Disposed

Mysore Horticultural Society (R) v. the Government of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Jun 2023WP/1889/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenged eviction notices under the Karnataka Public Premises Act, 1974, for land in Lalbagh. The court found no illegality in initiating proceedings but noted that the petitioner in W.P.1889/2023 had a right based on a government order extending lease. The petitions were disposed of with no interference, allowing the eviction process to continue.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mysore Horticultural Society (R) Vs the Government of… — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.1889 OF 2023 (GM – PP)

¶5

C/W

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.1232 OF 2023 (GM – PP)

¶7

IN WRIT PETITION No.1889 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MYSORE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY (R) SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT DR.M.H.MARIGOWDA SMARAKA BHAVANA LALBAGH, BENGALURU – 560 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS TREASURER SRI MARIMALLAIH S/O CHIKKAMALLEGOWDA AGE 69 YEARS

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI VENKATESH P.DALWAI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

1 . THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE AND SILK M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

¶15

2 . THE JOINT DIRECTOR/COMPETENT OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE BANGALORE DIVISION CHIKKANAHALLI ROAD APMC FRUIT NEW MARKET DAVANGERE – 577 031.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI R.SUBRAMANYA, AAG A/W SRI B.V.KRISHNA, AGA)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 09.01.23 ISSUED BY THE R2 IN KPP CASE NO.2/2023 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J; DIRECTING THE R1 TO GRANT RENEWAL OF LEASE IN TERMS OF THE REPRESENTATION NO.M.H. 2020-21 DATED 09.02.2021 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-L.

¶19

IN WRIT PETITION No.1232 OF 2023

¶20

BETWEEN:

¶21

1 . SRI GOVIND S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS VICE PRESIDENT OF NURSERY MEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ASHA NURSERY, 5^TH CROSS 1^ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 011.

¶22

2 . SRI R.RAVI S/O RAMU N., AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS DIRECTOR OF NURSERY MEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY N.RAMU AND SONS NURSERY

¶23

¶24

NO. 01, LALBAGH, SIDDAPURA JAYANAGAR, 1^ST BLOCK BENGALURU – 560 011.

¶25

... PETITIONERS

¶26

(BY SMT. LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI HARISH S, ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (MEDICAL EDUCATION) M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶29

2 . THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR (FARMS AND NURSERY) DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA LALBAGH, BENGALURU – 560 004.

¶30

3 . THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA LALBAGH, BENGALURU – 560 004.

¶31

4 . THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE BENGALURU DIVISION CHIKKANAHALLI ROAD APMC FRUIT NEW MARKET

¶32

¶33

... RESPONDENTS

¶34

DAVANAGERE – 577 003.

¶35

(BY SRI R.SUBRAMANYA, AAG A/W., SRI B.V.KRISHNA, AGA)

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 09.01.2023 IN KPP CASE NO.01.2023 UNDER SECTION 2(g) OF 4(1) THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS ACT, 1974) ISSUED BY THE R-4 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶37

THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 18.04.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶38

ORDER

¶39

Both these petitions arise out of same cause of action of eviction of petitioners from Lalbagh invoking the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).

¶40

Facts, in brief, germane for consideration of the lis , are as

¶41

follows:-

¶42

¶43

WRIT PETITION NO.1889 2023:

¶44

The petitioner in the subject petition is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 having registered on 13-01-1941 and since then public servants have been its President or Secretary duly nominated by the State Government from time to time. On 04-03-1991 Government of Karnataka executes a lease in favour of the petitioner leasing out the schedule property for a period of 25 years. The lease would then come to an end in the year 2016. The petitioner claims to have approached the respondent/State seeking extension of lease. On 24-05-2018 owing to the request of the petitioner, the lease comes to be extended by an order of Government for a period of five years. Later on 25-09-2018 a draft lease was prepared and communicated to the concerned for its execution. This document indicates that the lease would be from 2018 for a period of five years i.e., up to 23-05-2023 on certain rent that is to be paid by the petitioner as was agreed by the State. Rents were not immediately paid but were paid in chunks of amounts as is claimed by the petitioner.

¶45

¶46

Things standing thus, on 18-10-2022 a communication comes to be issued to the petitioner directing its eviction on the ground that the lease has expired. This is called in question before this Court in Writ Petition No.21222 of 2022 and connected cases. The learned Additional Advocate General appears therein and submits that the Government would withdraw the communication impugned. Recording the submission, the petitions come to be disposed of. Immediately, thereafter a notice is issued under the Act against the petitioner which leads the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition calling in question issuance of notice dated 09-01-2023 under the Act.

¶47

WRIT PETITION NO.1232 OF 2023 :

¶48

The petitioners 1 and 2 are Vice-President and Director respectively of Nursery Men Co-operative Society (‘the Society’ for short). In this case as well the story begins from the year 1964 unlike the other writ petition where it began in the year 1941. On 20-10-1964 the Society was established with the objective to uplift and provide assistance to the vegetable growers and seed producers who are members of the Society. On 18-02-1991 the

¶49

¶50

Department of Agriculture and Horticulture, Government of Karnataka executes a lease deed in favour of the Society leasing out land measuring 1 acre 29 guntas in Lalbagh for a period of 25 years. In furtherance of the said decision of Government to lease the land for 25 years, on 04-03-1991 a lease deed comes to be executed by the State for a period of 25 years. During subsistence of lease, the Secretary of the Society on the ground that the lease was coming to an end in February 2016, addresses a communication for extension of lease for a further period of 50 years. No communication comes back from the State. On 14-03-2017 another communication is made by the Society requesting for extension of lease at least for 25 years. For five years no action is taken.

¶51

On 18-10-2022, like in the companion petition, an order of eviction comes to be passed and on the next day the accounts of the Society in the subject petition were frozen. On 21-10-2022 the 3^rd respondent/Deputy Director, Department of Horticulture withdraws the lease in favour of the Society with immediate effect on the ground that the Society failed to reach the expectations of

¶52

¶53

transplanting/producing seedlings in nurseries and terrace gardens for which purpose the land was leased on a concessional rate. It is these actions that drove the petitioners to this Court in Writ Petition No.21222 of 2022 and connected cases. The learned Additional Advocate General appears and submits that the Government would withdraw the communication impugned. Recording the submission the petitions come to be disposed of. Immediately, thereafter a notice is issued under the Act against the petitioners which lead the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition calling in question issuance of notice dated 09-01-2023 under the Act.

¶54

Heard Sri Venkatesh P.Dalwai, learned counsel appearing

¶55

for the petitioner in W.P.No.1889 of 2023, Smt. Lakshmy Iyengar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.1232 of 2023 and Sri R.Subramanya, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State.

