Allowed

Siddanagouda S/O Nagangouda Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2023WP/102500/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a mandamus directing the Gram Panchayath to execute a lease deed and collect rent monthly rather than demanding two installments for the five-year lease period. The Court allowed the petition on the merits after the respondent agreed to delete the contested installment clauses and commit to monthly rent collection.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; respondents directed to continue tenancy and execute a rental agreement; rent to be collected on a monthly basis as per the respondent's memo.

Siddanagouda S/O Nagangouda Patil Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:6955 WP No. 102500 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.102500 OF 2023 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SIDDANAGOUDA S/O. NAGANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 78 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: LINGADALLI, BELAVADI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591104.

¶9

NAGANGOUDA S/O. BASANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DODDAWAD ROAD, BELAVADI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591104.

¶10

GYANESH S/O. DURGAPPA DURVE, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DODDAWAD ROAD, BELAVADI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST:BELAGAVI-591104.

¶11

VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad

¶12

NARESH KASAJI SHALESHA, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BEHIND KVG BANK, BAILHONGAL ROAD, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591104.

¶13

PARAMESH S/O. SHANKATRAPPA BALIGAR, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BASAWESHWAR ONI, BELAVADI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591104.

¶14

LAADSAB S/O. HAZARATHSAB MULLA, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BAZAAR ROAD, MULLANAVAR ONI, BELAVADI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591104.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC-D:6955 WP No. 102500 of 2023

¶17

VANI V.S. D/O. RAVI, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DODDAWAD ROAD, BELAVADI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591104.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI PRASHANT S. HOSMANI, ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶22

EXECUTIVE OFFICER BAILHONGAL TALUKA PANCHAYAT, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591104.

¶23

THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BELAVADI GRAM PANCHAYAT, BELAVADI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591104.

¶24

GRAM PANCHAYAT BELAVADI REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591104.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI PRASHANT V. MOGALI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI SHIVARAJ V. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO EXECUTE THE LEASE DEED IN TERMS OF THE ALLOTMENT LETTERS ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 05.04.2023 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURES-C TO C6 AND COLLECT THE RENT FROM THE PETITIONERS ON MONTHLY BASIS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:6955 WP No. 102500 of 2023

¶30

ORDER

¶31

This petition is filed by the successful bidders for allotment of shops at Budarkatti road, Belavadi and Saundatti road, Belavadi on the basis of the public auction called for by respondent No.3 to lease out the shops to the successful bidders for a period of 5 years.

¶32

The grievance of petitioners was to the effect with regard to two clauses in the allotment of lease agreement, more specifically clause Nos.5 and 6, which stipulates tenants to pay the whole 5 years lease period amount in two installments and clause No.6 which read that half of the period i.e., 30 months rent to be deposited to the Gram Panchayaths. Against this, petitioners are before this Court seeking for a direction to respondent No.3 by way of mandamus to execute the lease deed in terms of allotment letters issued by respondent No.3 dated 05.04.2023 and to collect the rent from petitioners on a monthly basis rather than as stipulated in clause Nos.5 and 6 of the allotment letters.

¶33

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:6955 WP No. 102500 of 2023

¶34

It is the contention of learned counsel for the

¶35

petitioners that they are small scale businessmen dealing in different businesses and due to rising financial constrains, they are unable to pay huge amount sought for by way of two installments by respondent No.3. Hence, they seek monthly rent be collected from them rather than two installments within a period of 5 years, which would

¶36

be extremely hard for the petitioners to make the payment. This being the state of affairs, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 has filed the memo. The said memo reads as under;

¶37

"The Respondents No.2 to 4 herein most respectfully submits that:

¶38

1. It is submitted that petitioners herein seeking the relief of issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos.3/Panchayath Development Officer, Gram Panchayath, Belawadi, Belagavi District, to execute the lease deed in terms of the allotment letters dated 05.04.2023 produced at ANNEXURES:C to C6 and collect the rent from the petitioners on monthly basis.

¶39

2. It is submitted that the main ground urged in the writ petition that in the proposed Rent Agreement issued by the Gram Panchayath,

¶40

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:6955 WP No. 102500 of 2023

¶41

Belawadi, the clause No.5 which states the Tenants are required to pay the whole 5 years lease period amount in two installments, which is illegal.

¶42

3. In this regard the Respondent No.3 Gram Panchayath in order to avoid future complications had took a decision and undertake herein to withdraw/delete that clause No.5 existing in the Rent Agreement and ready to receive rent on monthly basis from the petitioners. Resultantly, the present writ petition does not survive for consideration and the same may be dismissed.

¶43

Hence, this memo."

¶44

Respondent No.3 has fairly taken a decision

¶45

that to avoid any future complications and disputes, they have decided to withdraw/delete clause No.5 from the allotment letter/rent agreement and they are willing to receive the rent on monthly basis from the petitioners herein. Accordingly, they have filed a memo to the effect which is also signed by 3^rd respondent and identified by learned counsel representing respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶46

Placing the said memo on record and submissions of learned counsel with regard to petitioner herein that they want to resolve the issue by deleting clause No.5 and with regard to collection of rent by way of

¶47

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:6955 WP No. 102500 of 2023

¶48

two installments of 5 years term to receive rent by way of monthly installment. Under such circumstances, writ petitioner is satisfied in view of the fact that respondent has agreed to continue tenancy of the petitioners by collecting monthly rent rather than rent by way of two installments for the period of 5 years which is also the relief sought for by the petitioners in the petition. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

i) Petition is allowed in view of the memo filed by

¶51

respondent, who has agreed to collect the rental by way of monthly installments rather than by way of two installments for the period of 5 years.

¶52

ii) The petitioners who are in possession of the shop premises shall continue to operate from the shops and pay the monthly rentals to respondent No.3 as per the memo filed by respondents.

¶53

¶54

NC: 2023:KHC-D:6955 WP No. 102500 of 2023

¶55

iii) It is needless to mention that in view of

¶56

agreement between both the parties, respondent No.3 shall execute a rental agreement in favour of petitioners herein. Petitioners shall cooperate with the execution of the said agreement.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Siddanagouda S/O Nagangouda Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddanagouda S/O Nagangouda Patil v. the State of Karnataka

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

Sayyed S/O Husain Mulla Vs Gulab Husainsab Mujawar Since Deceased by Her Lrs. I.E.Respondent NO.1 to 4 Herein

Smt. Dakshani W/O Basavaraj Pedla Vs the State of Karnataka

Duragavva W/O Ramanna Dhupanm Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Fakiravva D/O. Basappa Banappanavar Vs Smt. Paratevva D/O. Basappa Banappanavar

Sri Betadappa Vs Smt Shankarawwa

Smt Bharathi Hadimani Alias G M Bharathi W/O Late G M Prakash Vs Smt G M v Veeramma W/O Late G M Gurubasavaraj