along with the copy of this order to the Commissioner, City Corporation, Belagavi within 4 (four) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order, seeking allotment of a site ( which is not a corner/commercial site ) in an alternative layout and the Commissioner, City Corporation, Belagavi shall consider such request for allotment of a site to each of the petitioners as mentioned above in an alternative layout at price as could be levied according to the extant Rules; and

¶59

b) The Commissioner, City Corporation, Belagavi shall dispose of the petitioners’ representation/ request as expeditiously as possible but within an outer limit of (6) six months from the date of receipt of such representation/ request.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

Rsh

Shri Shankar Kashyappa Salunke v. the Commissioner City Corporation of Belgaum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Shankar Kashyappa Salunke v. the Commissioner City Corporation of Belgaum

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

Rajashekhar S/O Channaveerayya Vs Smt.Kesari D/O Gurusiddayya

Smt. Shivanavva W/O. Shivalingappa Manikshetty Vs Sri. Mallappa S./O. Hanamappa Parannanavar

Athaulla S/O Adamkhan Karalahalli @ Mvinakatti Vs Nabisab S/O Mohammadsab Sunnakhananavar

Pralhad S/O Madwaraj Sunadholi Vs the Dy Commr Belgaum Dist

Smt Kasturewwa W/O Gurulingappa Nelli Vs the Deputy Commissioner Belgaum District

Bhimappa, S/O Shivappa Malagali Vs State of Karnataka