¶56

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.1889 of 2023 would vehemently contend that the lease was granted for a period of 25 years and extended for a period of 5

¶57

¶58

years. Therefore, the lease was in subsistence up to 23-05-2023. Draft lease deed was prepared and sent on 25-09-2018 which did not come through later in the light of change in Government then, but the petitioner has been paying rents, enhanced rents and amounts whenever demanded by the State Government. Therefore, he would submit that there is tacit acceptance of lease though the draft did not result in a lease deed being executed. The communications from the State are enough circumstances to demonstrate that the lease of the petitioner was in existence up to 23-05-2023 and any action taken during the interregnum on the ground that the petitioner/Society has overstayed is contrary to law. He would submit that immediately after the order being passed by this Court, on 09-01-2023 certain Government orders are issued only to enable the State to evict the petitioners. The action suffers from want of bona fides . He would seek quashment of the notice and further continuance of the petitioner as a lessee by suitable direction at the hands of this Court.

¶59

The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners/Society in W.P.No.1232 of 2023 would reiterate the

¶60

¶61

submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.1889 of 2023 and would submit that the lease in the case of the Society was not extended by execution of a lease deed or any communication to that effect. The lease did expire in the year 2016 similar to the other case. However, the State went on accepting rents and sometimes chunks of money and, therefore, there is continuance of the lease till the impugned action. The learned senior counsel would further submit that after the order being passed by this Court, jurisdiction is created to the officer at Davangere despite the fact that the Society is at Bangalore for proceeding under the Act. The learned senior counsel would reiterate that the action of the respondents/State suffers from want of bona fides and she would seek the relief that is sought for in the companion writ petition.

¶62

On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General would vehemently oppose both the petitions by seeking to contend that the petitioners have no right whatsoever to claim that they could continue as lessees despite expiry of leases. In Writ Petition No.1232 of 2023 the learned Additional Advocate General

¶63

¶64

would submit that the petitioners have hopelessly overstayed as there is no single document that would demonstrate to continue in lease up to date. He would submit that mere acceptance of rents would not give a right to the Society to continue in the leased premises till they would want. The law does not permit such continuance. Insofar as Writ Petition No.1889 of 2023 is concerned, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that there have been communications with regard to the extension of lease. He would submit that those communications have remained as communications only, which did not fructify into execution of a lease deed. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now contend that there has been extension of lease as is necessary in law. He would reiterate that mere acceptance of rents would not mean that the lease which has already expired is given a life.

¶65

Insofar as the submission with regard to the jurisdiction of officer who has issued the impugned notice, he would submit that since the petitioners are in possession and overstaying in a public property, the proceedings under the Act are initiated. No fault can be found with the same. Since jurisdiction of certain areas

¶66

¶67

in the State come under certain Joint Directors, the State had no choice but to issue a notification bringing the subject area under the Joint Director of Davangere as Deputy Director is also an office bearer of both the Societies. He would then submit that proceedings will not be held at Davangere as they would be held only at Bangalore. He would seek dismissal of these petitions and the proceedings be permitted to continue before the Joint Director of Horticulture. He would seek to place reliance upon two judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the cases of HARDESH ORES (P) LIMITED v. HEDE AND COMPANY¹ and DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. ANANT RAJ AGENCIES PIRVATE LIMITED² and a judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M/s HOTEL AJANTHA v. SMT. KAMALA³ .

¶68

In reply to the said submissions, the learned senior counsel and the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.1889 of 2023 would in unison contend that this Court disposed of Writ Petition No.21222 of 2022 and connected cases on 03-01-2023

¶69

1 (2007) 5 SCC 614

¶70

2 (2016) 11 SCC 406

¶71

3 RFA No.120 OF 2008 & RFA No.262 of 2008 decided on 25th July 2022.

¶72

¶73

recording the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General. Even before the certified copy of the order would be out, a notification comes to be issued on 05-01-2023 bringing the jurisdiction of the Societies under the Joint Director, Davangere Division. This is contrary to earlier notification dated 13-09-2019 in which parks and gardens were with the Deputy Director of Horticulture, Bangalore. They would reiterate mala fide action of the State and also urge that the entire issue now cropped up due to political considerations.

¶74

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶75

The afore-narrated facts, dates and link in the chain of events are a matter of record but would require little elaboration. It would suffice, if the story is fast forwarded to the date on which the lease deed is executed by the State in favour of the petitioners in both these petitions. Just prior to issuance of lease deed a

¶76

¶77

Government order is passed on 18-02-1991. The Government order

¶78

reads as follows:

¶79

“Nz¯ÁVzÀ :- É

¶80

vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:¹JAn:J¸ïNJ¸ï:©J¸ïf:JAºÉZïJ¸ï:42:78:79 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 7-8-1990 gÉÆA¢UÉ PÉÆ£ÉUÉÆAqÀAvÉ.

¶81

:- ¥æ¸ÁÛªÀ £À É

¶82

¯Á¯ï¨sÁUï£À°ègÀÄªÀ ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ GzÁå£À PÀ¯Á ¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ 1983£ÉÃ E¸À«AiÀÄ°è 2 JPÀgÉ 60 ¸ÉAlÄ ¨sÀÆ«ÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß UÀÄwÛUÉ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁV¢ÝvÀÄ. F d«ÄÃ¤£À°è ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ GzÁå£À PÀ¯Á ¸ÀAWÀªÀÅ ªÉÄ¸À¸ïð £ÀgÀìjªÉÄ£ï PÉÆ-C¥ÀgÉÃnªï ¸ÉÆ¸ÉÊnUÉ 1 JPÀgÉ 65 ¸ÉAlÄ eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸À¨ï°Ã¸ï ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ. ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ GzÁå£À PÀ¯Á ¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄªÀ d«ÄÃ¤£À°è F 1 JPÀgÉ 65 ¸ÉAl£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝUÉÆ½¹, £ÀgÀìjªÉÄ£ï PÉÆÃ-C¥ÀgÉÃnªï ¸ÉÆ¸ÉÊnUÉ UÀÄwÛUÉ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¤ÃqÀÄªÀAvÉ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ PÉÆÃjzÀÝgÀÄ. EzÀgÉÆA¢UÉ UÉÆÃ®Ø£ï dÆ©° ºÁ¯ï EgÀÄªÀ 70 ¸ÉAlÄ eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ GzÁå£À PÀ¯Á ¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ ¤ÃqÀÄªÀAvÉ ²¥sÁgÀ¸ÀÄì ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. MAzÀÄ ªÀµÀðPÉÌ, 2,500 gÀÆ.UÀÄwÛUÉ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ 25 ªÀµÀðzÀ UÀÄwÛUÉ PÀgÁgÀ£ÀÄß «¢ü¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ ²¥sÁgÀ¸ÀÄì ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ. C®èzÉÃ UÀÄwÛUÉ PÀgÁgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ MzÀV¸À¯ÁVzÉ. vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀÆ®APÀÄµÀªÁV ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.

