Petitioner sought to quash an order granting lease and directed to grant a sale deed for property. Court held that no right to auction or first preference crystallized without a decision by authorities and disposed of the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:49625 WP No. 10358 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10358 OF 2023 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
B. CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 67 YEARAS, SON OF B LAKSHMAN RAO, B NAGGANA NASHE SHOP, KUNDAPURA NEW BUS STOP, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576201
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HARSHITH N. BALAKRISHNA AND
SRI. PURNACHANDRA M PURANIK., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
NC: 2024:KHC:49625 WP No. 10358 of 2023
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT. 05.06.2020 BEARING NO. NA/A/E/18TMD/2014 PASSED BY THE R1 (ANNX-A); DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT LAND IN SY.NO. 101/1A1 MEASURING 0.0150 ACRE (10X10 SQ FEET) SITUATED AT KUNDAPURA, UDUPI DISTRICT IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner asserts he is in possession of a shop bearing Sy.No.101/1A1 of Kundapura Taluk, Kundapura, Kasba Village, Udupi District [earlier located in Sy.No.99/9] from the times of his grandfather who had the benefit of the Lease Deed. The petitioner is aggrieved by the first respondent's Endorsement dated 05.06.2020 [ Annexure-A ]. The
NC: 2024:KHC:49625 WP No. 10358 of 2023
first respondent has informed the petitioner that he is in possession of the subject property as a tenant and in the absence of relevant Rules, he cannot be granted the Sale Deed. The learned counsel for the petitioner proposes to rely upon certain communications to assert recommendation for bringing the subject property to auction, and therefore, the right to purchase the property.
Sri. Rahul Cariappa, a learned Additional Government Advocate for the State Government, is heard in the light of the afore. This Court must observe that if there is a proposal to auction the property that has been granted on lease, such proposal must be duly accepted by the concerned and until then, no right crystallizes in the petitioner to contend that the property must be put to auction.
In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court must observe that the petitioner will have a right of first preference if
NC: 2024:KHC:49625 WP No. 10358 of 2023
ultimately there is a decision to auction. This Court cannot create such a right by any observation. It is a matter for decision by the concerned as and when the
decision is taken to bring the property to auction.
The petition therefore stands disposed of.
Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE
RB
1 provisions across 1 enactments
B. Chandrashekara
State of Karnataka
Directorate of Municipal Administration
Deputy Commissioner, Udupi District
B M Shyam Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