¶83

¸PÁðj DzÀ Ã±É ¸À ASÀ å:PÉ ÊvÉ ÆÃE:62 vÉ ÆÃE« 88, ¨É AUÉ ¼À ÆgÀ Ä, ¢£ÁAPÀ :18À -2-91.

¶84

1983£ÉÃ E¸À«AiÀÄ°è ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ GzÁå£À PÀ¯Á ¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ ¤ÃrzÀÝ 2 JPÀgÉ 60 ¸ÉAlÄ d«ÄÃ¤£À°è 1 JPÀgÉ 65 ¸ÉAlÄ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ CzÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÄ¸À¸ïð £ÀgÀìjªÉÄ£ï PÉÆÃC¥ÀgÉÃnªï ¸ÉÆ¸ÉÊn °«ÄmÉqï (¸À¹ vÉÆÃlUÁgÀgÀ ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀ ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀ) ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀjUÉ UÀÄwÛUÉ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C£ÀÄªÉÆÃzÀ£É ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

¶85

CzÀgÀAvÉ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀAWÀªÀÅ D d«ÄÃ¤UÉ JPÀgÉ MAzÀPÉÌ ¸Á°AiÀiÁ£À gÀÆ.2,500-00 UÀÄwÛUÉ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÀlÖ¨ÉÃPÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ F UÀÄwÛUÉ PÀgÁgÀÄ £ÉÆAzÁ¬Ä¹zÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ 25 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼ÀªÀgÉUÉ ZÁ°ÛAiÀÄ°ègÀÄvÀÛzÉ. UÀÄwÛUÉ PÀgÁgÀ£ÀÄß ( Lease Deed) ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ C£ÀÄªÉÆÃ¢¹zÀÄÝ CzÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆAzÁ¬Ä¸À®Ä vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÀæªÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼ÀîvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.

¶86

¸Àétð ªÀÄºÉÆÃvÀìªÀ ¨sÀªÀ£ÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ 70 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ GzÁå£À PÀ¯Á ¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ CzÀgÀ ZÀlÄªÀnPÉUÁV ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

¶87

F d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß £ÀgÀìjªÉÄ£ï PÉÆÃ-C¥ÀgÉÃnªï ¸ÉÆ¸ÉÊnAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¤UÀ¢vÀ GzÉÝÃ±ÀPÀ®èzÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ GzÉÝÃ±ÀPÉÌ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¸ÀÄªÀAw®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ jÃwAiÀÄ ¥ÀgÀ¨ÁgÉ (mÁæ£ïì¥sÀgï) ªÀiÁqÀPÀÆqÀzÀÄ.

¶88

¶89

F DzÉÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß C£À¢üPÀÈvÀ n¥ÀàtÂ ¸ÀASÉå:¯Á:1402:M¦J£ï3:90 ¢£ÁAPÀ:12-10-1990 ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ M¦àUÉAiÉÆA¢UÉ ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

¶90

PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥Á®gÀ DeÁÕ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è ¸À»/(ºÀ.ªÀÄ.aPÀÌ§¸ÀªÀAiÀÄå) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üÃ£À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð PÀÈ¶ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ E¯ÁSÉ.”

¶91

It is then the lease deed dated 04-03-1991 comes to be executed. The covenants are common and bear reference to the aforesaid Government order dated 18-02-1991. Certain conditions in the lease deed are germane to be noticed and they read as follows:

¶92

WHEREAS the Government of Karnataka by its G.O.No.AHD/62/AHM/88, Bangalore, dated 18.02.1991 has granted the lease of land, more clearly described in the Schedule, hereunder, in favour of the Society.

¶93

Now, this Lease Deed is made in furtherance of terms and conditions stipulated in the said Government Order dated 18.02.1991.

¶94

1. The terms of Lease shall be for a period of 25 years commencing from 07.03.1991.

¶95

2. The Lease of land would be on payment of nominal lease amount of Rs.2,500/- per annum.

¶96

3. The area to be leased out is according to the dimensions and boundaries that are noted in the plan annexed to this lease deed. Area: 28 Guntas or 70 Cents.

¶97

¶98

4. The Lease is for promotion of Horticultural activities by this Society. If it is used for any purpose, other than “the promotion of Horticultural activities,” the Government is at liberty to put an end to the lease of the property and shall revert it to Horticulture Department without giving any compensation whatsoever for the structures erected thereon, etc.

¶99

5. The Society shall pay all the Electrical Charges, Water & other Charges, which are now in force or may be imposed during the lease period of 25 years in the said land or building whether existing or to be constructed by the Society.

¶100

6. The Society shall use the land exclusively for the purpose for which it was allotted in G.O.AHD/62/AHM/88, Bangalore, dated 18.02.1991 and not for any other purpose.

¶101

7. The Government shall be at liberty to terminate the lease after giving one month notice to the Society in writing for breach of any of the conditions stipulated in the G.O.AHD/62/AHM/88, Bangalore, dated 18.02.1991 and this Lease Deed.

¶102

8. The area sanctioned on lease should not be sub-let.

¶103

9. After expiry of the lease period of 25 years the area should be handed back to the Department with structures, if any, without claiming any compensation.”

¶104

( Emphasis added)

¶105

The lease was, therefore, for 25 years from 07-03-1991 and 04-03-1991 and would expire on 06-03-2016 and 03-03-2016 respectively. At the time when the lease was set to expire, the

¶106

¶107

office bearers of the Society communicate to the Government seeking extension of lease for a further period of 50 years or at least 25 years. The Society did address communications to the State seeking extension of lease. No order was passed in favour of the Society of any kind granting such extension. But concerning Writ Petition No.1889 of 2023, the State passed an order on 24-052018 extending the lease for a period of 5 years. From what date remains ambiguous. The order reads as follows:

¶108

ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉzÀÄ, ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå:PÀÈvÉÆÃE 62 vÉÆÃE« 1988, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 18-02-1991 gÀ°è JPÀgÉ MAzÀPÉÌ ¸Á°AiÀÄ£À gÀÆ.2,500/- UÀÄwÛUÉ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀÄªÀ µÀgÀwÛUÉ M¼À¥ÀlÄÖ UÀÄwÛUÉ PÀgÁgÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆAzÁ¬Ä¹zÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ 25 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼ÀªÀgÉUÉ ZÁ°ÛAiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÀAvÉ ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ GzÁå£À PÀ¯Á¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ 28 UÀÄAmÉ CxÀªÁ 70 ¸ÉAmïUÀ¼À eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß UÀÄwÛUÉ PÀgÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj UÀÄwÛUÉ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:06-03-2016PÉÌ CAvÀåUÉÆArzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj UÀÄwÛUÉAiÀÄ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ GzÁå£À PÀ¯Á¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ £À«ÃPÀj¹PÉÆqÀ®Ä PÁAiÀiðzÀ²ð, ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ PÀ¯Á¸ÀAWÀzÀªÀgÀÄ PÉÆÃjgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶109

F »£Àß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è ¯Á¯ï¨ÁUï ¸À¸ÀåvÉÆÃlzÀ°ègÀÄªÀ ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ GzÁå£À PÀ¯Á¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ K¦æ¯ï – 2016 jAzÀ C£ÀéAiÀÄªÁUÀÄªÀAvÉ 28 UÀÄAmÉ CxÀªÁ 70 ¸ÉAmï eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß 25 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À CªÀ¢üUÉ UÀÄwÛUÉ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀæwªÀµÀðPÉÌ gÀÆ.25,000/-UÀ¼ÀAvÉ ¤UÀ¢üvÀ GzÉÝÃ±ÀPÉÌ ªÀiÁvÀæ §¼À¸ÀÄªÀ µÀgÀwÛUÉÆ¼À¥ÀlÄÖ £À«ÃPÀj¹PÉÆqÀ®Ä C£ÀÄªÁUÀÄªÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ DzÉÃ±À ºÉÆgÀr¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ PÉÆÃjgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶110

¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀÆ®APÀµÀªÁV ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ DzÉÃ²¹zÉ.

¶111

¸PÁðgÀ zÀ DzÀ Ã±É ¸À ASÀ å: vÉ ÆÃE 248 vÉ ÆÃE« 2017, ¨É AUÉ ¼À ÆgÀ Ä, ¢£ÁAPÀ :24À -05-2018

¶112

¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è «ªÀj¹gÀÄªÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À »£Éß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è, ¯Á¯ï¨ÁUï ¸À¸ÀåvÉÆÃlzÀ°ègÀÄªÀ ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ GzÁå£À PÀ¯Á¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ K¦æ¯ï-2016 jAzÀ C£ÀéAiÀÄªÁUÀÄªÀAvÉ 28 UÀÄAmÉ CxÀªÁ 70 ¸ÉAmï eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄA¢£À 05 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À CªÀ¢üUÉ UÀÄwÛUÉAiÀÄ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄÃ¤UÉ ¥Àæw ªÀµÀðPÉÌ gÀÆ.25,000/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ E¯ÁSÉUÉ ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀÄªÀ µÀgÀwÛUÉÆ¼À¥ÀlÄÖ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ C£ÀÄªÉÆÃzÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

¶113

¶114

¸ÀzÀj UÀÄwÛUÉ PÀgÁgÀÄ £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬Ä¸À¯ÁzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ ªÀÄÄA¢£À 05 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À CªÀ¢üAiÀÄªÀgÉUÉ ZÁ°ÛAiÀÄ°ègÀÄvÀÛzÉ. UÀÄwÛUÉ PÀgÁgÀ£ÀÄß (°Ã¸ï rÃqï)£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬Ä¸À®Ä vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð, ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ GzÁå£À PÀ¯Á¸ÀAWÀ, ¯Á¯ï¨ÁUï, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ CUÀvÀå PÀæªÀÄªÀ»¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¦vÀ eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤UÀ¢vÀ GzÉÝÃ±ÀPÀÌ®èzÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ GzÉÝÃ±ÀPÉÌ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¸ÀÄªÀAw®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ jÃwAiÀÄ ¥ÀgÀ¨sÁgÉ ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÝ®è.

¶115

F DzÉÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ n¥ÀàtÂ ¸ÀASÉå:¯Á/692/C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ/2017, ¢£ÁAPÀ:06-12-2017 gÀ°è£À C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

¶116

PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥Á®gÀ DeÁÕ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è ¸À»/-24/5/18 (Dgï.ªÀÄºÀzÉÃªÀ)

¶117

¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üÃ£À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ E¯ÁSÉ.”

¶118

(Emphasis added)

¶119

The order dated 25-09-2018 that appends the draft lease deed reads as follows:

¶120

“……..”

¶121

“gÀªÀjUÉ, PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ GzÁå£ÀPÀ¯Á ¸ÀAWÀ ¯Á¯ï¨ÁUï, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.

¶122

«µÀAiÀÄ: ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ GzÁå£À PÀ¯Á¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ UÀÄwÛUÉ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ d«ÄÃ¤£À UÀÄwÛUÉ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À«ÃPÀj¸ÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ.

¶123

G¯ÉèÃR: 1) ¸ÀASÉå:vÉÆÃG¤/¯Á¸ÀvÉÆÃ/¸ÀvÉÆÃC-2/61/2016-17 – 646 ¢£ÁAPÀ:14/21-03-2018.

¶124

¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå:vÉÆÃE 248 vÉÆÃE« 2017,

¶125

¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:24-05-2018

¶126

¶127

ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ GzÁå£À PÀ¯Á¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ UÀÄwÛUÉ DzÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ d«ÄÃ¤£À UÀÄwÛUÉ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À«ÃPÀj¸À®Ä ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀPÁÌV ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉAiÀÄ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. CzÀgÀAvÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ ªÀÄÄA¢£À 05 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À CªÀ¢üUÉ UÀÄwÛUÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ CUÀvÀå PÀæªÀÄ

¶128

¶129

PÉÊUÉÆ¼Àî®Ä G¯ÉèÃTvÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F »£Àß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ®UÀwÛ¹gÀÄªÀAvÉ DRAFT LEASE DEED C£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ vÀÄvÁðV ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆ¼Àî®Ä PÉÆÃjzÉ.”

¶130

The lease deed was to be executed from the 01-09-2018. The Government order dated 24-05-2018 was quoted therein. Therefore, the lease was to remain in subsistence from 24-05-2018 to 23-05-2023 for a period of 5 years. The lease deed was not executed. It was only prepared. But, the Government order which grants extension of lease for five years directs execution of lease deed cannot be brushed aside. It did give certain rights to the petitioner in W.P.No.1889 of 2023. In the other writ petition there is no such communication or extension as is observed hereinabove. In both these cases the State has gone on accepting rents from time to time or the rents to be enhanced from time to time. There was no qualm about those circumstances.

¶131

When things stood thus, which would mean that the petitioners continued to enjoy the land leased to them, now close to 30 years, by payment of rents, a communication springs. The communication dated 18-10-2022 common but separately issued to the petitioners in both these petitions, reads as follows:

¶132

¶133

“….. ….. …..

¶134

ªÉÄÃ¯É NzÀ¯ÁzÀ (1)gÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è ¯Á¯ï¨ÁUï£À°ègÀÄªÀ ªÉÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ GzÁå£À PÀ¯Á¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ ( MHS) ¥Àæw JPÀgÉUÉ ¸Á°AiÀiÁ£À gÀÆ.2500/-UÀ¼À UÀÄwÛUÉ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀÄªÀ ºÁUÀÆ UÀÄvÀÛUÉ PÀgÁgÀÄ £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬Ä¹zÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ CAzÀgÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:07.03.1991jAzÀ 25 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À CªÀ¢üUÉ ZÁ°ÛAiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÀAvÉ UÀÄwÛUÉ PÀgÁgÀ£ÀÄß C£ÀÄªÉÆÃ¢¹, ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ GzÁå£À PÀ¯Á¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ 28 UÀÄAmÉ CxÀªÁ 70 ¸ÉAmï eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ PÁAiÀÄðZÀlÄªÀnPÉUÀ½ÃUÁV ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶135

ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉzÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ EzÉÃ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è 1983£ÉÃ ¸Á°£À°è ªÉÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ GzÁå£À PÀ¯Á¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÀÝ 2 JPÀgÉ 60 ¸ÉAmïì d«ÄÃ¤£À°è 1 JPÀgÉ 65 ¸ÉAmïì d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ CzÀ£ÀÄß r.£À¸ÀðjªÉÄ£ï PÉÆÃ-D¥ÀgÉÃnªï ¸ÉÆ¸ÉÊn °«ÄmÉqï (¸À¹ vÉÆÃlUÁgÀgÀ ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀ ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀ) ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀjUÉ UÀÄwÛUÉ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¤Ãr ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ DzÉÃ²¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

¶136

¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:18.02.1991gÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ GzÁå£À PÀ¯Á¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁzÀ UÀÄwÛUÉAiÀÄ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:06.03.2016PÉÌ CAvÀåUÉÆAqÀ »£Éß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÉÄÃ¯É NzÀ¯ÁzÀ (2)gÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ GzÁå£À PÀ¯Á¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ K¦æ¯ï-2016jAzÀ C£ÀéAiÀÄªÁUÀÄªÀAvÉ 28 UÀÄAmÉ CxÀªÁ 70 ¸ÉAmï eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄA¢£À 05 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À CªÀ¢üUÉ UÀÄwÛUÉAiÀÄ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄÃ¤UÉ ¥Àæw ªÀµÀðPÉÌ gÀÆ.25.000/-UÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ E¯ÁSÉUÉ ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀÄªÀ µÀgÀwÛUÉ M¼À¥ÀlÄÖ DzÉÃ²¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

¶137

ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉzÀÄ, ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:18.02.1991gÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¢ £À¸ÀðjªÉÄ£ï PÉÆÃ-D¥ÀgÉÃnªï ¸ÉÆ¸ÉÊnUÉ UÀÄwÛUÉ DzÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄªÀ 1 JPÀgÉ 65 ¸ÉAmïì eÁUÀzÀ UÀÄwÛUÉ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀºÁ K¦æ¯ï 2016PÉÌ ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄªÁVzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj UÀÄwÛUÉAiÀÄ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉ¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ PÉÆÃj ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹gÀÄªÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.

¶138

ªÉÄÃ¯É NzÀ¯ÁzÀ (3)gÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀæzsÁ£À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ, vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÉÃµÉä E¯ÁSÉ EªÀgÀ CzsÀåPÀëvÉAiÀÄ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ:06.08.2022gÀAzÀÄ £ÀqÉzÀ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ PÁAiÀÄð ZÀlÄªÀnPÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀÆgÀPÀªÁUÀÄªÀAvÉ ºÀ¹jÃPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß GvÉÛÃf¸ÀÄªÀ ¤nÖ£À°è £À¸ÀðjUÀ¼À°è PÀ¹/¸À¹UÀ¼À£ÀÄß GvÁà¢¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ, vÁgÀ¹ vÉÆÃl, EPÀ¨Á£À PÉÊ vÉÆÃlUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¥sÀ®¥ÀÄµÀà ¥ÀæzÀ±Àð£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÉÆæÃvÁì»¸ÀÄªÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV ºÁUÀÆ gÉÊvÀjUÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀjUÉ C£ÀÄPÀÆ¯ªÁUÀÄªÀ ¤nÖ£À°è ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ GzÁå£À PÀ¯Á¸ÀAWÀ( MHS) PÉÌ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄªÀ 28 UÀÄAmÉ CxÀªÁ 70 ¸ÉAmï eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ ¢ £À¸ÀðjªÉÄ£ï PÉÆÃ-D¥ÀgÉÃnªï ¸ÉÆ¸ÉÊnUÉ ( BNCS) ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁjgÀÄªÀ 1 JPÀgÉ 65 ¸ÀAmïì eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß CvÀåAvÀ PÀrªÉÄ jAiÀiÁ¬Äw zÀgÀzÀ°è ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÁ, ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ AiÀiÁªÀ GzÉÝÃ±ÀPÁÌV d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉAiÉÆÃ D GzÉÝÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤jÃQëvÀ ªÀÄlÖzÀ°è UÀÄj vÀ®Ä¥ÀÄªÀ°è «¥sÀ®ªÁVgÀÄvÀÛªÉ. EzÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄ£ÀUÀAqÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ½AzÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¦vÀ d«ÄÃ¤£À UÀÄvÀÛUÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝUÉÆ½¹, vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ E¯ÁSÉUÉ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß »A¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ¤zsÀðj¹ F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ DzÉÃ²¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶139

¶140

¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå: HORTI 367 HGM 2022 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 18.10.2022

¶141

¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è «ªÀj¹gÀÄªÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À »£Éß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ E¯ÁSÉ¬ÄAzÀ ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ GzÁå£À PÀ¯Á¸ÀAWÀ ( MHS) PÉÌ UÀÄwÛUÉ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄªÀ 28UÀÄAmÉ CxÀªÁ 70 ¸ÉAmï eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ ¢ £À¸ÀðjªÀÄ£ï PÉÆÃ-D¥ÀgÉÃnªï ¸ÉÆ¸ÉÊnUÉ ( BNCS) UÀÄwÛUÉ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄªÀ 1 JPÀgÉ 65 ¸ÉAmïì eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉ¸ÀzÉ F vÀPÀët¢AzÀ eÁjUÉ §gÀÄªÀAvÉ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ E¯ÁSÉUÉ PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀ µÀgÀvÀÄÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁUÀð¸ÀÆaUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀqÁØAiÀÄªÁV ¥Á°¸ÀÄªÀ µÀgÀwÛUÉ M¼À¥ÀlÄÖ »A¥ÀqÉzÀÄ DzÉÃ²¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

¶142

1. ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ GzÁå£À PÀ¯Á¸ÀAWÀ ( MHS) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¢ £À¸ÀðjªÀÄ£ï PÉÆÃ-D¥ÀgÉÃnªï ¸ÉÆ¸ÉÊnUÀ½UÉ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄªÀ E¯ÁSÁ PÀlÖqÀUÀ¼À°è E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉgÉAiÀÄ®Ä PÀæªÀÄªÀ»¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ.

¶143

2. ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ½UÉ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ E¯ÁSÁ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ ¤AiÉÆÃf¸À¯ÁVgÀÄªÀ C¢üPÁj/£ËPÀgÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß F PÀÆqÀ¯ÉÃ E¯ÁSÉUÉ »AzÀPÉÌ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄªÀÅzÀÄ.

¶144

3. «±Àé«SÁåvÀ ¥sÀ®¥ÀÄµÀà ¥ÀæzÀ±Àð£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ±ÉÃPÀqÀ 95 gÀµÀÄÖ ¨sÁUÀ E¯ÁSÁ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÉÃ £ÀqÉ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, E£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÉAiÀÄÆ, ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ GzÁå£À PÀ¯Á¸ÀAWÀzÀ ºÀ¸ÀÛPÉëÃ¥À E®èzÉÃ ªÀÄÄA¢£À ¢£ÀUÀ¼À°è E¯ÁSÁªÀw¬ÄAzÀ¯ÉÃ ¥sÀ®¥ÀÄµÀà ¥ÀæzÀ±Àð£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁgÀzÀ±ÀðPÀvÉ¬ÄAzÀ DAiÉÆÃf¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ J¯Áè PÀæªÀÄªÀ»¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ.

¶145

F DzÉÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ ¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄzÀ E-D¦üÃ¸ï PÀqÀvÀ ¸ÀASÉå: DLLBGOLBT/15/2022(882974) £ÉÆÃmï-14gÀ n¥ÀàtÂAiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁ£Àå vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ ¸ÀaªÀgÀ C£ÀÄªÉÆÃzÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀéAiÀÄ ºÉÆgÀr¹zÉ.

¶146

PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥Á®gÀ DeÁÕ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è ¸À»/(gÀÆ¥À.¦) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üÃ£À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ E¯ÁSÉ.” ( Emphasis added)

¶147

This becomes a subject matter in Writ Petition No.21222 of 2022 and connected cases. This Court granted an interim order of stay protecting possession of the petitioners. During subsistence of the

¶148

¶149

interim order, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the order impugned therein would not be given effect to. Recording the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court disposed of the petition by the following order:

¶150

“…. …. ….

¶151

3. This Court, while entertaining the petitions, had granted interim order of stay of the order impugned dated 18.10.2022, pursuant to which, the petitioners are continued to be in possession of the leased premises and further continued the business operations as was being done prior to the passage of the impugned order.

¶152

4. Learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions, from the Joint Director of Horticulture who is also present before the Court would submit that the Government Order dated 18.10.2022 will not be given effect to and if further proceedings if any would be initiated against the petitioners, it would be only in accordance with law and after following due process of law. The submission is placed on record.

¶153

5. Learned senior counsel Smt.Lakshmi Iyengar, representing the petitioners, would at this juncture, submit that on account of the impugned order dated 18.10.2022 the accounts of the petitioners are frozen and the petitioners should be permitted unhindered continuance of their business. 6. In the light of the submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General, the efficacy of the order impugned is reduced to a nullity. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to dispose these petitions reserving liberty to the respondents/State to initiate proceedings if any, in accordance with law.

¶154

7. Accordingly, Writ Petitions stand disposed. In the light of the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that they would not act upon the impugned order, the

¶155

¶156

petitioners would be entitled to restoration of status-quo ante with regard to every functioning of the petitioner’s Society, as it was prior to the passage of the impugned order dated 18.10.2022.

¶157

Consequently, pending applications also stand disposed.”

¶158

The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the order impugned which directed eviction of the petitioners would not be given effect to, but the proceedings would be initiated against the petitioner in accordance with law. Reserving such liberty, the petitions come to be disposed of and the petitioners were held to be entitled for restoration of status quo ante in the manner they were functioning earlier. Thus ended the first bout of litigation based upon possession of the petitioners in the schedule property. Writ Petitions come to be disposed of on 03-01-2023. Even before the ink on the order could dry that was passed by this Court, a notification comes to be issued on 05-01-2023. The notification reads as follows:

¶159

“C¢ü¸ÆZÀ £À É

¶160

PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdåzÀ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è §gÀÄªÀ / C¢üÃ£ÀPÉÌ M¼À¥ÀqÀÄªÀ / UÀÄwÛUÉ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁzÀ ºÁUÀÆ E¤ßvÀgÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ E¯ÁSÉUÀ½AzÀ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ E¯ÁSÉUÉ ºÀ¸ÁÛAvÀj¹gÀÄªÀ, vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ PÉëÃvÀæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À¸Àðj, GzÁå£ÀªÀ£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ, VjzsÁªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¨sÀÆ«Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀlÖqÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ E¤ßvÀgÉ ªÀÄÆ®¨sÀÆvÀ ¸ËPÀAiÀÄðUÀ¼À°è C£À¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV £É¯É¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß

¶161

¶162

( Unauthorised Occupancy) vÉgÀªÀÅUÉÆ½¸À®Ä, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ DªÀgÀt (C£À¢üPÀÈvÀ CwPÀæªÀÄt vÉgÀªÀÅ PÁAiÉÄÝ 1974gÀ ( The Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) 1974) PÀ®A3( a)(i) gÀ°è ¥ÀæzÀvÀÛªÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹, F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ «¨sÁUÀªÁgÀÄ ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÁV ( Competent Officers) vÀPÀët¢AzÀ eÁjUÉ §gÀÄªÀAvÉ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄÄA¢£À DzÉÃ±ÀzÀªÀgÉUÀÆ £ÉÃ«Ä¹ DzÉÃ²¹zÉ.

¶163

PÀæ.¸À	ºÀÄzÉÝªÀÄvÀÄÛ«¼Á¸À	ªÁå¦Û
1	vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ «¨sÁUÀ, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ	¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ «¨sÁUÀzÀ f¯ÉèUÀ¼ÁzÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ, vÀÄªÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ, ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ, avÀæzÀÄUÀð, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ, PÉÆÃ¯ÁgÀ, aPÀÌ§¼Áî¥ÀÄgÀ
2	vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ «¨sÁUÀ, ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ	ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ «¨sÁUÀ ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ, ºÁ¸À£À, ªÀÄAqÀå, PÉÆqÀUÀÄ, zÀQëtPÀ£ÀßqÀ, GqÀÄ¦, ZÁªÀÄgÁd£ÀUÀgÀ, aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ
3	vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ ¨É¼ÀUÁ« «¨sÁUÀ, ¨É¼ÀUÁ«	¨É¼ÀUÁ« «¨sÁUÀ ¨É¼ÀUÁ« GvÀÛgÀPÀ£ÀßqÀ, zÁgÀªÁqÀ, ºÁªÉÃj, UÀzÀUÀ, ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉ, ©eÁ¥ÀÄgÀ
4	vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ PÀ®§ÄVð «¨sÁUÀ, PÀ®§ÄVð	PÀ®§ÄVð «¨sÁUÀ, PÀ®§ÄVð, ©ÃzÀgï, AiÀiÁzÀVj, gÁAiÀÄZÀÆgÀÄ, PÉÆ¥Àà¼À, §¼Áîj,

¶164

F C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ DªÀgÀt (C£À¢üPÀÈvÀ CwPÀæªÀÄt vÉgÀªÀÅ) PÁAiÉÄÝ 1974gÀ°è ¥ÀæzÀvÀÛªÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹ ¤ªÀð»¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.

¶165

PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥Á®gÀ DeÁÕ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è ¸À»/-5/1/2023 (CZÀð£À JAJ¸ï) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ G¥ÀPÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ E¯ÁSÉ”

¶166

(Emphasis supplied)

¶167

¶168

The notification is in modification of the earlier notification subsisting under Section 3(a)(i) of the Act. What becomes of this notification is that the Joint Director, Davangere Division gets jurisdiction under the Act to initiate proceedings of all places in Bangalore Urban, Rural, Ramanagara, Tumkur, Shimogga, Chitradurga, Davangere, Kolar and Chikkaballapura. The notification is in the teeth of subsistence of earlier notification wherein the jurisdiction was differently demarcated. The latest of the notification earlier issued was on 30-09-2019. The preamble reads as follows:

¶169

“In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 (Karnataka Act 32 of 1974), the Government of Karnataka hereby appoints the Officers specified in Column (5) of the Annexure below as the Competent Officers for the purpose of this Act in respect of the area specified in Column (2), (3) and (4) thereof for eviction of unauthorized occupation of land, which comes under horticulture areas, nurseries, botanical gardens, hill stations and gardens under jurisdiction of the Horticulture Department.”

¶170

Insofar as the petitioners are concerned the notification reads as follows:

“…. …. ….

Parks and Gardens

414 415	Bengaluru City	Bengaluru Bengaluru	Lalbagh Botanical Garden, Bengaluru Jayachamar ajendra (Cubbon park) Bengaluru	Deputy Director of Horticulture, Lalbagh, Bengaluru Deputy Director of Horticulture Cubbon Park, Bengaluru
416	Bengaluru Urban	Bangalore South	Dodda Alada Mara Udyanavana	Senior Assistant Director of Horticulture (State Sector) Bengaluru Rural”

¶175

The Lalbagh Botanical Garden in particular was coming within the jurisdiction of the Deputy Director of Horticulture, Lalbagh, Bengaluru for the purpose of initiation of proceedings under the Act. This is now taken away and placed under the Joint Director, Davangere Division. It is also germane to notice that in the aforesaid notification Davangere and Bengaluru had separate jurisdiction at Sl.Nos. 430 and 432 and they read as follows:

¶176

“…. …. ….

¶177

¶178

*430*	*Davanagere*	*Davana* *gere*	*Glass* *House*	*Deputy* *Director* of *Horticulture* *(ZP)* *Davanagere*
431	Ballary	Ballary	Glass House	Deputy Director of Horticulture (ZP) Ballary
*432*	*Bengaluru*	*Lalbagh*	*Floricult-* *ure* *Developm-* *ent* *Lalbagh,* *Bengaluru*	*Assistant* *Director* of *Horticulture,* *(Floriculture* *)Lalbagh,* *Bengaluru”*

¶179

(Emphasis added)

¶180

Davangere had jurisdiction over Glass House at Davangere Taluk and Lalbagh was under the Assistant Director of Horticulture (Floriculture) Lalbagh. Therefore, the two notifications run contrary to each other and the procedure stipulated was not followed. This resulted in issuance of notice/show cause notice under the Act on 09-01-2023. This again drove the petitioners to this Court in the subject petitions. This Court in terms of its order dated 19-01-2023 in W.P.No.1232 of 2023 restrained the respondent/State from

¶181

¶182

proceeding further for a period of 8 weeks. The order reads as follows:

¶183

“Heard the learned Senior counsel, Smt. Lakshmi Iyengar appearing for the petitioners and the learned AAG, Sri.R. Subramanya, appearing for the respondent - State.

¶184

The petitioners call in question a show cause notice dated 09.01.2023 issued under Section 2(g) of 4(1) of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 ('Act' for short).

¶185

The petitioners are ‘Vice President’ and ‘Director of Nursery Men Co-operative Society’. The very petitioners were before this Court challenging an action, which in effect, was eviction of the petitioners without following due process of law. This Court entertaining the writ petition in W.P.No.21222/2022 and connected cases, stalled the eviction of the petitioners.

¶186

Learned AAG on 03.01.2023, made a submission that the orders which were impugned in the aforesaid writ petitions would all be withdrawn and there would be no hindrance to the petitioners to continue the business in the premises. Recording the said submission, it was ordered that the efficacy of the order impugned was reduced to a nullity and liberty was reserved to the respondents to initiate proceedings in accordance with law. The writ petitions were disposed in the said terms on 03.01.2023.

¶187

Even before the ink on the order could dry, a Notification is issued on 05.01.2023 demarcating for initiation of proceedings under the Act qua the Horticulture Department. The petitioners in terms of the aforesaid Notification were issued show cause notice on 09.01.2023. The show cause notice issued on 09.01.2023 is what is called in question. The show cause notice is issued by the Joint Director of Horticulture Department, Davanagere, who claims to be coming under the Bangalore Division.

¶188

¶189

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners takes this Court through a Notification dated 30.09.2019 issued depicting competent authorities to initiate proceedings under the Act for unauthorized occupation of land, which comes under the Horticulture areas, Nurseries, Botanical gardens and Hill Stations and other gardens under the jurisdiction of Horticulture Department. This Notification is also specific to the Horticulture Department. Therefore, there are two notifications subsisting as on date specific to the Horticulture Department depicting two different competent authorities as the notification dated 05.01.2023 is not in super session of the earlier notification.

¶190

In the earlier Notification, the competent authority to initiate proceedings insofar as it pertains to Lalbagh Botanical Garden, Bangalore is the Deputy Director of Horticulture, Lalbagh, Bangalore. Therefore, upto 04.01.2023, the Deputy Director was the competent authority in terms of the Notification for initiation of proceedings under the Act. The subsequent Notification dated 05.01.2023, depicts the Joint Director to be the competent authority. The subsequent notification appears to have been issued in the hottest haste and a breakneck speed as it has now created two different competent authorities for the same purpose.

¶191

The show cause notice is addressed to the President of the Nursery Co-operative Society Limited.

¶192

Learned Senior counsel would submit that there is no Nursery Co-operative Society Limited, it is Nursery Men Co-operative Society Limited. Even it were to be construed to be a typographical error, the notice is issued to the President of the Society. The President of the Society is respondent No.3 - the Deputy Director of Horticulture Department, who is the competent authority to initiate proceedings for eviction in terms of the earlier notification which is still in subsistence. Therefore, one competent authority claiming to be the competent authority issues to the another competent authority seeking eviction of the petitioners. The petitioners are not even made aware of the notice immediately, as it is not communicated to them at all. In the light of what is aforesaid, illegalities galore in the case at

¶193

¶194

hand apart from the fact that the action of the State would suffer from want of bonafides albeit prima facie.

¶195

The reference made to the judgment in the case of VODAFONE INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS BV V. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER reported in (2012) 6 SCC 757 by the learned AAG, which concerns the jurisdictional issue to be treated as a preliminary issue itself. There can be no qualm of the aforesaid principle as laid down by the Apex Court. I deem it appropriate to consider the same once the respondents would come up with the statement of objections.

¶196

The State is directed to produce the records which lead to the Notification dated 05.01.2023, on the next date of hearing.

¶197

For all the aforesaid reasons, there shall be an interim order of stay of the impugned notice dated 09.01.2023 and all further proceedings taken or to be taken thereto, till the next date of hearing.

¶198

List this matter on 03.02.2023.

¶199

Objections, if any, by the State.

¶200

ORDER ON I.A.Nos.1/2023 and 2/2023

¶201

The petitioners have preferred applications seeking dispensation of the production of the original impugned notice and a typed copy of annexure ‘K’.

¶202

For the reasons indicated in the affidavits accompanying the applications and taking the submission of the learned Senior counsel on record, the dispensation is allowed for a period of 8 weeks.

¶203

The petitioners shall secure and produce the certified copy of the impugned notice and the typed copy of annexure ‘K’

¶204

¶205

within 8 weeks from today. I.A.Nos.1/2023 and 2/2023 stand disposed .”

¶206

The issue now that remains for consideration is, whether the petitioners have any right to continue in the leased premises or the projected procedural aberrations, generate any right.

¶207

Insofar as petitioners in W.P.No.1232 of 2023 are concerned, there is not even a single document which could demonstrate that they have a right to continue in the leased premises. Though rents have been received by the State from time to time for the period of five years, that by itself would not clothe the lessees i.e., the petitioners with a right to continue in the leased premises. Therefore, the petitioners therein had no right to continue. Insofar as the petitioner in W.P.No.1889 of 2023 is concerned, though no extension of lease is executed, there has been a Government order directing extension of lease for a period of five years and further direction to execute a lease deed. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that change in Government then has generated all the problem and no lease

¶208

¶209

deed was executed stands to reason as there was already a direction to execute a lease deed, a draft lease deed was also prepared. Therefore, though the petitioner in W.P.No.1889 of 2023 does not have an indefeasible right for continuance, he does have a right in what has emerged from the offices of the State, as those communications cannot be meant to vanish in thin air, by the State or brushed aside by the Court. Therefore, the petitioner therein did have a right to continue in the leased premises. The date is left ambiguous as to whether it is up to 2022 or 2023 but, there is no indication from the State up to the impugned communication seeking eviction of the petitioner. Therefore, Writ Petition No.1889 of 2023 stand on a different footing, though the lease is the same and the impugned order is a similar one that is passed in both the cases.

¶210

Insofar as jurisdiction of Joint Director, Davangere is concerned, the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General for the State merits acceptance, as the earlier notification has empowered the Deputy Director of Horticulture to initiate proceedings for eviction. The Deputy Director of Horticulture is the

¶211

¶212

ex-officio Director of both the Societies and the Assistant Director of Horticulture is the ex-officio Assistant Director of both the Societies who have been handling the affairs of the Societies throughout. Therefore, the notification so issued by the State on 05-01-2023 cannot be termed to be illegal, as the power is available to the State to issue such notification and the submission of the State is also that the proceedings would be held in Bengaluru and not elsewhere. Therefore, the petitioners have to participate in the proceedings in terms of the impugned notice issued under the Act.

¶213

The notice does not suffer from any illegality. But, does suffer from certain anomalies which are curable and the State shall take steps in terms of what is observed hereinabove. Therefore, the petitioners have not established that there is illegality in initiation of proceedings under the Act, particularly in Writ Petition No.1232 of 2023, since there is no order of extension. It is now for the petitioners to participate in the proceedings and the proceedings be taken to their logical conclusion only if the State still wants the land back from the petitioners. Neither this order nor the impugned notice dated 09-01-2023 will come in the way of the

¶214

¶215

State to negotiate with the parties to the lis and continue the lease, as they have been in possession of the said property on lease for the last 30 years. This can be on any express terms and conditions that would ensue. This Court is only observing that this order will not come in the way.

¶216

With the aforesaid observations, finding no ground for interference with the impugned notice 09-01-2023, the petitions stand disposed of.

¶217

Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed, as a consequence.

¶218

Sd/JUDGE

¶219

bkp CT:MJ

Mysore Horticultural Society (R) v. the Government of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mysore Horticultural Society (R) v. the Government of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri B S Yeddyurappa Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Krishna E Campus Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Naveen Rawat Vs State of Karnataka

Dr H D Ranganath Vs State of Karnataka

Pillamadhappa Vs State of Karnataka

Pg Setty Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Managing Director